Hoax? - Sand Falls too Fast.

[Mag40]

Indeed it is regolith on top of the boot.

Would you have a look, full screen on the video(watch on YouTube)? His left foot starts straight and ends up turned out.

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

Just in case you don't know, if you click the cog, you can change playback speed to 0.25. There is only the toe of his boot as far as I can see.

[Mag40]

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.

Did you even read the bloody question? That answers something else and not the thing I asked. I am invoking an appeal to honesty not some privilege given to me by the site owner.

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!

And you have still failed to address this. You made some puny obfuscation about how long the mark remained on the last visible impact, yet the same thing occurs as he lands on both previous jumps.

[najak]

And you have still failed to address this. You made some puny obfuscation about how long the mark remained on the last visible impact, yet the same thing occurs as he lands on both previous jumps.

OK, lets answer these this way then...

If there is a parabolic trajectory involved here - we cannot see this trajectory.   So it's speculation.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, kicking sand is chaotic - causes various launch velocities -- some of them with an UPWARD COMPONENT that could easily be higher than the speed of the Cernan's COM (center of mass)...  so again, we've got a mix of things going on here - all far from the camera.

On what grounds do you presume the sand kicked forward to have the same upwards launch velocity as Cernan's COM?   You got nothing to go on here.

Learn to identify ambiguity when you see it.  Stop being a toaster.

[Mag40]

https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2019.msg59881#msg59881

I won't allow you to pretend not to see replies.

[Mag40]

If there is a parabolic trajectory involved here - we cannot see this trajectory.   So it's speculation.

Cernan lands 3 times. On each landing, there is a final impact splash. The dust trajectory on the first 2 jumps is irrelevant. The coincidence factor comes in to play. Three jumps, three marks on the ground at landing. Slam-dunk is the phrase you used. I can only imagine how you would be all over this if it proved the opposite!

MORE IMPORTANTLY, kicking sand is chaotic - causes various launch velocities -- some of them with an UPWARD COMPONENT that could easily be higher than the speed of the Cernan's COM (center of mass)...  so again, we've got a mix of things going on here - all far from the camera.

I highlighted exactly the state of this issue:

On what grounds do you presume the sand kicked forward to have the same upwards launch velocity as Cernan's COM?   You got nothing to go on here.

Visible evidence.

Learn to identify ambiguity when you see it.  Stop being a toaster.

Learn honesty, lose this unscientific conformation bias. Get your own label. You have the logic of a toaster.

[Mag40]

3. You have ignored the zoomed in volleyball example showing "dust falls too fast".

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.

You definitely did not even look. This is one of the easier ones, surely you've got the honesty to concede this?

[najak]

You definitely did not even look. This is one of the easier ones, surely you've got the honesty to concede this?

I'll concede, the sand in this one rises to the height of the feet, then dissipates to invisible.  Thus we lose track of it.   But in a close-up volleyball shot (mine) - it does not dissipate.

So we have ambiguity.   So did the sand on the moon dissipate or fall-too-fast?   It's ambiguous given the low-granularity of the photos/footage.

[Mag40]

Your shot simply has wetter/darker sand under foot. Irrelevant. There are circumstances where this occurs and they are not even remotely suspicious or deserving of a scientist's attention.

Posts #258 and #259 please. But try to actually address the post - maybe watch what is being presented this time eh?

[najak]

Your shot simply has wetter/darker sand under foot. Irrelevant. There are circumstances where this occurs and they are not even remotely suspicious or deserving of a scientist's attention.

Posts #258 and #259 please. But try to actually address the post - maybe watch what is being presented this time eh?

#258 itself points to a big messy post.   Make a clear point here, and I'll address.

#259 - your "coincidence" argument holds some weight.  3x, same behavior.   It addresses the "scuttling sand hit's HIGH point", weakening that claim of a "high point".

For 3 cases, we have a "chaotic launch of dust at various velocities (direction and speed)" - producing a very similar result.   This doesn't mean that "the sand was all projected upwards at the SAME speed as Cernan's center-of-mass"...  If sand was projected with an upwards angle (which likely was) -- we're talking Apples to Oranges.  You can only compare projectiles with the same starting vertical velocity.

With an atmosphere, the wind-resistance impact on dust is greater than it is on Cernan too, which would have impact on the fall time.

So your argument here combats the likeliness of a "high point" playing a role on "scuttling sand".   So if you want to call this a "smoking gun that there wasn't a high-point on the ground to block scuttling sand", be my guest.   I'll consider that to be a compelling argument, against the "high point" theory -- and as a result, I won't propose the "high point" hypothesis again, because your argument makes it evident that this "high point" hypothesis is unlikely.

However, it does NOT remove the ambiguity involved in trying to decipher whether or not this was on the moon or earth -- based upon these videos.

[Mag40]

#258 itself points to a big messy post.

Bollocks. You accused me of doctoring footage and the same parabola occurs in your version. A parabola that you are afraid to honestly address because it doesn't have any hoax explanation.

Make a clear point here, and I'll address.

No, you will obfuscate just like below.

#259 - your "coincidence" argument holds some weight.  3x, same behavior.   It addresses the "scuttling sand hit's HIGH point", weakening that claim of a "high point".

So, 3 jumps, as he lands the same impact splash. The final jump ONLY YOU cannot see the clear wave progressively hitting the surface culminating in.......one of the "coincidence" splashes?

We've had the bullshit stagehand A14 flag coincidence with depressursiation. You people really like pushing conspiracy bollocks don't you.

For 3 cases, we have a "chaotic launch of dust at various velocities (direction and speed)" - producing a very similar result.   This doesn't mean that "the sand was all projected upwards at the SAME speed as Cernan's center-of-mass"...  If sand was projected with an upwards angle (which likely was) -- we're talking Apples to Oranges.  You can only compare projectiles with the same starting vertical velocity.

Obfuscation and evasion.

With an atmosphere, the wind-resistance impact on dust is greater than it is on Cernan too, which would have impact on the fall time.

Bollocks - it's minimal at that height.

However, it does NOT remove the ambiguity involved in trying to decipher whether or not this was on the moon or earth -- based upon these videos.

There is no ambiguity. You are cornered and know it.
We see the dust rise level with Cernan and we see the wave striking progressively :

I highlighted exactly the state of this issue:


Visible evidence:

[najak]

For you sake, we can remove the scuttling sand concept, for sake of argument.  What does this leave us with?  Sand hitting the ground from an UNKNOWN TRAJECTORY...  likely starting out moving up FASTER than the COM of Cernan.

Without being able to track trajectories, there is nothing that can be PROVEN here, no matter how much you want to think otherwise.

But if you want to declare this PROOF on your resume -- go for it.  I will only expose your toaster logic to the world.

[najak]

#258 itself points to a big messy post.

Bollocks. You accused me of doctoring footage and the same parabola occurs in your version. A parabola that you are afraid to honestly address because it doesn't have any hoax explanation.

We've been through this... there was dust from top of the boot and also seen at launch of his foot... at SIDE of his foot HIGHER than the sole of his foot -- so moving upwards faster...   Sand falling off the top of his boot is falling off AFTER LAUNCH - therefore carried upwards for a time by his boot.  Chaos.  Various launch starting points, and velocities.  Apples to Oranges.   Lo-resolution does not permit an adequate analysis.

[onebigmonkey]

#258 itself points to a big messy post.

Bollocks. You accused me of doctoring footage and the same parabola occurs in your version. A parabola that you are afraid to honestly address because it doesn't have any hoax explanation.

We've been through this... there was dust from top of the boot and also seen at launch of his foot... at SIDE of his foot HIGHER than the sole of his foot -- so moving upwards faster...   Sand falling off the top of his boot is falling off AFTER LAUNCH - therefore carried upwards for a time by his boot.  Chaos.  Various launch starting points, and velocities.  Apples to Oranges.   Lo-resolution does not permit an adequate analysis.

If low resolution prevents adequate analysis, everything you wrote before that is irrelevant.

[Mag40]

Sand hitting the ground from an UNKNOWN TRAJECTORY...  likely starting out moving up FASTER than the COM of Cernan.

Obfuscation/evasion.

Without being able to track trajectories, there is nothing that can be PROVEN here, no matter how much you want to think otherwise.

But we ARE able to track it quite clearly and we know how high the dust wave reached. Post 264.

But if you want to declare this PROOF on your resume -- go for it.  I will only expose your toaster logic to the world.

The only thing you expose is your inability to evade things you don't like.

[Mag40]

We've been through this

Bollocks again. "We" haven't been through anything. YOU claim the dust on his toe and I suggest it is his boot.

there was dust from top of the boot and also seen at launch of his foot... at SIDE of his foot HIGHER than the sole of his foot -- so moving upwards faster...   Sand falling off the top of his boot is falling off AFTER LAUNCH - therefore carried upwards for a time by his boot.  Chaos.  Various launch starting points, and velocities.  Apples to Oranges.   Lo-resolution does not permit an adequate analysis.

A pathetic and irrelevant reply. AGAIN!

You accused me of supplying doctored footage - a much clearer direct recording supplied by Dwight. The same parabolic arc occurred on your version in post 1.

Withdraw your claim of it being doctored. What are you afraid of here? The clearer footage shows that circled dark area you mentioned as being simply the toe of his boot.

The large elephant in the room is trumpeting and you ignore it. Parabolic arc - time up (which we see) = time down (which we don't for established reasons).

You cannot agree with this because it closes the whole case. Low gravity on the Moon.