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.
Snap! What do you think this is?
Sand splatter on the ground; NOT between his feet. The sand that rose with John, is already on the ground, splattering. Note the "thickness at the ground" - this is what a "splash pattern" looks like -- this isn't what "dust in process of falling" looks like -- so it's already landed, and is splashing back up a small amount.
Here is a screen-print from the second jump where Young's launch has virtually no displacement.Splatter? What splatter? Where did it go?Answer my post please!
Try to explain your hypothesis in better detail.
Show me a more complete science proof. I'm not even sensing our capacity to do this.
Quote from: najak on December 10, 2024, 05:21:25 PM[I'd like to close this thread out too, given that no new points are being brought to light. We're just circling dead horses now.Stop lying! Post 180 details how appalling your answers have been. The following have systematically been evaded by you with no response or diversion.QuoteIt only shows up in your version of the video -- not in this photo, nor in the NASA linked video. 1. You claim I doctored footage when your own page 1 example shows the same parabola! Withdraw the claim unconditionally. You repeated this lie even after I posted the gif!https://i.ibb.co/M9k4Hfk/Apollo-16-big-navy-jump-salute-with-timer.gif2. You have yet to address the appearance of the same ground mark on the 2 jumps preceding The main Gene Cernan jump....showing the dust hitting the ground as he lands!3. You have ignored the zoomed in volleyball example showing "dust falls too fast".https://i.ibb.co/hfDCpk4/Jump1-sandfallsquickly-ezgif-com-resize.gif4. Not once have you acknowledged that viewing conditions were far from ideal, grey on grey, kicked forwards away from Young and grainy video. Acknowledge this and show some integrity and factor it in. Most of the soil didn't even rise as high as he did!5. You claimed the visible parabola was a "splatter" where did it go between images? Not a splatter, so what is your new obfuscationary theory?https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2019.msg58683#msg586836. In that John Young 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.https://i.ibb.co/qrjRGpk/Jump.gif7. You are the only one who can't see the Gene Cernan jump's wave of dust hitting the ground in a nice neat event! That is pure dishonest evasion.https://i.ibb.co/bBN2W5n/ezgif-4-bf2a5dc2a2.gif8. Your insistence that somebody could kick a wave of dust 1.25m high at 7.22 m per second on Earth, with a sideways flick of their foot is so absurd it becomes pure evasive obfuscation.https://i.ibb.co/PFMzmYx/9cl91y.gifI've got way more examples to disprove this puny, myopic thread. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258606632_Ballistic_motion_of_dust_particles_in_the_Lunar_Roving_Vehicle_dust_trails"V. SUMMARYWe have analyzed the motion of the dust clouds lofted by the Lunar Roving Vehicle of the Apollo 16 mission. Adopting a simple 2D geometry, we found that the dust followed ballistic trajectories under the influence of the lunar gravity. The gravitational constant of the moon derived from the dust trajectory is within 10% of the expected value. The images used in our analysis are available online for use as supplementary material in physics education.
[I'd like to close this thread out too, given that no new points are being brought to light. We're just circling dead horses now.
It only shows up in your version of the video -- not in this photo, nor in the NASA linked video.
