Hoax? - Sand Falls too Fast.

[Mag40]

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.

We appear to have a bloody comedian here!

Show me a more complete science proof.  I'm not even sensing our capacity to do this.

You are being a deliberate arse.

[Mag40]

@najak, for the umpteenth time, where did your "splatter" go? Post 225.

[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.

It 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.gif

2. 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.gif

4. 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#msg58683

6. 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.gif

7. 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.gif

8. 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.gif

I'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. SUMMARY
We 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.

[Mag40]

@najak - see post above, provide honest answers. I don't care and I'd wager nobody else does that you have conceded the thread claim. These are counter claims and I do not concede that you have answered a single one of them.

[Mag40]

@najak You have rebuttal to reply to, rebuttal that you have not addressed. If you claim you have, show where, because evasive obfuscation is not addressing things.

[najak]

@najak You have rebuttal to reply to, rebuttal that you have not addressed. If you claim you have, show where, because evasive obfuscation is not addressing things.

Pick your best argument for me to address (again), and I'll address it (again).

[Mag40]

@najak You have rebuttal to reply to, rebuttal that you have not addressed. If you claim you have, show where, because evasive obfuscation is not addressing things.

Pick your best argument for me to address (again), and I'll address it (again).

ALL OF THE ABOVE have been evaded by you. And please don't insult by claiming the word "again". If you claim any of that list has been addressed show where.

[najak]

ALL OF THE ABOVE have been evaded by you. And please don't insult by claiming the word "again". If you claim any of that list has been addressed show where.

Pick your favorite/best argument, and we'll go through them one-by-one.  Start from Best to Worst.   Perhaps you'd like to start a thread for each -- gish gallop your way to trying to prove the Moon Landing.   Meaningful discussions of multi-pronged attacks requires separate threads.

My Post was ONLY to do with the Side-Jumping Charles Duke case, and the John Young Salute.  You've branched it into many other things.  So make new threads to prove your points.   Or ONLY address these TWO cases for which I was trying to make a point -- but since have conceded that they are ambiguous enough due to a lack of photo/video resolution and perspective.

[Mag40]

ALL OF THE ABOVE have been evaded by you. And please don't insult by claiming the word "again". If you claim any of that list has been addressed show where.

Pick your favorite/best argument, and we'll go through them one-by-one.  Start from Best to Worst.   Perhaps you'd like to start a thread for each -- gish gallop your way to trying to prove the Moon Landing.   Meaningful discussions of multi-pronged attacks requires separate threads.

My Post was ONLY to do with the Side-Jumping Charles Duke case, and the John Young Salute.  You've branched it into many other things.  So make new threads to prove your points.   Or ONLY address these TWO cases for which I was trying to make a point -- but since have conceded that they are ambiguous enough due to a lack of photo/video resolution and perspective.

Please read this carefully. I do not give a flying fart what your original claim was. You have consistently failed to honestly address counter claims.

Which part of "all of them" is confusing? Do you see the last new one about dust ejected by the rover, analysed by physicists? There are many more of these.

I guarantee that you have not watched a large amount of Apollo footage. An honest and objective physicist would look at the actions related to horizontal motion, mainly the dust and conclude that it's very much not Earth-like.

You have an overwhelming prior conclusion that blocks any ability for reason. Your first objective seems not to be wrong in any fashion that renders your overall claim wrong, Every one of my rebuttal points does that, ergo your evasion and obfuscation.

[Luke Pemberton]

Are you expecting all the dust to reach the same height as the astronaut's boot?

What is the basic physics that you claim the dust must follow?

[Mag40]

[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.

It 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.gif

2. 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.gif

4. 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#msg58683

6. 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.gif

7. 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.gif

8. 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.gif

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258606632_Ballistic_motion_of_dust_particles_in_the_Lunar_Roving_Vehicle_dust_trails
"V. SUMMARY
We 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've got way more examples to disprove this puny, myopic thread.

All above unanswered.

John Young Jump
1. There is a nice parabolic arc of dust in perfect sync with his jump and the same height. Time up = Time down.
2. Disipation is irrelevant grey on grey on poor grainy video.
3. We clearly see shaded areas on the ground moving forwards away from Young.

Gene Cernan Bunny Hops
1. There is a nice parabolic arc of dust level with his boot. Time up = Time down.
2. Disipation is irrelevant grey on grey on poor grainy video.
3. We clearly see 3 impact areas on the ground for each of the last 3 jumps.

Dust Sideways kick
1. The height of this wave is just plain wrong for a little boot flick.
2. The distance requires >7m per second force with a sideways kick? That's ridiculous.
3. No dust suspension, no matter what you claim.
4. Adjusted for gravity without the unsubstantiated, unproven selective magic speed video, the astronauts look extremely unnatural

Members should be made aware of your truly daft claim that the upward "draft" from a suction vacuum is responsible for lifting the dust off of the surface! Simple experiment, place bucket 1/4 inch from surface and yank it up - are you seriously claiming that the bucket pulls up a column of dirt/sand/dust?

You have nowhere to go now. Cernan and Young jumps both show dust level with boot at apex. Time up = time down. The dust is not on wires therefore......an honest physicist fills in the details.

[najak]

Are you expecting all the dust to reach the same height as the astronaut's boot?

What is the basic physics that you claim the dust must follow?

You appear relatively sane-minded to me.  Refreshing.

The main video I focused on was A16, Duke's side-jump, close to the camera - because it's CLOSE UP, so provides the best resolution.

Here is the KRITA frame analysis in MP4 format:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JRjdohQ0cXftl_feaVeMT1rdYSlkS7mS/view?usp=drive_link

I've RETRACTED my claim of this being "good evidence" due to ambiguities...  I personally still "see it", but can understand if others don't, and since I can't trace the trajectory of individual particles, but am only dealing with "clouds of dust" partially obscured by the shadows behind it - I've simply withdrawn this claim as "good evidence for MLH".

One thing to note, if you are interested is frame 13 -- we see thick dust at about the same height as his RIGHT FOOT (the left foot he is KICKING UP... so rises higher than Duke's center-of-mass).

This dust that rises as high as his right foot, QUICKLY falls to the ground, which would indicate "higher than lunar gravity" as in this scene, the MLH theory is that Duke is being partially lifted by thin top cable, to make him feel much lighter, and thus falls much slower (2x slower).

Thus if this is on earth, the dust will fall 2x faster... which is "what I see"... and simply realize this isn't a good place to "fight a battle" as there is simply too much room for bias/ambiguities.

Notice that by frame 18, the dust from under his left foot is COMPLETELY GONE, while his right foot is still far from reaching the ground.

No need to argue this further if you don't see it.  That's fine.

Unlike some other people here (who never took physics at all), they cannot accept that not everyone agrees or sees the same stuff -- especially when things are so cloudy (pun intended).

[najak]

.... gish gallop....

This forum doesn't allow Gish-gallop.  So please boil it down to one-point-at-a-time.  And why don't you simply create a thread for your favorite "slam-dunk" so that it can be clearly identified and seen by others... instead of being stuck in this mish-mashed thread.

Those who rely on Gish-Gallop are afraid to make "one point at a time", because it exposes you...  Make a new thread, so that you can have your main issue achieve front-and-center clear attention.  Show everyone that you can slam the MLH "smart guy".

[najak]

What is the basic physics that you claim the dust must follow?

And interestingly, if you watch the FULL CLIP, it's rather humorous and brings up another MLH claim, which is that "Duke cannot bend down to get the hammer!"  Why can't he simply drop to his knees as is done by others using the same space suit model??   MLH theory here is that Duke's "cable lift pressure" was simply too high.   This suit model was the revised A16 model which allowed for greater maneuverability including the skinny legs, to that kneeling was possible.

Instead resorts to getting tongs to pick up the hammer after a half-dozen failed attempts at kneeling down.

Here's the video link that included this Side Jump, Starting at 1:45 into the film:

https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/a16v.1464821.mpg

[Mag40]

This forum doesn't allow Gish-gallop.  So please boil it down to one-point-at-a-time.

Try very hard to stop being an arse. Post #234 has no Gish galloping. It is entirely on topic and straight rebuttal to your conceded rubbish. Everyone can see your actions, even the ignorant Facebook crew watching this.

[Mag40]

And interestingly, if you watch the FULL CLIP, it's rather humorous and brings up another MLH claim, which is that "Duke cannot bend down to get the hammer!"  Why can't he simply drop to his knees as is done by others using the same space suit model??   MLH theory here is that Duke's "cable lift pressure" was simply too high.   This suit model was the revised A16 model which allowed for greater maneuverability including the skinny legs, to that kneeling was possible.

Instead resorts to getting tongs to pick up the hammer after a half-dozen failed attempts at kneeling down.

That is a pathetic off topic Gish gallop. Show where "others" do a similar maneuver. Actually don't bother, you can't and you are just evading the topic.