If you're still Not convinced, try typing These Words on GOOGLE! (... Go and read up on the first site on the list That Gives You GOOGLE!) ...... THE MOON LANDING HOAX ....
HOW TO WIN IN A COURT OF LAW ... WITHOUT A LAWYER!
LEARN HOW TO KEEP YOUR PRIVACY
(... Read here too!) ...... APOLLO Research
Accepted the view, held by the Majority, named Is that NASA sent astronauts to the Moon and returned to Earth Them Safely - as reported by the space agency, as seen on TV and in the Apollo photos.
Your use of the word magic is quite funny, you don't see the base of his foot, you don't see his boot in contact with the 'dust' as he kick it, therefore something that eject the dust for him, as he just doing the movement with his leg, is possible and certainly not magic since it would just have to not be seen which is clearly possible here as they ar eon a slope and the foot is not visible as well as the ground around his left leg.
just curious, the earth rotates once every 24hrs. on axis, 365 day around sun, but what is the moons around earth? and would the gravity be stronger on the earth facing side vs the space side? facing away side. your vid just made me realize i never thought of that, moons orbit/rotation?? lol
@SPAGHETTIMONSTER1 The Moon takes roughly 28 days to orbit Earth. Not many people know that it is also otbiting the Sun together with the Earth. The gravity is elevated slightly in areas where there are "mascons". In general it is pretty much 1.62-1.63 metres per second squared wherever you are.
@Betamax101 , thanks for reply, after I ask (Duhhhh!) went and watched a few videos explaining, and yep was the gravity thing that got me wondering. thanks again!
So how come the lander kicked up NO dust or even created a suggestion of a crater? Look at all available footage, the legs are completely clean-no dust. The rover spreads dust everywhere. How is that possible? What we have here is complete bollocks.
@Chev4206 Ahh, you want to debate me do you? Every single landing video shows dust being kicked up. The dust is sent moving at considerable velocity and in a vacuum. Why in heavens name would it stop close to the lander? Apollo 16 has pictures of dust on the pads, kicked there by an astronaut.
Every piece of footage shows the dust returning quickly to the surface, no suspension caused by air.
What we have here is another ignorant HB who knows nothing except silly hoax films.
@Betamax101 Remove the rat shit from your eyes, open them as wide as you can and watch all the videos. The lander dissipates no dust and no dust is visible on it's legs. Perhaps you may be blind, I'm sorry I didn't know.
@Chev4206 I have seen the Apollo landings numerous times. In every one, dust is clearly seen being sent moving at speed. How old are you sonny? Science isn't your strong point is it?
Youtube is a breeding ground for stupidity, and you are excelling at it.
@Betamax101 I can see that you are a sore loser to block me for my assessment in the comment section?! Wow, the truth must really hurts... This moon HOAX is a debatable issue and if this comment section is only designed for you and your likes, then why even have a video if there is not a HOAX to debate about? Anyone with any sense on the subject gets blocked, declaring you a sore loser... Do you think NASA was completely honest about this, I MEAN REALLY?? Everything you see is true, RIGHT...??
@GUARDIANtrooper2 Blocked? You're not blocked! Everything I see about Apollo is right, yes. I noticed your channel page has issues about the shadows highlighted. That is entry level stupidity. I feel genuinely sorry at the state of education in our society, where ignorant people argue points when they have zero understanding of the issues. You haven't posted anything at all that warrants me to block you, or indeed anything that stands up to scrutiny. Now, debate this video. The gravity.
@GUARDIANtrooper2 One of the most idiotic spammers on youtube - cosmored - is a regular poster on my videos. He isn't blocked, so I can only assume it was a youtube glitch. It has happened to me a few times on channels I have never posted on before. I don't care whether you believe me, only people who post filth get blocked.
@GUARDIANtrooper2 I am a phycisist. If something looked odd to me, I would check it and verify it, regardless whether it contradicted my belief in the authenticity of Apollo. You may not understand that, and I suggest you adopt a more neutral policy, because you are hopelessly wrong about there being an Apollo hoax.
The people who make the films and books have a money making agenda. They have all been debunked to death.
@Betamax101 I have no doubts to whom you say you are, but you need not to be a professional ANYTHING to use pure judgment and common sense about anything, especially things that you do not understand. I was hoping I was wrong about Apollo, but there are way the hell too many inconsistencies that forceps an authentic precedent. Embellishment constitutes a HOAX. Where is the justification when the issue is so debatable? Why debate it if the facts are not unstable and inclusively challengeable?
@GUARDIANtrooper Please ask user un4g1v3n1, why he has blocked me. I just tried 5 times to post the same message on the video featured on your channel about stars.
I guess the truth must really hurt him eh? Or is it ok for him to block people? Your channel page suggest you hate people who block, so does he count?
@Betamax101 What is the question? And why would he block you, did you block him? Why did you block me, did I block you? Why do we even block on this highly debatable issue? I'm not saying it is impossible to go to the moon, I know we could with reasonable technology. We needed an outstanding relay. A vessel with enough fuel and don't give me that friction ride bullshit, you have too many fluctuating forcing to contend with (moon, earth and sun orbiter tracks) not to mention the Van Allen belts.
@GUARDIANtrooper2 The message I tried to pos - watch?v=N3lYQ8MJyvw - They are using an infrared camera.
The Apollo 16 mission had a surface based UV camera that captured stars - not possible on Earth. They match up with the exact positions of stars as viewed from stellarium software.
There are also many photographs that when the contrast is boosted show very faints stars, also matching up with stellarium.
@Betamax101 Look at the video on my channel at how NASA can manipulate people into believing that they can't record stars, it's bullshit on every level. They can build cameras and adjust them anyway they please in order to fool you for their agenda. Only a person with sense knows that these clowns are crooks as well. We get the ass end of technology, they have all the goodies and you know it. I'm in a photography class in my school dude and I showed my teacher your post, he laughed his ass off.
@GUARDIANtrooper2 But you CAN record stars. You just need the right camera, film sensitivity and exposure. Neither of which were used by Apollo.
I can believe you are still at school. As for your teacher laughing at my post.......bullshit.
Now, suppose you start talking about THIS VIDEO, as opposed to the moronic HB contention that stars show up on fast exposures at F8, or 29.5 fps moving pictures. Just what I love most, debating dumbass kids.
@Betamax101 I'm no stupid kid SIR, I'm a government school student, home free at the end of the month. I don't hate NASA, in fact, I'm going to Florida to watch the space shuttle launch next Friday, very excited! Yes, he thought your post was quit amusing but, especially the fact that you support this HOAX with your idiotic theories... You don't have to use my age as a loophole and to ridicule me, you blocked me for the same bullshit that you conjured up, and now who is the dumb-ass kid old man?
@Chev4206 Now, I guess you don't have enough education to comment on the actual video? It shows Lunar gravity, and when sped up to reflect Earth gravity, it shows Lunatic motion.
Things like this video are only proof, to people with sufficient intelligence to understand it. Most often it will fly above an HBs head.
First of all you people have to realize the nature of a hoax. It's all FAKE, do you even get that? They faked the whole thing. All these little tests are staged to try to prove they were on the moon. They were communication with one another, simple Hollywood magic. First you rehearse the scene to get it perfect. Get in the right spot and do it several times to get the best recording that looks realistic and sale it to a bunch of idiots. It is so clear to see these guys are on wires, what a joke!
@GUARDIANtrooper Listen cretin. The video proves it could not have been hoaxed. You can't magically make Earth gravity without the film looking way too fast. Got that??? On wires, invisible wires with natural lateral movement is impossible. Brainless HBs the world over. Physics doesn't lie. Unlike ignorant HBs.
@GUARDIANtrooper Then you just depressurize the huge soundstage to a near vacuum so that the kicked dust doesn't get suspended in the air and give it all away.
@FosterZygote This is a zoom from over a 100 metres away. You are missing the whole point like an uneducated fool. Even if you could build an area many square kilometres into a vacuum chamber, and light it evenly, with wire crews, film crew, sound crew all wearing space suits to stop them exploding though a lack of airpressure....even then.....the gravity says it was filmed in 1/6th of Earth! So without the magic gravity machine and the magic vast impossible vacuum - it's impossible.
@Betamax101 I kind of figured that the preposterous nature of building a giant soundstage that could be depressurized would give away the fact that I was poking fun at the hoax claim. Oh well, Poe's law.
@FosterZygote Apologies. I'm afraid irony is lost in such a short message:) Especially with so many people actually believing such a thing is actually feasible.
@FosterZygote First of all, this fine powder dust should've fell at a slower rate, according to Buzz's fine powder description. Take some baby powder and throw it into the air, that is somewhat how the dust should've descended on the moon, in lower gravity. This video actions look pretty normal, it's bullshit. And you don't need to pressurize a studio, all you have to do, like I said, project, launch, shoot, whatever you want to call it, sand or dust outward, timed with his foot motion, HOAX...
@GUARDIANtrooper2 Complete nonsense. The powder would atomise due to an atmosphere. Not once in over 100hrs of footage does dust ever suspend. Not once.
Magic dust machines now? What an idiot. Irrelevant, the dust moves at lunar gravity, to make it move like Earth gravity needs the motion sped up 245%. Get it? Somehow I doubt it.
@GUARDIANtrooper2 As for your point on the slower rate of fall for dust, that is exactly what my video demonstrates. The slower acceleration of Lunar gravity with physics to back it up. You may not have the intelligence to understand it, but it completely buries the film speeded up nonsense.
@Betamax101 How many times did you go to the moon to check your..., I mean, their theory? Tell you what, how about we hop into a rocket and got tomorrow and I will meet you there, ok? It's a HOAX, you have to look at both sides and understand why we are here debating. And as far as the film speed goes, did they not admit the video was slowed down a bit? You have to be an idiot not to see these guys dancing around on wires, it is so evident, way too funny. And why do you insist on insults?
@GUARDIANtrooper2 The video was not slowed down a bit and no such admission was made. When you contend the guys were "dancing around" on invisible wires, sometimes many hundreds of yards away, after the camera has tracked them moving that far, I THEN analise dust and objects and find the same consistency of motion.
If you wish to debate this subject properly, send me a pm with an email address(set up a temp one if you wish). Youtube is a useless place to do this.
@Betamax101 If anything is debatable I have to be skeptic about it. But this whole ordeal has just too many inconsistencies to dismiss on any level of the debate. Check out this site called Soviet Moon Images, these pictures are untouched. You could clearly see stars very visible in those pictures that you and others said couldn't not be taken, because of photo resolution. My teacher told me about this site and said you should check it out. I'll PM you the site, can't put it here...
@GUARDIANtrooper2 I have seen all these pictures. They are marks on the lens - probably dust. They are present on the surface as well, and they occur in successive photoghraphs - the "stars" are never in the same place. Really it is just not possible. The stars are several orders of magnitude lower in illumination than the Moon.
@GUARDIANtrooper2 "This video actions look pretty normal, it's bullshit."
Argument by incredulity. The video is running at normal speed and reflects Lunar gravity.
watch?v=U29xEXsVXug shows the same eva clip, with the dust now rising as Earth freefall speeds. It looks ridiculous. Maybe the penny will drop into the vacuous hole that is your HB brain, but based on experience of the mentality of moon hoaxheads, I seriously doubt it.
@Betamax101 I don't see low gravity, I see manipulation on many levels. The dust looks like it was launched out of some kind of projecting apparatus, timed by the guys foot on cue. It's not impressive to a person that doesn't believe it. Buzz said the dust was like fine powder, I would think it should land more slowly if the astronauts are bouncing around in slow motion, it just looks fake. And why do you continue to insult me, I don't insult unless provoked. I need no shields, I'm a debater.
@GUARDIANtrooper2 " I don't see low gravity". I am a phycisist and I see nothing but low gravity. The dust DOES land more slowly, that is the point you can't seem to get. This is impossible to fake. You simply cannot fake gravity. There are no inconsistencies, I have seen every one of them, they are made by people like you who think stars should be visible on film and video. You keep avoiding answering the point made in the video.To make the dust fall Earth gravity, makes astronauts too fast.
@NASAvsPETE It goes to show that modern films are still woefully short. CGI is the answer. Wire supports don't control natural inertial tendencies to resist change in motion of the human body. The simulator NASA used had all sorts of lateral motion suppressors. It can't be done with vertical supports alone.
Good questions btw. Thanks for your input, and glad you saw the light.
@NASAvsPETE Indeed I have. watch?v=3H8bnKdf654 The first few seconds shows the CSM travelling to the Moon without the Lunar Module! Their Moon motion isn't even close to looking realistic. They also show light trails from the torch indicating suspended dust.
It could be done with CGI probably, but they've just used a few vertical wires and it shows. Their traction on the surface and inertial motion is indicative of Earth gravity.
@NASAvsPETE 245% faster than what? I don't follow you. It doesn't matter what frame rate you use, if you film something that represents Earth freefall it must be slowed down 41% to equate to Lunar freefall. Then 245% to put it back.
With old 20s film, the problem lies with frame rates. As an example, if you showed a keystone kops piece with something falling, it would fall too fast because the film is running too fast. So first you would need to make it equate to Earth freefall.
@NASAvsPETE Here's the problem. If you take Earth footage, you need to slow it down to 41% to mimic Lunar freefall speeds. Now when we view Lunar freefall speeds, to mimic Earth freefall speeds we need to speed it up 245%. I could show you the physics equation to prove that.
Now, by demonstrating that dust and inanimate items are following Lunar freefall, when we speed the film up 150% or 200% as per HB ignorance, they do not match Earth freefall. Only 245% does this, hence ludicrous motion.
@Betamax101 Best demonstration i have seen so far , I too noticed other videos which the dust/dirt was moving consistently with "moon" gravity whether its sped up or not, i'm just glad someone did the actual math , nice post it should wake up the trolls and conspiracy theorists, lol .
@Simboiss What relevance is that? You think with a gentle (as can be seen from the film!) sideways flick of a foot, it is feasible to fling dirt that distance in 7+ metres in one second. To do that on Earth, you have to put much more effort than that.
But, don't let obvious physical limitations get in your way!
Now try answering the conclusion of the video? The fall matches gravity on the Moon, speeding it up to match Earth looks ridiculous. Discuss,
@Betamax101 What I mean is, 25 km/h is not an incredible speed when it's about sand particles. You can probably throw a ball several times faster than that. And remember that it is discussed assuming the video was not tampered with.
But yes, it's still quite convincing all around. But is it enough? How many debunkings are needed to win? And I'm refering to both sides, here.
@Simboiss It is daft to talk in kilometres for short distance objects. 7 metres in one second is very fast.
As for debunking, there are quite a few of these on youtube and they firmly lay to rest a most considerable kingpin of the hoax theory. Simulated Lunar motion, without it, HBs can no longer explain many hours of footage and adequately explain how it could possibly be hoaxed.
Nothing I have seen from any HB holds water. Most HBs will never concede, no matter what is presented to them.
@cosmored Is this spam day? That is two links removed today, same Chinese spacewalk diversionary videos. Answer THIS video, it ruins your case for a hoax somewhat!
@Cosmored You insist on posting off topic diversionary videos and continue to avoid facing up to clear 100% proof that your speeded up theory is busted. Links deleted for about the 40th time across my videos.
I'm gonna refer to a previous response I gave you on another video. Topics. The topic of this video is not Chinese Space walks and I don't know what paper and bubbles have to do with this video. Is it really that hard to stay on topic? If it were my video, I'd remove every single comment that was off topic. I think Betamax is being extremely patient with you.
Despite this question being off topic, I'd like to know, do you have ADHD? I'm serious btw.
@Cosmored Post? You means POSTS (plural). Address the content of the video. THAT is how truth seekers behave. You have been shown the clips of Apollo 11 and times, you have been shown the dust analysis with verified sped up film. I see no apology to blisterhiker, I see no dawning in your mind that your theory is completely untenable. Doesn'f appear that you are a truth seeker, more an internet troll who has no intention of seeing any reason.
@Cosmored That is the same comment now deleted 3 times and overall about a dozen from my other videos. I sense desparation to get blocked here. China would not need to fake a spacewalk, their main rocket made LEO with no trouble, and space walking is a very simple business. CGI would be much easier to do and virtually undetectable if they were going to do it.
@NASAvsPETE Yes, this secret area you know so much about, with no proof whatsoever and the entirely irrelevant and physically impossible vacuum chamber. This is called changing the subject. It is also another subject you appear to have no idea about. A vaccum does not affect gravity.
The dust motion equating to Lunar gravity? Does Area 51 have an anti gravity device too?!!
@NASAvsPETE Flags blowing in the wind? you need to get out more. I despair for the education system. If there is enough "wind" to move a flag, it moves the surface dust. The motion is only whilst they are putting the flag up. Then it stops. Odd that. It is inertial motion, and exaggerated as expected in a vacuum.
I suspect that short explanation has just gone in one ear and out the other, you don't strike me as somebody with great powers of discernment.
@NASAvsPETE You haven't actually watched this or the EVA it belongs to. This is a hundred metre zoom in from the Lunar rover, I have to laugh at you idiotic hoax people shifting the goalposts so you can maintain your ludicrous belief.
I would also point out that a vacuum makes NO DIFFERENCE to gravity, but I'm sure you knew that didn't you!
YOU can't explain this, and your impossible acre big vacuum chamber doesn't explain it either.
@NASAvsPETE So am I. To slow an Earth video down 56.7% to reflect these videos gives a gravity of 3.16metres per second per second as above. To then make the Lunar film back to (supposedly) how it was, requires a 1.76 speed up, or 176%.
@NASAvsPETE Wow, how random a figure is that! 176% Theory!!
Using the 4.9m in 1 second on Earth easy figure, for 1.76 seconds, gravity as seen in the Moon videos would need to be 3.16metres per second ^2. In 1.24 seconds a body would then fall(or rise to apex) 2.42 metres. Does that dust look like it goes up that high to you?
Nice try, but plucking figures out of thin air never did it for me, I always liked physics, mathematics and observational analysis to check things. You should try it.
@Cosmored It is not confirmed at all. In fact it is the opposite.Blisterhiker's clip was perfectly correct, and you are once again being a very dishonest jerk. You keep saying you don't know how to do any of this, yet continue to make rash statements, unsupported and completely false.
In the description section of this video, I have put a link to the full clip, a separate 245% clip, both times show that the film has been sped up correctly.
"It is not confirmed at all. In fact it is the opposite.Blisterhiker's clip was perfectly correct"
Whether BlisterHiker's clip was correct remains to be shown. How do you explain the fact that, when the Apollo 11 footage was shown at what was said to be double speed in "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" at around the 30:00 mark, the movements look like perfectly normal earth movements?
@Cosmored Very good, cherry picking little segments of motion that look normal. He was doing a Lunar motion test as part of the EVA instruction. He was only just starting and moving very gently. During the clip shown, he also had minimal arm movement, but it still doesn't look totally normal. Not to anybody without a blindfold on. As for the clips, I will download them both and reload them separately. After which you owe all involved an apology, but I shan't hold my breath!
@Cosmored, "looks like" is not going to get us anywhere. Subjective judgements are always subject to doubt. All Apollo footage needs to be taken into consideration. When Percy and others take this into consideration, they believe wires also had to be used. How else could they explain Apollo astronauts bounding 8 feet horizontally with barely a flick of their ankle? What Betamax101 has demonstrated is that lunar soil ALSO does what they astronauts do--BUT WITHOUT WIRES. HOW?
There's a mountain of evidence that the moon missions were faked (there's a link to some if in on my channel page) so this issue isn't about whether they faked it. It's about figuring out what the flaw is in Betamax's argument. I've seen sand kicked that far on the beach. I think a strong guy could kick sand at 21 feet per second. This it's plausible that this is 41% slow-motion.
The part at which the astronauts are moving unrealistically fast may be at more than X 2.45 speed to make it look that fast. I've never been able to figure out how to change the speed on YouTube videos; this issue is up in the air until an objective person can check the speed.
There's a mountain of evidence that the moon missions were faked (I posted a link to some of it in the comment section of my channel page). I'll take a look at the two videos and get back to you but this issue isn't about whether they faked it. That it was faked has already been proven by the other evidence.
@Cosmored It has not been proven. Only people in denial with no cognitive ability are taken in by such flimsy contentions. You fail to realise that for the dust to travel 21 feet, it needs to travel at 7.22m per second, as per the speeded up film. The one that looks too fast even for your narrow minded perception.
I checked the times. 201 seconds X .41 = 82.4. 83 X 2.45 = 203.3. That's pretty close. Evidently the footage was sped up X 2.45.
Evidently this isn't the answer. Maybe it's in the measurements. I'll keep trying to figure it out. Anyway, there is a mountain of other evience that they faked the moon missions so this issue isn't about whether they faked them. I have to congratulate you. This is a good piece of obfuscation. Someone will eventually figure it out though.
@Cosmored Obfuscation? You oaf of a person. Never mind Occam's Razor, Cosmored's Razor says "it can't be correct because my unsubstantiated opinion says it isn't"!
A larger section of Buzz Aldrin's motion testing
watch?v=p5TjytoCC8o - normal watch?v=JZWqz-NN9zg - doubled
and Blisterhiker's clip
/watch?v=njdQ0Y1Yyo8 - normal watch?v=Z1HvJ0WXkuo - doubled
@Cosmored When are you going to answer this? Seems to have you a bit confused. The video demonstrates that Lunar motion is consistent, and your speeded up theory is busted to crap.
There is already a confirmed case of a pro-Apollo person speeding up footage to more than he says it is sped up in order to take people in. Google "Spurstalk". In the "The Club" section there's a moon-hoax thread. On page 85 in post #2193 there's an analysis of this.
@Cosmored "There is already a confirmed case of a pro-Apollo person speeding up footage to more than he says it is sped up in order to take people in."
You are a lying S.O.B. The Apollo 11 footage is exactly as depicted on one of my video uploads. It blows your bullshit 200% theory down the crapper too.
Your "crushing evidence" has been fully debunked, you just don't have the intelligence, logic or ability to admit it. Total and full denial.
@Astrobrant2 245% Square root of 9.8m s^2 divided by 1.63m s^2. It is the gravity equation expanded with algebra to show the difference in relative ballistic motion of the Earth and Moon.
Right. I couldn't remember whether it was you or someone else who was just doubling the speed.
Good video. I would think that at either speed any hoax nut would look at that and have to wonder, "What the hell IS that stuff?" Because nothing on earth would behave like that.
There was another video clip showing Dave Scott (I think) kicking dust sideways a distance of about ten feet.
This has been flagged as spam show
If you're still Not convinced, try typing These Words on GOOGLE! (... Go and read up on the first site on the list That Gives You GOOGLE!) ...... THE MOON LANDING HOAX ....
HOW TO WIN IN A COURT OF LAW ... WITHOUT A LAWYER!
LEARN HOW TO KEEP YOUR PRIVACY
(... Read here too!) ...... APOLLO Research
Accepted the view, held by the Majority, named Is that NASA sent astronauts to the Moon and returned to Earth Them Safely - as reported by the space agency, as seen on TV and in the Apollo photos.
ettoremazza7 1 week ago
You know what would have been perfect for the sped up part?
Yakety Sax..
loperspest 3 months ago
@Betamax101
Your use of the word magic is quite funny, you don't see the base of his foot, you don't see his boot in contact with the 'dust' as he kick it, therefore something that eject the dust for him, as he just doing the movement with his leg, is possible and certainly not magic since it would just have to not be seen which is clearly possible here as they ar eon a slope and the foot is not visible as well as the ground around his left leg.
AstroClownBuster 7 months ago
This is excellent, thank you for this analysis. People who believe the moon landings were a hoax have S-4-B.
mrdrumsauce 7 months ago
just curious, the earth rotates once every 24hrs. on axis, 365 day around sun, but what is the moons around earth? and would the gravity be stronger on the earth facing side vs the space side? facing away side. your vid just made me realize i never thought of that, moons orbit/rotation?? lol
SPAGHETTIMONSTER1 8 months ago
@SPAGHETTIMONSTER1 The Moon takes roughly 28 days to orbit Earth. Not many people know that it is also otbiting the Sun together with the Earth. The gravity is elevated slightly in areas where there are "mascons". In general it is pretty much 1.62-1.63 metres per second squared wherever you are.
Betamax101 8 months ago
@Betamax101 , thanks for reply, after I ask (Duhhhh!) went and watched a few videos explaining, and yep was the gravity thing that got me wondering. thanks again!
SPAGHETTIMONSTER1 8 months ago
So how come the lander kicked up NO dust or even created a suggestion of a crater? Look at all available footage, the legs are completely clean-no dust. The rover spreads dust everywhere. How is that possible? What we have here is complete bollocks.
Chev4206 8 months ago
@Chev4206 Ahh, you want to debate me do you? Every single landing video shows dust being kicked up. The dust is sent moving at considerable velocity and in a vacuum. Why in heavens name would it stop close to the lander? Apollo 16 has pictures of dust on the pads, kicked there by an astronaut.
Every piece of footage shows the dust returning quickly to the surface, no suspension caused by air.
What we have here is another ignorant HB who knows nothing except silly hoax films.
Betamax101 8 months ago
@Betamax101 Remove the rat shit from your eyes, open them as wide as you can and watch all the videos. The lander dissipates no dust and no dust is visible on it's legs. Perhaps you may be blind, I'm sorry I didn't know.
Chev4206 8 months ago
@Chev4206 I have seen the Apollo landings numerous times. In every one, dust is clearly seen being sent moving at speed. How old are you sonny? Science isn't your strong point is it?
Youtube is a breeding ground for stupidity, and you are excelling at it.
watch?v=2BvbD-1qZtc
Betamax101 8 months ago
@Betamax101 I can see that you are a sore loser to block me for my assessment in the comment section?! Wow, the truth must really hurts... This moon HOAX is a debatable issue and if this comment section is only designed for you and your likes, then why even have a video if there is not a HOAX to debate about? Anyone with any sense on the subject gets blocked, declaring you a sore loser... Do you think NASA was completely honest about this, I MEAN REALLY?? Everything you see is true, RIGHT...??
GUARDIANtrooper2 8 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper2 Blocked? You're not blocked! Everything I see about Apollo is right, yes. I noticed your channel page has issues about the shadows highlighted. That is entry level stupidity. I feel genuinely sorry at the state of education in our society, where ignorant people argue points when they have zero understanding of the issues. You haven't posted anything at all that warrants me to block you, or indeed anything that stands up to scrutiny. Now, debate this video. The gravity.
Betamax101 8 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper2 One of the most idiotic spammers on youtube - cosmored - is a regular poster on my videos. He isn't blocked, so I can only assume it was a youtube glitch. It has happened to me a few times on channels I have never posted on before. I don't care whether you believe me, only people who post filth get blocked.
Betamax101 8 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper2 I am a phycisist. If something looked odd to me, I would check it and verify it, regardless whether it contradicted my belief in the authenticity of Apollo. You may not understand that, and I suggest you adopt a more neutral policy, because you are hopelessly wrong about there being an Apollo hoax.
The people who make the films and books have a money making agenda. They have all been debunked to death.
Betamax101 8 months ago
@Betamax101 I have no doubts to whom you say you are, but you need not to be a professional ANYTHING to use pure judgment and common sense about anything, especially things that you do not understand. I was hoping I was wrong about Apollo, but there are way the hell too many inconsistencies that forceps an authentic precedent. Embellishment constitutes a HOAX. Where is the justification when the issue is so debatable? Why debate it if the facts are not unstable and inclusively challengeable?
GUARDIANtrooper2 8 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper2 I give everything scientific scrutiny. Apart from stars, name me one consistency you think is completely solid.
watch?v=2OnZwqc-96Y
Please don't come back with C-rocks/ missing coke bottles or odd shadows - it demonstrates a complete non understanding and a lack of research.
I apologise for the insult, and I really didn't block you, the idiot cosmored is not blocked, so do the math.
Betamax101 8 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper Please ask user un4g1v3n1, why he has blocked me. I just tried 5 times to post the same message on the video featured on your channel about stars.
I guess the truth must really hurt him eh? Or is it ok for him to block people? Your channel page suggest you hate people who block, so does he count?
Betamax101 8 months ago
@Betamax101 What is the question? And why would he block you, did you block him? Why did you block me, did I block you? Why do we even block on this highly debatable issue? I'm not saying it is impossible to go to the moon, I know we could with reasonable technology. We needed an outstanding relay. A vessel with enough fuel and don't give me that friction ride bullshit, you have too many fluctuating forcing to contend with (moon, earth and sun orbiter tracks) not to mention the Van Allen belts.
GUARDIANtrooper2 8 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper2 I have not blocked him, he has blocked me. I left the comment on your channel, the ID without the 2.
Friction ride? Huh? A vacuum has no friction. They went around the outer edge of the belts.
Radio waves carried on S-band - proven as reliable and used today.
Fuel? Do you know how rockets travel in space? They fired once and followed a wide Earth orbit to the Moon.
Newtonian physics/ orbital mechanics to calculate trajectory
watch?v=YuH4rxda3Z4 for TLI around the belts.
Betamax101 8 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper2 The message I tried to pos - watch?v=N3lYQ8MJyvw - They are using an infrared camera.
The Apollo 16 mission had a surface based UV camera that captured stars - not possible on Earth. They match up with the exact positions of stars as viewed from stellarium software.
There are also many photographs that when the contrast is boosted show very faints stars, also matching up with stellarium.
watch?v=76gn3Z2CCU4
watch?v=-wdiQ8IvO68
Stars is entry level HB ignorance.
Betamax101 8 months ago
@Betamax101 Look at the video on my channel at how NASA can manipulate people into believing that they can't record stars, it's bullshit on every level. They can build cameras and adjust them anyway they please in order to fool you for their agenda. Only a person with sense knows that these clowns are crooks as well. We get the ass end of technology, they have all the goodies and you know it. I'm in a photography class in my school dude and I showed my teacher your post, he laughed his ass off.
GUARDIANtrooper2 8 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper2 But you CAN record stars. You just need the right camera, film sensitivity and exposure. Neither of which were used by Apollo.
I can believe you are still at school. As for your teacher laughing at my post.......bullshit.
Now, suppose you start talking about THIS VIDEO, as opposed to the moronic HB contention that stars show up on fast exposures at F8, or 29.5 fps moving pictures. Just what I love most, debating dumbass kids.
Betamax101 8 months ago
@Betamax101 I'm no stupid kid SIR, I'm a government school student, home free at the end of the month. I don't hate NASA, in fact, I'm going to Florida to watch the space shuttle launch next Friday, very excited! Yes, he thought your post was quit amusing but, especially the fact that you support this HOAX with your idiotic theories... You don't have to use my age as a loophole and to ridicule me, you blocked me for the same bullshit that you conjured up, and now who is the dumb-ass kid old man?
GUARDIANtrooper2 8 months ago
@Chev4206 Now, I guess you don't have enough education to comment on the actual video? It shows Lunar gravity, and when sped up to reflect Earth gravity, it shows Lunatic motion.
Things like this video are only proof, to people with sufficient intelligence to understand it. Most often it will fly above an HBs head.
Betamax101 8 months ago
@Chev4206 watch?v=lZIY2wY93hI
Betamax101 8 months ago
First of all you people have to realize the nature of a hoax. It's all FAKE, do you even get that? They faked the whole thing. All these little tests are staged to try to prove they were on the moon. They were communication with one another, simple Hollywood magic. First you rehearse the scene to get it perfect. Get in the right spot and do it several times to get the best recording that looks realistic and sale it to a bunch of idiots. It is so clear to see these guys are on wires, what a joke!
GUARDIANtrooper 9 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper Listen cretin. The video proves it could not have been hoaxed. You can't magically make Earth gravity without the film looking way too fast. Got that??? On wires, invisible wires with natural lateral movement is impossible. Brainless HBs the world over. Physics doesn't lie. Unlike ignorant HBs.
Betamax101 9 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper Then you just depressurize the huge soundstage to a near vacuum so that the kicked dust doesn't get suspended in the air and give it all away.
FosterZygote 8 months ago
@FosterZygote This is a zoom from over a 100 metres away. You are missing the whole point like an uneducated fool. Even if you could build an area many square kilometres into a vacuum chamber, and light it evenly, with wire crews, film crew, sound crew all wearing space suits to stop them exploding though a lack of airpressure....even then.....the gravity says it was filmed in 1/6th of Earth! So without the magic gravity machine and the magic vast impossible vacuum - it's impossible.
Betamax101 8 months ago
@Betamax101 I kind of figured that the preposterous nature of building a giant soundstage that could be depressurized would give away the fact that I was poking fun at the hoax claim. Oh well, Poe's law.
FosterZygote 8 months ago
@FosterZygote Apologies. I'm afraid irony is lost in such a short message:) Especially with so many people actually believing such a thing is actually feasible.
Betamax101 8 months ago
@Betamax101 No problem. I'd be lying if I said that I'd never made the same mistake.
FosterZygote 8 months ago
@FosterZygote First of all, this fine powder dust should've fell at a slower rate, according to Buzz's fine powder description. Take some baby powder and throw it into the air, that is somewhat how the dust should've descended on the moon, in lower gravity. This video actions look pretty normal, it's bullshit. And you don't need to pressurize a studio, all you have to do, like I said, project, launch, shoot, whatever you want to call it, sand or dust outward, timed with his foot motion, HOAX...
GUARDIANtrooper2 8 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper2 Complete nonsense. The powder would atomise due to an atmosphere. Not once in over 100hrs of footage does dust ever suspend. Not once.
Magic dust machines now? What an idiot. Irrelevant, the dust moves at lunar gravity, to make it move like Earth gravity needs the motion sped up 245%. Get it? Somehow I doubt it.
Betamax101 8 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper2 As for your point on the slower rate of fall for dust, that is exactly what my video demonstrates. The slower acceleration of Lunar gravity with physics to back it up. You may not have the intelligence to understand it, but it completely buries the film speeded up nonsense.
Betamax101 8 months ago
@Betamax101 How many times did you go to the moon to check your..., I mean, their theory? Tell you what, how about we hop into a rocket and got tomorrow and I will meet you there, ok? It's a HOAX, you have to look at both sides and understand why we are here debating. And as far as the film speed goes, did they not admit the video was slowed down a bit? You have to be an idiot not to see these guys dancing around on wires, it is so evident, way too funny. And why do you insist on insults?
GUARDIANtrooper2 8 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper2 The video was not slowed down a bit and no such admission was made. When you contend the guys were "dancing around" on invisible wires, sometimes many hundreds of yards away, after the camera has tracked them moving that far, I THEN analise dust and objects and find the same consistency of motion.
If you wish to debate this subject properly, send me a pm with an email address(set up a temp one if you wish). Youtube is a useless place to do this.
I have seen both sides.
Betamax101 8 months ago
@Betamax101 If anything is debatable I have to be skeptic about it. But this whole ordeal has just too many inconsistencies to dismiss on any level of the debate. Check out this site called Soviet Moon Images, these pictures are untouched. You could clearly see stars very visible in those pictures that you and others said couldn't not be taken, because of photo resolution. My teacher told me about this site and said you should check it out. I'll PM you the site, can't put it here...
GUARDIANtrooper2 8 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper2 I have seen all these pictures. They are marks on the lens - probably dust. They are present on the surface as well, and they occur in successive photoghraphs - the "stars" are never in the same place. Really it is just not possible. The stars are several orders of magnitude lower in illumination than the Moon.
Betamax101 8 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper2 "This video actions look pretty normal, it's bullshit."
Argument by incredulity. The video is running at normal speed and reflects Lunar gravity.
watch?v=U29xEXsVXug shows the same eva clip, with the dust now rising as Earth freefall speeds. It looks ridiculous. Maybe the penny will drop into the vacuous hole that is your HB brain, but based on experience of the mentality of moon hoaxheads, I seriously doubt it.
Betamax101 8 months ago
@Betamax101 I don't see low gravity, I see manipulation on many levels. The dust looks like it was launched out of some kind of projecting apparatus, timed by the guys foot on cue. It's not impressive to a person that doesn't believe it. Buzz said the dust was like fine powder, I would think it should land more slowly if the astronauts are bouncing around in slow motion, it just looks fake. And why do you continue to insult me, I don't insult unless provoked. I need no shields, I'm a debater.
GUARDIANtrooper2 8 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper2 " I don't see low gravity". I am a phycisist and I see nothing but low gravity. The dust DOES land more slowly, that is the point you can't seem to get. This is impossible to fake. You simply cannot fake gravity. There are no inconsistencies, I have seen every one of them, they are made by people like you who think stars should be visible on film and video. You keep avoiding answering the point made in the video.To make the dust fall Earth gravity, makes astronauts too fast.
Betamax101 8 months ago
@NASAvsPETE It goes to show that modern films are still woefully short. CGI is the answer. Wire supports don't control natural inertial tendencies to resist change in motion of the human body. The simulator NASA used had all sorts of lateral motion suppressors. It can't be done with vertical supports alone.
Good questions btw. Thanks for your input, and glad you saw the light.
Betamax101 9 months ago
@NASAvsPETE Indeed I have. watch?v=3H8bnKdf654 The first few seconds shows the CSM travelling to the Moon without the Lunar Module! Their Moon motion isn't even close to looking realistic. They also show light trails from the torch indicating suspended dust.
It could be done with CGI probably, but they've just used a few vertical wires and it shows. Their traction on the surface and inertial motion is indicative of Earth gravity.
Betamax101 9 months ago
@NASAvsPETE 245% faster than what? I don't follow you. It doesn't matter what frame rate you use, if you film something that represents Earth freefall it must be slowed down 41% to equate to Lunar freefall. Then 245% to put it back.
With old 20s film, the problem lies with frame rates. As an example, if you showed a keystone kops piece with something falling, it would fall too fast because the film is running too fast. So first you would need to make it equate to Earth freefall.
Betamax101 9 months ago
@NASAvsPETE Here's the problem. If you take Earth footage, you need to slow it down to 41% to mimic Lunar freefall speeds. Now when we view Lunar freefall speeds, to mimic Earth freefall speeds we need to speed it up 245%. I could show you the physics equation to prove that.
Now, by demonstrating that dust and inanimate items are following Lunar freefall, when we speed the film up 150% or 200% as per HB ignorance, they do not match Earth freefall. Only 245% does this, hence ludicrous motion.
Betamax101 9 months ago
@Betamax101 Best demonstration i have seen so far , I too noticed other videos which the dust/dirt was moving consistently with "moon" gravity whether its sped up or not, i'm just glad someone did the actual math , nice post it should wake up the trolls and conspiracy theorists, lol .
HelliPilot 10 months ago
@HelliPilot Thank you. They do what they always do, ignore it.
Betamax101 10 months ago
You don't need special conditions to kick sand that way.
Simboiss 1 year ago
@Simboiss Is that it? You watch a film that demonstrates the film could not be filmed on Earth and slowed down because of the physics??
You need superman powers to kick dirt sideways with a gentle flick of the foot at 7+ metres per second on Earth.
Betamax101 1 year ago
@Betamax101 7m/s = 25 km/h
Simboiss 1 year ago
@Simboiss What relevance is that? You think with a gentle (as can be seen from the film!) sideways flick of a foot, it is feasible to fling dirt that distance in 7+ metres in one second. To do that on Earth, you have to put much more effort than that.
But, don't let obvious physical limitations get in your way!
Now try answering the conclusion of the video? The fall matches gravity on the Moon, speeding it up to match Earth looks ridiculous. Discuss,
Betamax101 1 year ago
@Betamax101 What I mean is, 25 km/h is not an incredible speed when it's about sand particles. You can probably throw a ball several times faster than that. And remember that it is discussed assuming the video was not tampered with.
But yes, it's still quite convincing all around. But is it enough? How many debunkings are needed to win? And I'm refering to both sides, here.
Simboiss 1 year ago
@Simboiss It is daft to talk in kilometres for short distance objects. 7 metres in one second is very fast.
As for debunking, there are quite a few of these on youtube and they firmly lay to rest a most considerable kingpin of the hoax theory. Simulated Lunar motion, without it, HBs can no longer explain many hours of footage and adequately explain how it could possibly be hoaxed.
Nothing I have seen from any HB holds water. Most HBs will never concede, no matter what is presented to them.
Betamax101 1 year ago
@cosmored Is this spam day? That is two links removed today, same Chinese spacewalk diversionary videos. Answer THIS video, it ruins your case for a hoax somewhat!
Betamax101 1 year ago
Well done again.
Isn't that pitiful how some people choose to shut their eyes and plug their ears to facts, and cling to delusional faith on hoax?
I kindly suggest ignoring those trolls. They have no intention of learning and accepting anything that contradicts their fanatical views.
BlisterHiker 1 year ago
@Cosmored You insist on posting off topic diversionary videos and continue to avoid facing up to clear 100% proof that your speeded up theory is busted. Links deleted for about the 40th time across my videos.
Betamax101 1 year ago
@Cosmored
I'm gonna refer to a previous response I gave you on another video. Topics. The topic of this video is not Chinese Space walks and I don't know what paper and bubbles have to do with this video. Is it really that hard to stay on topic? If it were my video, I'd remove every single comment that was off topic. I think Betamax is being extremely patient with you.
Despite this question being off topic, I'd like to know, do you have ADHD? I'm serious btw.
stbays 1 year ago
Hey Betamax. What's the idea of deleting my post? This is not the way truth-seekers behave.
Cosmored 1 year ago
@Cosmored Post? You means POSTS (plural). Address the content of the video. THAT is how truth seekers behave. You have been shown the clips of Apollo 11 and times, you have been shown the dust analysis with verified sped up film. I see no apology to blisterhiker, I see no dawning in your mind that your theory is completely untenable. Doesn'f appear that you are a truth seeker, more an internet troll who has no intention of seeing any reason.
Betamax101 1 year ago
@Cosmored watch?v=52dNmDFvxew
Betamax101 1 year ago
@Cosmored That is the same comment now deleted 3 times and overall about a dozen from my other videos. I sense desparation to get blocked here. China would not need to fake a spacewalk, their main rocket made LEO with no trouble, and space walking is a very simple business. CGI would be much easier to do and virtually undetectable if they were going to do it.
Betamax101 1 year ago
@NASAvsPETE Yes, this secret area you know so much about, with no proof whatsoever and the entirely irrelevant and physically impossible vacuum chamber. This is called changing the subject. It is also another subject you appear to have no idea about. A vaccum does not affect gravity.
The dust motion equating to Lunar gravity? Does Area 51 have an anti gravity device too?!!
Betamax101 1 year ago
@NASAvsPETE Flags blowing in the wind? you need to get out more. I despair for the education system. If there is enough "wind" to move a flag, it moves the surface dust. The motion is only whilst they are putting the flag up. Then it stops. Odd that. It is inertial motion, and exaggerated as expected in a vacuum.
I suspect that short explanation has just gone in one ear and out the other, you don't strike me as somebody with great powers of discernment.
Betamax101 1 year ago
@NASAvsPETE You haven't actually watched this or the EVA it belongs to. This is a hundred metre zoom in from the Lunar rover, I have to laugh at you idiotic hoax people shifting the goalposts so you can maintain your ludicrous belief.
I would also point out that a vacuum makes NO DIFFERENCE to gravity, but I'm sure you knew that didn't you!
YOU can't explain this, and your impossible acre big vacuum chamber doesn't explain it either.
Betamax101 1 year ago
@NASAvsPETE So am I. To slow an Earth video down 56.7% to reflect these videos gives a gravity of 3.16metres per second per second as above. To then make the Lunar film back to (supposedly) how it was, requires a 1.76 speed up, or 176%.
Perhaps you haven't thought it through enough.
Betamax101 1 year ago
@NASAvsPETE Wow, how random a figure is that! 176% Theory!!
Using the 4.9m in 1 second on Earth easy figure, for 1.76 seconds, gravity as seen in the Moon videos would need to be 3.16metres per second ^2. In 1.24 seconds a body would then fall(or rise to apex) 2.42 metres. Does that dust look like it goes up that high to you?
Nice try, but plucking figures out of thin air never did it for me, I always liked physics, mathematics and observational analysis to check things. You should try it.
Betamax101 1 year ago
@Cosmored It is not confirmed at all. In fact it is the opposite.Blisterhiker's clip was perfectly correct, and you are once again being a very dishonest jerk. You keep saying you don't know how to do any of this, yet continue to make rash statements, unsupported and completely false.
In the description section of this video, I have put a link to the full clip, a separate 245% clip, both times show that the film has been sped up correctly.
Betamax101 1 year ago
@Betamax101
"It is not confirmed at all. In fact it is the opposite.Blisterhiker's clip was perfectly correct"
Whether BlisterHiker's clip was correct remains to be shown. How do you explain the fact that, when the Apollo 11 footage was shown at what was said to be double speed in "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" at around the 30:00 mark, the movements look like perfectly normal earth movements?
Cosmored 1 year ago
@Cosmored Very good, cherry picking little segments of motion that look normal. He was doing a Lunar motion test as part of the EVA instruction. He was only just starting and moving very gently. During the clip shown, he also had minimal arm movement, but it still doesn't look totally normal. Not to anybody without a blindfold on. As for the clips, I will download them both and reload them separately. After which you owe all involved an apology, but I shan't hold my breath!
Betamax101 1 year ago
@Cosmored, "looks like" is not going to get us anywhere. Subjective judgements are always subject to doubt. All Apollo footage needs to be taken into consideration. When Percy and others take this into consideration, they believe wires also had to be used. How else could they explain Apollo astronauts bounding 8 feet horizontally with barely a flick of their ankle? What Betamax101 has demonstrated is that lunar soil ALSO does what they astronauts do--BUT WITHOUT WIRES. HOW?
LunarTuner 1 year ago
There's a mountain of evidence that the moon missions were faked (there's a link to some if in on my channel page) so this issue isn't about whether they faked it. It's about figuring out what the flaw is in Betamax's argument. I've seen sand kicked that far on the beach. I think a strong guy could kick sand at 21 feet per second. This it's plausible that this is 41% slow-motion.
continued...
Cosmored 1 year ago
...continued
The part at which the astronauts are moving unrealistically fast may be at more than X 2.45 speed to make it look that fast. I've never been able to figure out how to change the speed on YouTube videos; this issue is up in the air until an objective person can check the speed.
continued...
Cosmored 1 year ago
@Cosmored Apollo 16 EVA 3 Station 10 - duration 3mins 21.6seconds
watch?v=kibAjb6qjtQ
Apollo 16 EVA 3 Station 10 - 245% faster - duration 1min 22.24seconds
watch?v=U29xEXsVXug
The trouble with calling somebody a liar, when you are a dishonest person, is that everybody can see that.
Betamax101 1 year ago
@Betamax101
There's a mountain of evidence that the moon missions were faked (I posted a link to some of it in the comment section of my channel page). I'll take a look at the two videos and get back to you but this issue isn't about whether they faked it. That it was faked has already been proven by the other evidence.
Cosmored 1 year ago
@Cosmored It has not been proven. Only people in denial with no cognitive ability are taken in by such flimsy contentions. You fail to realise that for the dust to travel 21 feet, it needs to travel at 7.22m per second, as per the speeded up film. The one that looks too fast even for your narrow minded perception.
Betamax101 1 year ago
I checked the times. 201 seconds X .41 = 82.4. 83 X 2.45 = 203.3. That's pretty close. Evidently the footage was sped up X 2.45.
Evidently this isn't the answer. Maybe it's in the measurements. I'll keep trying to figure it out. Anyway, there is a mountain of other evience that they faked the moon missions so this issue isn't about whether they faked them. I have to congratulate you. This is a good piece of obfuscation. Someone will eventually figure it out though.
Cosmored 1 year ago
@Cosmored Obfuscation? You oaf of a person. Never mind Occam's Razor, Cosmored's Razor says "it can't be correct because my unsubstantiated opinion says it isn't"!
A larger section of Buzz Aldrin's motion testing
watch?v=p5TjytoCC8o - normal watch?v=JZWqz-NN9zg - doubled
and Blisterhiker's clip
/watch?v=njdQ0Y1Yyo8 - normal watch?v=Z1HvJ0WXkuo - doubled
Waiting for full retraction and apology
hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/a11v.1111944.rm
Betamax101 1 year ago
@Cosmored When are you going to answer this? Seems to have you a bit confused. The video demonstrates that Lunar motion is consistent, and your speeded up theory is busted to crap.
Betamax101 8 months ago
...continued
There is already a confirmed case of a pro-Apollo person speeding up footage to more than he says it is sped up in order to take people in. Google "Spurstalk". In the "The Club" section there's a moon-hoax thread. On page 85 in post #2193 there's an analysis of this.
Cosmored 1 year ago
@Cosmored "There is already a confirmed case of a pro-Apollo person speeding up footage to more than he says it is sped up in order to take people in."
You are a lying S.O.B. The Apollo 11 footage is exactly as depicted on one of my video uploads. It blows your bullshit 200% theory down the crapper too.
Your "crushing evidence" has been fully debunked, you just don't have the intelligence, logic or ability to admit it. Total and full denial.
Betamax101 8 months ago
@Cosmored The flaw lies in your ability to understand even basic physics. A casual sideways flick of the boot, 21 feet? You are full of it.
Betamax101 1 year ago
Would any of you hoax mongers like to tell us how they could have used wires to do this?
Percy? Where are you?
DeBunx 1 year ago
Soil sprayed 17 feet 3 inches by a sideways kick of the boot. Great work!
satweavers 1 year ago
I didn't catch it, but what was the factor by which you sped up the film?
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
@Astrobrant2 245% Square root of 9.8m s^2 divided by 1.63m s^2. It is the gravity equation expanded with algebra to show the difference in relative ballistic motion of the Earth and Moon.
Betamax101 1 year ago
@Betamax101 "245%"
Right. I couldn't remember whether it was you or someone else who was just doubling the speed.
Good video. I would think that at either speed any hoax nut would look at that and have to wonder, "What the hell IS that stuff?" Because nothing on earth would behave like that.
There was another video clip showing Dave Scott (I think) kicking dust sideways a distance of about ten feet.
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
Nice analysis :)
ytmoog 1 year ago