Author Topic: Hoax? - Sand Falls too Fast.  (Read 6021 times)

Offline Mag40

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 545
Re: Hoax? - Sand Falls too Fast.
« Reply #165 on: December 08, 2024, 05:27:36 PM »
Where has the ground splatter gone?

Offline Mag40

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 545
Re: Hoax? - Sand Falls too Fast.
« Reply #166 on: December 09, 2024, 02:04:21 AM »
Where has the ground splatter gone?
@najak - where has it gone?

I shall answer as you are too afraid to. It was the dust from the visible parabola. When he jumped the first time he kicked soil forwards. The visible parabola isn't on his second jump.

So, have you the 100% integrity to confirm this?

You are still running away from this post which largely remains unanswered and what answers you have given are really poor.

https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2019.msg58679#msg58679

Offline Kiwi

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 487
Re: Hoax? - Sand Falls too Fast.
« Reply #167 on: December 09, 2024, 04:50:31 AM »
Your timing was immaculate, thanks.  This high resolution photo shows no "dust parabola" between the feet - here we see no dust at all, at apex.

Have you not studied this stuff? Can you find the wire that's supposedly suspending John Young? I can only find his aerial, which is shaped like a carpenter's metal measuring tape and, in this case, is reflecting the black lunar sky. 

We can see very little dust in both photos because most of it is simply sunlit grey up in the vacuum against the same shade of sunlit grey in the background. What we most need to look for is light-coloured dust against darker background, or dark dust (either shaded or actually darker) against lighter background, and then, by comparing both photos, small amounts of it become visible.

Such as in the small bit of shade on the toes of Young's boots; against the shade of the lunar module to his right (our left); in the shade of the boot print from his right foot in the second photo, AS16-113-18340, which is almost obliterated by dust in 18339; in the shadow of Young's boot(s) on the ground.

Some of the dust has actually been caught in motion at a right angle to the camera's axis as the shutter went off, so is slightly streaked. In other cases it's frozen, or almost frozen. The little bit in AS16-113-18340 against the LM's shadow and surrounding some of the central fiducial (crosshair) might include tiny glass beads which seem to be reflecting circular greenish flares of the sunlight. On the other hand, those same formations might be a simple, rare, film or developing fault which I occasionally experienced back in the 1970s.

Here are the appropriate photo captions in plain text from the Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal Image Library. Go to the real thing for all the lovely links. I wonder if the red-blue anaglyphs might show more dust.

Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal Image Library
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a16/a16.html

AS16-113-18339 (OF300) (208k or 1300k)

120:25:42 John Young jumps off the ground and salutes for this superb tourist picture. He is off the ground about 1.45 seconds which, in the lunar gravity field, means that he launched himself at a velocity of about 1.17 m/s and reached a maximum height of 0.42 m. Although the suit and backpack weigh as much as he does, his total weight is only about 65 pounds (30 kg) and, to get this height, he only had to bend his knees slightly and then push up with his legs. In the background, we can see the UV astronomy camera, the flag, the LM, the Rover with the TV camera watching John, and Stone Mountain. Journal Contributor Joe Cannaday notes that high-point of John's first jump was at a time close to 120:25:49 and the second was almost exactly three seconds later.

AS16-113-18339/40 Stereo Images: red-blue anaglyph and a left-right image pair

These stereo images were created by Yuri Krasilnikov, who writes, "A bit of artistry was necessary to create credible stereo. In the left-right pair, Charlie captured John's first jump in 18339, which is on the right. In the original of 18340, we see that John isn't as far off the ground and is tilted to his left. In addition, there are footprints beneath him that he made when he landed after the first jump, a clear indication that John is closer to Charlie than he was in 18339. Creation of a credible anaglyph required removal of the image of John from 18340 and careful replacement with the image of John from 18339."

Yuri has also made a two-frame animation (1Mb) of John's jumps. John is more upright in 18339; and there are prominent footprints at his second launch point in 18340.

See, also, a red-blue anaglyph (1.9 Mb) created by Erik van Meihgaarden, who writes, "John did two jumping salutes for Charlie, who took a picture each time John was near the top of his jump. Consequently, we are seeing not only from two slightly different view points but, also, when he was at slightly different places. The TV recordings of these jumps show that John was on the LM side of the flag. Combination of images from the two different jumps creates the impression that John is on Charlie's side of the flag. John also looks like he's jumped more than the half meter he actually achieved. In comparison, because the flag wasn't touched or moved between the two jumps, our stereoview of it is completely legitimate.

AS16-113-18339-40 Red-Blue Anaglyph of the Flag, LRV, and LM (0.7Mb
Anaglyph by Yuri Krasilnikov.

AS16-113-18340 (OF300) (208k or 1300k)
120:25:42 John's second jump lasts about 1.30 seconds and, consequently, his launch velocity is about 1.05 m/s and his maximum height is 0.34 m.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2024, 05:22:38 AM by Kiwi »
Don't criticize what you can't understand. — Bob Dylan, “The Times They Are A-Changin'” (1963)
Some people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices and superstitions. — Edward R. Murrow (1908–65)

Offline najak

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 807
Re: Hoax? - Sand Falls too Fast.
« Reply #168 on: December 09, 2024, 05:22:01 AM »
....
Ah, missed that - these photos are two separate jumps.  I thought it was another "fast firing Hasselblad" case.

When you see the photo with the noticeable dust above the boot - what is your conclusion?

I'm not seeing the other dust you are mentioning.  Care snip the photo part and mark it?

Given how ray-tracing math works here -- If the dust appears above the boot - it must actually be a higher elevation than the boot - not just "in front of it"... this camera is ABOVE the boot, so if the dust is notably in front of the boot, then it must be EVEN HIGHER - because of how the camera-frustum ray tracing works.  If it was the SAME height as boot, it would appear below it.

Since it's above, to me this looks "inconclusive" at best -- and at worst, it looks like he launched the dust off the top on his way up (about half way - watching the video).

For all the dust that rose with him -- I'm not seeing much of anything here, except for the dust he launched from the top of his boot on the way up...

This Navy Salute, doesn't look good for the Apollogists IMO.

The sidewards Jump example, so close up -- needs even worse.

Offline Kiwi

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 487
Re: Hoax? - Sand Falls too Fast.
« Reply #169 on: December 09, 2024, 06:31:46 AM »
Ah, missed that - these photos are two separate jumps.
You could have already learned that from post 151 where you were told twice, on the the very first line and in the excerpts from the journal where Eric Jones described each jump for your benefit.

Quote
When you see the photo with the noticeable dust above the boot - what is your conclusion?
Sigh. Which photo, which boot? Apollo is mostly all about precision and even extreme precision, so stop being so vague. But even once I know, I might not jump to any conclusion,

Quote
I'm not seeing the other dust you are mentioning.  Care snip the photo part and mark it?
No, my time and abilities are severely limited by the terminal disease Oldfartitis. I downloaded the biggest photos, opened them side-by-side in separate screens of Irfanview, positioned them both identically, and looked at them at up to 315% magnification.  Besides, you have already wasted my time, so I'm reluctant to do it if I could.

Quote
This Navy Salute, doesn't look good for the Apollogists IMO.
I don't know what you mean, but wonder if you know that the spacesuits had internal links and cables that helped most movements, but could inhibit others. You can read about that above in post 151 about what Young did with his right arm so he could salute.

Quote
The sidewards Jump example, so close up -- needs even worse.
You've completely lost me with that one. It's incomprehensible to me. Can anyone else understand it?
« Last Edit: December 09, 2024, 06:41:02 AM by Kiwi »
Don't criticize what you can't understand. — Bob Dylan, “The Times They Are A-Changin'” (1963)
Some people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices and superstitions. — Edward R. Murrow (1908–65)

Offline Mag40

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 545
Re: Hoax? - Sand Falls too Fast.
« Reply #170 on: December 09, 2024, 07:47:45 AM »
Where has the ground splatter gone?
@najak - where has it gone?

I shall answer as you are too afraid to. It was the dust from the visible parabola. When he jumped the first time he kicked soil forwards. The visible parabola isn't on his second jump.

So, have you the 100% integrity to confirm this?

This najak guy is acting the goat!

Where has the ground splatter gone? Your "100% integrity" claim appears to be more "100% evasion"

You are still running away from this post which largely remains unanswered and what answers you have given are really poor.

https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2019.msg58679#msg58679

Offline najak

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 807
Re: Hoax? - Sand Falls too Fast.
« Reply #171 on: December 09, 2024, 06:30:42 PM »
You've completely lost me with that one. It's incomprehensible to me. Can anyone else understand it?
This the side-jump -- close and clear.  Don't have to inspect for tiny granules.   It shows dust rising with the boot, but falling much faster than the astronaut.

What do you make of this?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JRjdohQ0cXftl_feaVeMT1rdYSlkS7mS/view?usp=drive_link

Offline Mag40

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 545
Re: Hoax? - Sand Falls too Fast.
« Reply #172 on: December 09, 2024, 06:43:33 PM »
This the side-jump -- close and clear.  Don't have to inspect for tiny granules.   It shows dust rising with the boot, but falling much faster than the astronaut.

What do you make of this?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JRjdohQ0cXftl_feaVeMT1rdYSlkS7mS/view?usp=drive_link
I make out that you are a big coward. Where is the splatter? Answer my post properly, you've run away from most of it the whole thread.
The soil in your clip doesn't reach apex - if you think it does you are blind. Maybe the magic suction-cups weren't working.


https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2019.msg58679#msg58679

Offline najak

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 807
Re: Hoax? - Sand Falls too Fast.
« Reply #173 on: December 09, 2024, 06:45:56 PM »
You are still running away from this post which largely remains unanswered and what answers you have given are really poor.

https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2019.msg58679#msg58679
All answered.   You just don't like the answers.   I'll summarize them again here:

#1. Fast Kicking the dust -- ever watch soccer?  Ever witnessed a sudden muscle movement?  I find this movement easily doable.  The oddness of it makes it look to me like it was a pre-planned setup, to provide Apollogists with more defense.   But that doesn't make a single double-speed flick motion Impossible.

#2. The Hippity example - shows NO DUST ON A PARABOLA, but the only dust we do see is scuttling along the ground... kicked forward, and it's momentum just carries it along.   When sand hits the ground fast at a sidewards velocity - it tends to bounce and roll.

The fact that this "one spot of dark" shows up for 10 frames -- INDICATES that it was scuttling along the ground, and encountered a high spot -- which cause the first dust to collide -- and then the rest smashed into it...  ALL IN THE SAME SPOT.

If it were coming from above, why would it all FALL IN THE SAME SPOT!!!  ???  This was an isolated long-lived (10 frame) non-moving spot...    This matches my hypothesis that it was the collision location for the dust scuttling along the ground....

There is NO GOOD HYPOTHESIS which explains your theory that it was an "airborne projectile with no added upward velocity -- but ONLY FORWARD velocity" -- and which all neatly landed at the exact same little spot - for 1/3rd of second straight.   This is a Ludicrous theory.   There is "chaos" when kicking the sand -- and doesn't result in all kicked particles starting with the same trajectory.

If were were on a legit physics forum - there would be others chiming in to tell you the same.   

I'd be surprised if others here don't also see my point - but won't chime in to defend the MLH guy. 

#3: John Young -- the photo with the "parabola" SHOWS Dust ABOVE THE BOOT -- coming forward... but ABOVE IT...  this indicates a "different launch velocity" and/or a "different launch time".
While the dust that we can ALSO see, below the boot -- falls way faster than John Young.

==
I've concluded to ONLY talk about the side-jumping Astronaut because he avoids the potential lack-of-clarity/ambiguities in the other examples.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JRjdohQ0cXftl_feaVeMT1rdYSlkS7mS/view?usp=drive_link

This one is the clearest, and shows Dust falling "too fast", with clarity.   How do you reconcile this?

Offline najak

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 807
Re: Hoax? - Sand Falls too Fast.
« Reply #174 on: December 09, 2024, 06:51:47 PM »
@LunarOrbit - since you are playing the Salem magistrate - holding me hostage to this thread forever and ever (or until I concede?).

Perhaps you can explain to me how my physics and physiology is factually flawed/wrong?

If we only have people debating something - and there is a unending disagreement -- what else is there to do?


You are forcing a situation that this thread cannot be ended until I concede.

Offline Mag40

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 545
Re: Hoax? - Sand Falls too Fast.
« Reply #175 on: December 09, 2024, 07:04:20 PM »
@LunarOrbit - since you are playing the Salem magistrate - holding me hostage to this thread forever and ever (or until I concede?).

Perhaps you can explain to me how my physics and physiology is factually flawed/wrong?

If we only have people debating something - and there is a unending disagreement -- what else is there to do?


You are forcing a situation that this thread cannot be ended until I concede.
You are ignoring at least 75% of my post and your answers on the 25% are diversionary and meaningless.

Offline Mag40

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 545
Re: Hoax? - Sand Falls too Fast.
« Reply #176 on: December 09, 2024, 07:04:30 PM »
All answered.   You just don't like the answers.
They are bollocks,
Quote
#1. Fast Kicking the dust -- ever watch soccer?  Ever witnessed a sudden muscle movement?  I find this movement easily doable.  The oddness of it makes it look to me like it was a pre-planned setup, to provide Apollogists with more defense.   But that doesn't make a single double-speed flick motion Impossible.
It's called football and no, I've never seen a football player in a bloody spacesuit! The dust rises to a level that is not feasible on Earth.

Quote
#2. The Hippity example - shows NO DUST ON A PARABOLA
You are a liar.


Quote
but the only dust we do see is scuttling along the ground... kicked forward, and it's momentum just carries it along.   When sand hits the ground fast at a sidewards velocity - it tends to bounce and roll.
It strikes the surface on 3 separate jumps on landing and you cowardly ignored that.

Quote
The fact that this "one spot of dark" shows up for 10 frames
Means nothing. It doesn't do it for the 2 jumps before. 
Quote
INDICATES that it was scuttling along the ground, and encountered a high spot -- which cause the first dust to collide -- and then the rest smashed into it...  ALL IN THE SAME SPOT.
It indicates you will come out with any old bollocks to avoid concession.

Quote
If it were coming from above, why would it all FALL IN THE SAME SPOT!!!  ???
Three exclamation marks and 3 question marks, the power of hyperbole. It doesn't, that is the culmination.
Quote
This was an isolated long-lived (10 frame) non-moving spot...    This matches my hypothesis that it was the collision location for the dust scuttling along the ground....
Just plain old lying. The two previous jumps have the same thing occurring and you didn't even answer this!

Quote
There is NO GOOD HYPOTHESIS which explains your theory that it was an "airborne projectile with no added upward velocity -- but ONLY FORWARD velocity" -- and which all neatly landed at the exact same little spot - for 1/3rd of second straight.   This is a Ludicrous theory.   There is "chaos" when kicking the sand -- and doesn't result in all kicked particles starting with the same trajectory.
Just more hyperbole. The impact occurs as he lands and the two preceding jumps.
Quote
If were were on a legit physics forum - there would be others chiming in to tell you the same.
Nope.
Quote
I'd be surprised if others here don't also see my point - but won't chime in to defend the MLH guy.
They see you getting your arse kicked and running at close to 0% integrity. 

Quote
#3: John Young -- the photo with the "parabola" SHOWS Dust ABOVE THE BOOT
Diversion.
Quote
-- coming forward... but ABOVE IT...  this indicates a "different launch velocity" and/or a "different launch time".
Ignoring the parabola in independent flight.
Quote
While the dust that we can ALSO see, below the boot -- falls way faster than John Young.
Repeating the lie, ignoring the rebuttal.

Quote
I've concluded to ONLY talk about the side-jumping Astronaut because he avoids the potential lack-of-clarity/ambiguities in the other examples.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JRjdohQ0cXftl_feaVeMT1rdYSlkS7mS/view?usp=drive_link

This one is the clearest, and shows Dust falling "too fast", with clarity.   How do you reconcile this?
The soil gets to about 75% apex. During the final 25% rise that 75% soil height is down double that.
More diversionary bollocks.
You are a complete waste of time. Your answers are complete evasion and you've only given crap answer to a few of them.

Offline Mag40

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 545
Re: Hoax? - Sand Falls too Fast.
« Reply #177 on: December 09, 2024, 07:09:23 PM »
#1: ... that we notice.
What the hell? Confirming the point. There are no billowing clouds!
Quote
but if you check the footage, it's full of "white dots" that appear only for one frame -- the same as dust would produce.   The "dust between the feet" is a small "billow of dust".
That is possibly the stupidest claim you've made and the competition is fierce.
Quote
#2: Nope-- @Mag40 is FORCING THIS....  I've said from the start - "this isn't the main point" - the main point is how fast the dust clouds fall. Dust really does fall a LOT faster than the astronaut, to remove the Apollogies made for the Young case.
That is correct, I am "forcing" this. You cited the jump and ignored everything that didn't fit and made conclusions that ignored conditions.
Quote
#3: Nope --- I'm making a deal that his footage may have been modified ("enhanced" they might say) to show dust between the feet, whereas on the NASA footage it's not evident at all.
Yet the video YOU supplied in post 1 shows the same parabola.
Quote
The main point for this dust is that we SEE CLEARLY from the onset that there is a thick cloud of dust ABOVE the boot bottom -- how do you think it got there?  Does this tell you anything about the launch velocity of this dust?  And how might this impact the predicted trajectory?
It tells me 2 things, that you are deliberately exaggerating it and on clearer footage looks mainly to be the toe of his left boot facing inwards before he jumps! I also see that the circle you make around it, is pretty much totally below his boot anyway!
Quote
The Young case has some potential ambiguity -- which is why I focus on the CLEAREST CASE -- of the astronaut doing it from the side, very close, with thick clouds of dust that rise with the foot, but fall to the ground WAY faster.
There is no ambiguity, just you blundering in with a claim and running away from numerous points that don't fit with your immovable position.

Now it looks like I need to ask you to stop acting like the bog-standard HB you claimed not to be and start showing this illusive "100% integrity"!

1. Here is an animated gif, taken from YOUR video in the opening post. It is clear beyond any doubt that the footage you snidely claimed was doctored has not been because the same clear parabola rises (nowhere near the soles of his boots!) to the same height and obviously at the same time.

Explain why you ignored this and reasserted your claim point #3 above?



2. Your useless "physics" about "suction-cups" and the attractive force "adhesion" are not even close to accurate or relevant for this scenario. The forum can see you squirming on this with no honest intent to answer with any integrity.

Time up = time down - we see time up very clearly, explain why you keep evading this obvious evidence?


3. In that gif, there is a shadow of dust moving forwards on the left and when he is descending there is slight ground discolouration as the dust settles - it moves forwards as a wave.

Does your "100% integrity allow you to even answer this(!) let alone admit it?

4. Both my volleyball gifs showed on very clear modern video that sand can appear to disperse very fast. It is merely hard to see sand on sand. For Apollo, not only is the footage far more grainier and lower quality it;s darker with grey against grey.

Explain why you have not honestly acknowledged this, preferring to find instances where conditions are more favourable also on modern clear footage?

5. The following Gene Cernan gif was presented to and ignored. It shows that the same soil impact occurs at landing on 3 jumps.

Why have you ignored this? Please don't insult everyone with some bollocks about coincidence.



6. For the last of the 3 Cernan jumps, we clearly see the dust coming down in a wave as the final impact occurs. Your explanation for this was crap about how long the ground mark occurred for. Irrelevant given the nature of the camera and discolouration of the soil. Here's better footage and clearer footage below.

How is this clearly not very solid proof the soil ISN'T too falling too fast?



7. This last one is concerns very much your "100% integrity". I don't know if you've ever seen somebody kick dirt around but a little sideways flick of the boot, on Earth, simply does not do what we are seeing. The dust-flick from the side of his boot (adjusted for Earth speed) is an absurd >7m per second force and rising to 1.25m high. In addition to your hand waving you also suggested without evidence that the footage was speed adjusted around the event. Very irrelevant given that this is absurdly unreal for Earth freefall and action.

Explain to the forum how you can possibly suggest does this on Earth, that height, distance and speed? In addition, notice how the astronauts are exhibiting comedic motion when adjusted.
Lunar footage:


Adjusted +245% for Earth speed:



I have marked in blue the points that you have sidestepped! The other ones you have just given stupid answers to or obfuscated.

Offline najak

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 807
Re: Hoax? - Sand Falls too Fast.
« Reply #178 on: December 09, 2024, 09:43:38 PM »
I'll address each, a final time:

#1: Explain why you ignored this and reasserted your claim point #3 above?

Answer: This footage shows sand falling faster than John.   If you insist there is a "parabola of scant dust" - we have the hi-rez photo that explains this - we CLEARLY see that "at apex" there is a considerable amount of dust well-above the boot's TOP...     So this "parabola" that you love, would be explained by this dust - which CLEARLY either launched FASTER from the start, or launched off the top of the boot half-way up. 

There is also VERY CLEAR evidence that when he's just 6 inches off the ground, a small mass of dust is ABOVE the bottom of his boot (to the right) which is a CLEAR INDICATOR of a FASTER launch speed.

The only conclusion we can collectively draw here is that "at best" this example has some ambiguity.   At "worst" it shows that dust which rises alongside the foot - FALLS FASTER.   My claim is stronger than yours.  But I'm OK with simply backing off on my claim here, because of the ambiguities/obscurities involved.

===
#2: Time up = time down - we see time up very clearly, explain why you keep evading this obvious evidence?

Answer: This rule only applies to simple projectile motion where there is nothing influencing the rise/fall "during flight".  Also, if you launch something faster, it'll stay in the air longer (it's a function of launch velocity).   So this Parabola that you love, peaks higher than the boot bottom -- so again, was the result of a different Launch velocity.   It's faint, rises to a different height, and shows evidence at launch of there being a "faster moving" cluster of dust from the onset.

Recognize the ambiguity here.    Find some people who are good at physics to agree with you; just see if you can.  (Not that this would be proof, but your inability to do so, would be telling.)

===
#3: Does your "100% integrity allow you to even answer this(!) let alone admit it?

Answer: See above.  IF this GIF (showing something that doesn't appear on NASA's own link) is legit, i.e. there is a faint mist of dust between the boots and HIGHER than the bottoms - there are a few viable scientifically sound explanations for this.   See above.

===
#4: Explain why you have not honestly acknowledged this, preferring to find instances where conditions are more favourable also on modern clear footage?

Answer: Your volleyball examples had THREE critical deficiencies.  (1) They were far away, (2) he was jumping sideways (causes more dispersing), and (3) whatever effect is needed to Pull the Sand up to the HEIGHT OF THE BOTTOM OF THE FOOT -- was ABSENT.   Just as Young's other jump had little to no dust rise - -not much to see.

If your example were closer, and showed thick mass of dust rising up to the bottom of their feet - then you'd have a viable comparison.

I gave a PERTINENT volleyball example - which satisfies ALL 3 of these requirements, and we clearly see the sand falling at the SAME speed as the man.

===
#5: Why have you ignored this? Please don't insult everyone with some bollocks about coincidence.

Answer: For Hippity example, there is a lot of chaos for each jump.  When you kick up dust, it's not just "one steady stream of particles all with the same launch angle and speed".   The fact that the closest example shows evidence of a "along-the-ground high point collision" - indicates that "this concept is at play here".    You cannot discount it.  Therefore there is enough ambiguity and missing clarity for us to make solid conclusions.

Yet here again, we do see the Dust that rises beneath his feet very clearly, disappears.  The only sand that keeps moving was "kicked" at a high velocity than Cernan... and SOME OF IT with an extra upward launch velocity.

Since it's too far away, I'm not making a point about the "dust beneath his feet falling too fast" as proof.

===
#6: How is this clearly not very solid proof the soil ISN'T too falling too fast?

Answer: See above.   Loose/dry sand at a high horizontal/parallel velocity, will bounce, roll, and scuttle -- until it hits a high point, or the velocity dissipates.   SOME of this sand could be coming in from above -- but we have NO TRAJECTORY VISIBLE -- so we cannot measure it's "parabola" at all -- if it was launched upwards faster than he's jumping himself -- the timing will be extended.

Learn this.

===
#7: Explain to the forum how you can possibly suggest does this on Earth, that height, distance and speed? In addition, notice how the astronauts are exhibiting comedic motion when adjusted.

Answer: Watch the sharp/dramatic inflection in his backpack -- 10 degrees?  This is a sign of counter balancing this leg motion.  It is not "superhuman" for him to be able to conduct this maneuver, especially if this spacesuit is a facade (not the 100 lb real deal)...   If you can't prove this to be a "super-human foot maneuver" this PROVES nothing.   In MLH theory, this was a deliberate event, inserted for Apollogists -- and he was coached to "kick it as hard as you can, while trying to make it look effortless" -- and he only partially succeeded... his 10 degree torso flinch, shows sign of stress here.

====
All are answered.   QED.  Thread complete.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2024, 09:46:27 PM by najak »

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1705
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Hoax? - Sand Falls too Fast.
« Reply #179 on: December 10, 2024, 02:13:36 AM »
As Young jumps, the toe of his boot launches regolith upwards. Some if it is launched higher than others, because physics. Impart the same energy to objects of different mass and they respond on a way relative to that mass.

Everything else is pure conjecture on your part, based on a biased interpretation of poor quality TV footage.

Put the footage in its proper context: hours long EVA broadcast featuring multiple occasions where the astronauts cross paths and do other things that would make any kind of harness impossible. Lunar regolith is repeatedly shown to behave in a manner entirely consistent with an air less low gravity environment, and there's the added bonus of a completely accurate view of Earth.

Oh, and astronaut movement looking funny when you speed up the footage isn't the win you think it is.