Hang on; you mean he sped up the footage of a piece of lunar gravity video and claimed that it looked like Earth gravity video, then slowed down the SAME FOOTAGE and claimed that because it then looked like the original lunar gravity video, that this proved the lunar gravity video was Earth gravity video slowed down?
Yup. Then there's the infamous scattered rocks claim which implies that Earth's gravity is 216 times greater than the Moon's gravity (once your dissect the physics). That's a little more labourius to explain, but he worked out the size of rocks that are held up on the Moon and Earth by rocket exhaust gases. He then equated the weight of rocks to the upward fluid force, a problem that used the principles of Newton's 1st law. He then showed that the same gas pressure would support larger rocks on the Moon.
He then used this result and invoked Newtons 2nd law with no math, boldly making the claim that this meant bigger rocks with larger surface areas could be scattered further on the Moon for the same exhaust pressure,
ergo there should of been a blast crater under the LM.
Assuming his model is correct, which it is not, he did not compare the same sized rocks in his second step. He jumped to a different part of physics without understanding the principles and context of his first set of calculations and fluffed it. It was also pointed out that if he wanted to use his model consistently he would have to use a higher gas pressure for an hypothetical Earth module, and this would yield a different result if he compared apples with apples
and applied the correct physics to his model.
Then there was his failure to understand Galileo's experiment, you know, the one where two objects dropped from the same height in the absence of air resistance both hit the ground simultaneously. Except that he declared that this was not always the case. He went on to compare two objects hitting the ground from the same height. Except one had already been falling before the the second one was dropped. Let's go through that one with s = ut + 1/2 at
2 shall we? Not much chance there.
The boot in the regolith simulant, the LEGO LM in a box, jumping around next to a flag, kicking dry and wet sand on a beach, the radiation calculations, the shrinking of Aldrin's boot print photo and superimposing it on the LRO images, his claims regarding the LLRs, the milk in the super market trolley. It's a collection of pseudo-bunk of burning stupid, all packaged up in whizzy graphics and skits which impress the gullible, it really is.
As I said on the AWE thread, I have the knowledge to debunk radiation, rocks, the LLR claims, some of the photographic evidence and the usual fodder offered up by the hoax crowd. It doesn't take a rocket scientist, most of the claims are debunked with a bit of high school science and some research. There are some aspects of hoax claims that require deep specialist knowledge, but most can be dealt with if you're willing to put in the leg work.
There are parts where I simply do not have the knowledge, but I will quite happily say I'm ignorant, but I won't replace ignorance with arrogance. Fattydash's claim of the Eagle lost on the surface, that took the likes of Jay, sts60, ka9q, Bob etc, I simply did not know where to start debunking that claim. However, once I read the rebuttal, the rendezvous of the CM and LM made perfect sense.
