Hoax? - Sand Falls too Fast.

[najak]

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.

It's the SAME clip, same PART.  I can show tons of videos where astronauts can bend down, or even last-resort fall-forward and catch themselves, then push back up.   This particular scene is the ONLY case where he can't get himself onto his knees... and takes 90 seconds to do a 10 second job, because of it.  I'd LOVE to create a thread on "Astronautics", of which this clip is one of my favs.

[Mag40]

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.

It's the SAME clip, same PART.  I can show tons of videos where astronauts can bend down, or even last-resort fall-forward and catch themselves, then push back up.   This particular scene is the ONLY case where he can't get himself onto his knees... and takes 90 seconds to do a 10 second job, because of it.  I'd LOVE to create a thread on "Astronautics", of which this clip is one of my favs.

Utter bullshit. It's like you're watching something completely different to the rest of the world and concluding that because you don't understand it, it means something. So you still playing the coward card on Reply #234?

[najak]

So you still playing the coward card on Reply #234?

I cannot respond to a Gish Gallop post.   Make one argument at a time, and I'll respond (again, and again, and again) - -like debating with a toaster.

"Coward":   I'd LOVE to meet you in some other forum where you aren't positioned within the lap of your peers.  Let's do it.   Come to Rasa's FB page, and impress us with your bravery.

Or just be brave enough to stand behind "one point at a time" (or multiple, if you want to make more threads).   You can show everyone repeatedly how superior you are, and how daft and cowardly am I.

[LunarOrbit]

So you still playing the coward card on Reply #234?

I cannot respond to a Gish Gallop post.

You will respond to that post, in full, or you will be banned. I am tired of you ignoring our questions, dismissing our explanations, and declaring yourself the victor based solely on your delusions of grandeur.

[najak]

You will respond to that post, in full, or you will be banned. I am tired of you ignoring our questions, dismissing our explanations, and declaring yourself the victor based solely on your delusions of grandeur.

I've already responded multiple times to all of the points he raises here.   He doesn't like my answers; I don't like his.  That's debate.

If he thinks there are ANY that I haven't responded to - I'd like to see which one(s) - and I'll respond to those specifically, or reference where I have already responded.

You don't REPOST the 20 things that have ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED for pages.. and then say "Hah, I win, you didn't respond to these" -- when I already did.

I'm asking him to show me just ONE where I didn't, and I'll address it as you are mandating.  But I am debating a toaster here.

[LunarOrbit]

You will respond to that post, in full, or you will be banned. I am tired of you ignoring our questions, dismissing our explanations, and declaring yourself the victor based solely on your delusions of grandeur.

I've already responded multiple times to all of the points he raises here.

Do it again.

[najak]

Here are your responses Mag40:

1. I don't see the parabola in the NASA footage.  If there is one, it's scant, and explained by the dust rising up FASTER than the foot, clearly -- as it would be HIGHER than the foot, so must have risen up faster.

2. Dust "landing" is dust scuttling along the ground, as it does in real life if you kick sand.  We can't see the trajectory of this sand - it's NOT VISIBLE ON FILM.  So we cannot assert that it was following a parabola, when it's not visible... except ALONG THE GROUND where it's scuttling.

3. Your volleyball example is FAR away, moving to the side, and the sand does NOT rise as high as the jumper.   So there is nothing to compare here.   MY EXAMPLE of the volleyball player jump, is CLEAR, CLOSE, and demonstrates that the dust falls at the same rate.  This one is MORE similar to the Duke Side-jump example.

4. Acknowledged!  I called this "ambiguous" - obscured, cloudy.

5. The scant parabola that I don't see in the NASA footage is obviously scant... dispersion happens... so thick becomes less thick, and scant becomes invisible.   Or in this case "more invisible".

6. Sure, dust is flying in many directions, and there is chaos.  SOME of the sand is kicked UP...  perhaps FASTER than his center-of-mass.  Thus it's ambiguous.  There are NO PARTICLES for which you can "track with certainty" to determine it's path.  Thus, it's ambiguous.  And the signs of CHAOS (varieties of launch velocities) - is a big part of the ambiguity -- we cannot ascertain apples-to-apples.

7. I'm not the only one.  Dust clouds are dark.. this darkness drops to close to the ground, then continues forward ALONG THE GROUND LEVEL -- like scuttling sand.... until it hits a high-point, and then stops like a highway pile-up.  That's what I see.  If you don't - that's OK.   I'm still claiming this to be ambiguous, because of chaos, low-resolution, and inability to track individual projectiles.

8. I think an athlete could easily do this.   The 10 degree flinch in his whole upper torso is a sign of significant exertion.   You don't see it that way.  I'm not asking you to agree with me.   Post this wherever you want.  I still won't agree that this type of kick is "non-feasible", and I don't see any proof that it's not.  This is just speculation on your part.  This is your claim, not mine.

[Mag40]

Ok, one at a time as you seem incapable of an honest reply!

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!

1. I don't see the parabola in the NASA footage.  If there is one, it's scant, and explained by the dust rising up FASTER than the foot, clearly -- as it would be HIGHER than the foot, so must have risen up faster.

The footage I originally cited IS NASA footage and was provided by Dwight! However even on the crusty version you posted the parabola is still there between his boots in perfect sync. What is this lie about higher and faster?

[najak]

The footage I originally cited IS NASA footage and was provided by Dwight! However even on the crusty version you posted the parabola is still there.

Fine.  I can see it in the NASA link if I really want to see it.  But what does this prove?  Dust is ABOVE the foot -- so clearly started on a FASTER trajectory.   Also, in an atmosphere, lighter dust can rise fast, but then falls slower, due to air resistance... air resistance interferes with the "parabola claim" entirely...   Shoot a Remington up to the sky... it starts out at MACH 3, but when it hits, it's well under MACH 1...   Same concept applies to dust in an atmosphere...

So this "scant parabola" may just be more proof of an atmosphere.

I'm willing to call it ambiguous... because it is.   BOTH sides have viable explanations here.   I personally think these videos show the "heavier sand falling faster than it should", and if lighter dust lingers higher for longer -- that too looks to me like evidence of atmosphere.

But have dropped this point -- because I appropriately realize the ambiguity here, and your right to your own opinion.

We've clearly stated our opinions, and rationale.   As with most debates, they typically do not end with agreement.  Yet you are abusing your privilege of trying to force me to agree with something that I do not agree with.   Society has long established this as wrongful practice.   Free thought is good.

[bknight]

The footage I originally cited IS NASA footage and was provided by Dwight! However even on the crusty version you posted the parabola is still there.

Fine.  I can see it in the NASA link if I really want to see it.  But what does this prove?  Dust is ABOVE the foot -- so clearly started on a FASTER trajectory.   Also, in an atmosphere, lighter dust can rise fast, but then falls slower, due to air resistance... air resistance interferes with the "parabola claim" entirely...   Shoot a Remington up to the sky... it starts out at MACH 3, but when it hits, it's well under MACH 1...   Same concept applies to dust in an atmosphere...
..

You can't think of another reason that the regolith is above the boots?  I can and it DOES NOT INVOLVE FASTER TRAJECTORY.  Can you think of another reason that makes more sense than the drivel you post?

[najak]

You can't think of another reason that the regolith is above the boots?  I can and it DOES NOT INVOLVE FASTER TRAJECTORY.  Can you think of another reason that makes more sense than the drivel you post?

Some could be from the top of the boot to begin with.  If you look closely at the initial frames after leaving the ground, you'll see a cloud of dust to the right side of his boot, already a couple inches higher than the boot bottom...  This appears to be "dust launched FASTER"...

So Chaos is involved.   It's like pointing at the clouds and saying "I see a dragon", and you saying "not it's Trump sucking on something"...  it's too ambiguous to make proofs.

[Mag40]

Fine.  I can see it in the NASA link if I really want to see it.  But what does this prove? 

You accused me of doctoring my version!

Dust is ABOVE the foot -- so clearly started on a FASTER trajectory.

Bullshit. That shaded area is the left foot toe of his boot.   

Also, in an atmosphere, lighter dust can rise fast, but then falls slower, due to air resistance... air resistance interferes with the "parabola claim" entirely...   Shoot a Remington up to the sky... it starts out at MACH 3, but when it hits, it's well under MACH 1...   Same concept applies to dust in an atmosphere..

Pure irrelevance.

So this "scant parabola" may just be more proof of an atmosphere.

Oh, so it's scant now is it? And "proof of an atmosphere" with no bloody dust suspension?

And all of it debunked by a simple little dust parabola between his boots.

Now, everyone who sees this can see the parabolic arc of dust - including you! This is better and clearer footage of the same event.

We've clearly stated our opinions, and rationale.   As with most debates, they typically do not end with agreement.  Yet you are abusing your privilege of trying to force me to agree with something that I do not agree with.   Society has long established this as wrongful practice.   Free thought is good.

My privilege? I'm a member who abides by the rules.

The parabola ascends in perfect sync with his jump and to the same visible height - are you seriously still bloody denying this? Of course you are because that little clip all on its own shows he is in low gravity.

I remember long ago a video by @Luke Pemberton that put the video footage at a very close proximity to lunar gravity. I don't care what idiotic wires claim you make here. It can only equate to Earth gravity with an increase of close to 245%. You know this and it is why you have no recourse but to deny it come what may.

[bknight]

Some could be from the top of the boot to begin with.  If you look closely at the initial frames after leaving the ground, you'll see a cloud of dust to the right side of his boot, already a couple inches higher than the boot bottom...

Indeed it is regolith on top of the boot

This appears to be "dust launched FASTER"...

Not on your life or mine or anybody, you are just making up stuff again.  There is no propulsive mechanism except the boot, The regolith on top of the boot starts the journey at a slightly higher elevation nothing more.

So Chaos is involved.   It's like pointing at the clouds and saying "I see a dragon", and you saying "not it's Trump sucking on something"...  it's too ambiguous to make proofs.

I would not classify it as chaos, but I'm not attempting to prove a conspiratory observation.  Now the regolith on top of the boot will because it started higher will be the last to fall, the regolith that the boot kicked uphill fall to the surface sooner.  This observation should never have been made to "prove some conspiracy".  You have wasted a lot of your time and a lot of other's as well.

[Mag40]

Would you have a look, full screen on the video in my post above? His left foot starts straight and ends up turned out.

If there is dust on his boot(it's minuscule) it is kicked forwards and left at the same speed as his boot, exactly as you stated.

[najak]

This observation should never have been made to "prove some conspiracy".  You have wasted a lot of your time and a lot of other's as well.

I have been trying to retract this thread for a LONG TIME.   I have nothing more to say here.  It's ambiguous.  We are going to see different things, and given the poor granularity of the evidence, nothing can be proven here in a reasonable fashion.  Mag40 has the logic of a toaster, and I'm stuck in a room debating with this toaster over something that isn't even my claim anymore.

I'd like to move on to some things that aren't ambiguous.  But this forum is afraid for me to make points that don't look good for Apollo.