During the feather drop, the actor in the film held the feather so it was pointing straight down, streamlined in its direction of motion, however, the Apollo 16 astronaut held the feather on its side.
@shanedk Because stupid people care more about appearances than about scientific accuracy, and these blathering hoaxtards know how to exploit those people.
man i cant even watch this video to the end. Its not because of the video maker. I m sick to my stomach to listen what these hoaxers say. They dont even deserve a respond of any kind
I suspect that Percy's feather and hammer video uses a fake feather. I real feather would flap around as it fell and it certainly wouldn'y bouce on hitting the ground. I think he might have used a metal feather.
@PayasYouListen "I suspect that Percy's feather and hammer video uses a fake feather."
What evidence do you have that it was faked?
"I real feather would flap around as it fell"
Not if there's no air.
"and it certainly wouldn'y bouce on hitting the ground."
Please show your math resulting in a coefficient of restitution between a falcon feather and lunar regolith as being near-zero. Remember to show your work!
@shanedk No I mean Percy's guy in labcoat video uses a fake feather. There is obviously air there as the guy is alive. I think he's lying, using a his own fake because what we see in the NASA footage cannot be reproduced with a real feather on Earth.
Well OK. I admit we can't see labcoat guy's head and he might have some sort of breathing apparatus and he'll be in some sort of vacuum chamber, but that seems a bit of a stretch.
@PayasYouListen "No I mean Percy's guy in labcoat video uses a fake feather."
Oh, I see--my fault for not reading carefully. Yes, I agree the one in the bogus demo is a fake feather. I thought you were talking about the one actually taken on the moon.
"Except that at that point it ISN'T 50% anymore! What was 50% under the OLD frame rate is now 100% under the NEW frame rate"
Dude I got what you did in my second post! If you you would just read further down!
No I just proved to you that your math is totally flimsy!! with statements like "200% is 2 by definition!!!! lol
And your throw David Percy under the bus, because you could not figure out that he left is original video at 100%. This was your whole point of your video! And you are WRONG!
All video editing software starts at 100% by default. You are an idiot on the topic.
Go count how many videos shane has uploaded, how many I have uploaded, and come back and explain to us all why we dont know anything about editing software.
@Gigaloader "To start every time with 100 % over is truly on 4th grade level!"
But that's how it works! Look, when you pull a video into the editing software, it DOESN'T MATTER what happened to the video before, sped up, slowed down, whatever, IT ALWAYS COMES IN AT 100%!!!
So if it's half-speed, and you import it, the 100% is the speed of the already-slowed down video! 100% WOULD KEEP IT AT HALF SPEED!
Geez, I have a 9-year-old daughter who's easier to explain things to...
@shanedk "200% IS 2, by definition" No 200% IS DUMB, by definition! "2" is your factor because you want to double the speed!! How come I get : 50% = 1 (single speed) 50% * 2 (because we are doubling the speed) = 100% or another example: 30% = 1 (single speed) 60% * 2 (because we are doubling again) = 60% 200% IS ONLY THE RESULT!! And the definition is only in your head! lol This is actually 1th grade math! David Percy did absolutely nothing wrong! And your video is FALSE!!!!!!
@Gigaloader Except that at that point it ISN'T 50% anymore! What was 50% under the OLD frame rate is now 100% under the NEW frame rate!
What, is the editing software supposed to have some sort of supernatural ability to look back in time 40 years and see what was done to a copy generations ago to "remember" that the frame rate is 50% of what it was originally?
@Gigaloader No, to change it back you have to increase by 200%. 100% keeps it the speed it is, so to change it back once it's been slowed to 50%, then you need to increase it by 100% * 50% = 200%.
This video is full of errors! shanedk claims when you have a video at 50% in order to double the speed you have to increase it to 200%!!!!!!!????? i mean 150% is already stupid but 200% is very stupid.
if your video is already at 50% you only have to speed it up by 50% to double the speed!!!!
David Percy was right! But shanedk and jarrah white are wrong here.
It is very important to establish what your original 100% video is!
Hey shane Don't Know, you are absolutely right about one thing. The Lunar surface footage is actually slowed down about 40% (plus or minus a few points). Question: why would a feather fall so quickly on the moon?? You know what, don't even answer that.
Why do the astronauts move slower on the moon than they would move on earth when there is no atmosphere, air pressure, or "wind" resistance to slow down their movements when moving around or running or jumping?? With no atmosphere or air friction or pressure they should move faster and gain higher distances. The sand off of the rover space vehicles tires is moving in slow motion but does not go any higher than it would on earth. The astronauts move slowly and sluggish as if they are under water
@imnazhole No, idiot. Gravity on the moon is 1/6th that of Earth. That means movement is not going to be as fast. Atmospheric pressure doesn't impede your movement that much, and I have no idea why someone would be so completely clueless as to think that it would.
@shanedk Aahh, so I am the idiot who does NOT understand that when there is no atmospheric pressure, air resistance, gravity and friction that a physical body will move slower than on earth, hence the slow motion action on the "moon". So if this is correct that means that the moon vehicles should be able to travel at 4,000 mph in earth's atmosphere without burning up, like the space shuttle Columbia did in earth's atmosphere when fire from the outer hull due to atmospheric friction breached in??
@imnazhole You're the idiot that doesn't realize that lower gravity means slower acceleration, yes. You're just using the atmospheric stuff as an excuse to say that "slow motion" means it couldn't have been filmed on the moon. Riiiight.
Atmospheric reentry has NOTHING to do with this, and anyone with an OUNCE of sense knows it. You're pathetic.
@shanedk WWOOWWW!!!! You mean that you buy the slow motion photography as authentic proof and natural characteristic of low earth gravity? As your former master George W. Bush would say: UN-BELEEEVABABLE! XD
@shanedk Nah, but you have proven countless times how much of a gullible shit head you are who can not argue with logic, or facts (no atmosphere makes acceleration slower, fucking moronic).
@imnazhole It's GRAVITY that makes it slower, idiot. The moons gravity makes their acceleration MUCH lower than Earth normal, to a MUCH greater degree than the atmosphere does on Earth. And anyone who's NOT a complete idiot knows that.
@kargaroc386 First of all, why would that be so obvious, and second, even if it were, why would it fall flat like that? A weighted feather would either fall length-down or tumble over and over.
@kargaroc386 Ah, yes, I'm not even sure it's an actual feather. And notice he holds it vertically, not horizontally as Scott did. (I wonder how many takes it took them?)
(And why the *&% is the guy wearing a lab coat???)
@shanedk Looking at that bit with the feather drop in the studio, it strikes me as rather odd looking. The closeup looks like a feather, and the one in the medium shot looks the same, but it doesn't appear to fall quite normally or a feather, and it seems to bounce rather a LOT more than a feather should. It falls and bounces, in fact, as if it was made of something a LOT denser than is normal for feathers.
I am amused how hoaxers can ignore loads of genuine evidence of the moon landings and make wild claims about huge conspiracies on the basis of an odd shadow. I think this video proves that hoaxers are lying and that they know they are. However, I must admit I don't know why.
@AbelMagwitch73 Even worse (for the hoaxers, that is) it isn't that there are odd shadows, it's that there are shadows they don't bother to understand.
I surely hope this Percy, who isn't even a crackpot but a cheap liar. It's such a cheap shot at the moon landing, it's so silly. Thanks Shane for taking the time to debunk this ....
I dont belive they landed on the moon. it was all produced to do what it did,and that was to break the russian.who were trying to beat us to the moon. that is why kennedy put forth the challange.kennedy got involved with marylin monroe while he was in california to produce this hoax.i only have two questions, where is the crater that would have been under the lem when it landed. should have been big enough to put a vw in??. who did they leave on the moon to take the pictures of its blast off?
@shanedk The guys in mission control also knew when the ship was going to launch just as well as the crew in it did (if not BETTER) since they had a full telemetry feed from it. All the camera controller had to do was get his timing right, and on 17 the camera controller did it quite nicely. (Apparently, something went wrong on 16, and none of the earlier missions left a remotely controllable camera with tilt on the surface.)
The dust layer was only 30cm - it was regolith and rock underneath that. If you can find some confirmation that the moon is sandy to a depth of 2m then you can send me a message with the link.
And it takes 1.2 seconds for radio to get to the moon. After some time the operator was skilled enough to anticipate the motion of astronauts and the ascent stage.
@krisdevalle There's also the observation that the lunar regolith packs down as hard as concrete (or harder) within a few inches. One of the crews wasn't able to fully deploy their heat flow probe because they weren't able to get a core hole fully sunk into the surface, the regolith was just to hard to drill through (and this is with a core drill that punched through all the test materials quite nicely on Earth).
@evensgrey Quite true - all geologic data confirms the dust layer averages about 3 inches. You see sometimes they can't even get a sampler in - sometimes, rarely, it just pushes right down. But we're agreeing - our time is (perhaps) better spent telling people who are simply asking questions about this. The most hardline hoaxers are really beyond help.
No professional physicist says there should be a hole. You cut and pasted that claim from a dufus website without bothering to see how stupid everyone else thinks it is.
The "crater" is a dumb idea made by non-physicists with zero education in the matter. Why do professional physicists never make this claim? Why is it always amatuers and newbs? And dont tell me you computed "vw" all by yourself. You cut and pasted a dumb dork webpage pretending to be clever.
Since you were too incompetent to research that they left a remote camera behind, we're certainly not going to trust your physics expertise.
luckily this conspiracy theory doesn't do any harm (anymore?) buth there are tons of them out there and they all have the same mechanics of liars spoonfeeding morons.
Not real harm no. But it brings harm to the brave men that went there and are real heroes. In the minds of those who believe this crap, they're liars. In my opinion, it makes it just as harmful.
you don't think it is harmful to have an increasing percentage of the population believe 9/11 was an inside job and/ or Barack Obama is of the masonic Order and a Muslim terrorist etc etc.?
@MWcrazyhorse I dunno, pandering to such 'theories' only invites more spread of misinformation. Which is definately a bad thing! So I think hammering the nail into things like this is still a good idea.
X, I have found, in the exact same situation, that it helps to let the person know that they are being lied to and taken for a fool by the "hoax" perpetrators and you can prove it to them. This video proves those lies pretty well.
I had a similar thing happen when my gf's aunt (I ashamed to even know someone like this) actually believed Sylvia Browne was a real psychic. I convinced her to see that stop Sylivia site by telling her she was bing lied to and I could prove it. It worked.
Trumbull and Kubrick didn't even try to simulate 1/6 in 2001. They just had actors walk slow. They didn't even change the film speed. Jarrah seems to be more vocal about vodka than percentages!
Scott's feather was oriented horizontally, while Percy's lab coated stage hand had his feather pointed down like a dart. Percy could have done a better job of replicating the experiment. Could that have an effect on the air resistance of the falling feather?
Small spherical lead shot weights strategically placed inside the feather quill would keep it at the horizontal during its fall.
To reiterate, there's practically nothing within NASAs entire Apollo media archive that could not feasibly be an earthbound simulation of lunar activity.
Who gets to decide "feasibly?" A hoax spaz not even educated or qualified in the topic in the first place?
Is all the evidence "feasibly" fake because making a flying guess you'll never prove is so much easier than finding anyone over the age of 14 to agree with your hair-brained illiteracy?
A flying guess pulled straight out of your fat ass doesnt count as evidence, unfortunately. This "hoax" stupidity is always SO much easier when you can just make it up as you go along, now isnt it? ;)
Strap "clip" a heavy solid block of lead... footage not of sufficient resolution to determine a small lightweight clip... footage slowed to the appropriate percentage to obtain 1/6g oscillations.
Length of the footage then would be too short to distinguish between swinging in a vacuum or slowing very fractionally in atmosphere. Also you are merely guessing the friction component .
And in any case that particular close-up scene could have been taken in a vacuum/ virtual vacuum chamber.
On the contrary we've been able to keep a CONSISTENT story for 40 years. We can tell you who landed, where they landed, when they landed, how long they were there and what they brought back.
Its the hoaxtards like you who continually change your story whenever you're outsmarted (which is often).
The moon "set" is in Area 51, NO WAIT, its in Hawaii, NO WAIT, its in Hollywood
The moon "rocks" are from antartica, NO WAIT, they're from a robot probe
I'd prefer to hear that from a professional engineer who, like, works for a living. ;)
Whereas we love the corny ramblings of hoax dorks, you're far too emotionally biased to take seriously.
The 12 men who walked on the moon for example. After 40 YEARS, not only CANT you break their alibi, you have no counter argument whatsoever other than "Liar liar pants on fire!"
And you're widely known around here as illiterate quack nonetheless. Your "evidence" comes nowhere NEAR engineering level, with your posts here rising no further than "is too IS NOT." You, your intelligence, and your "facts" are all unimpressive at best and laughable at worst.
Case in point:
"hiding behind anonymity"
MY NAME IS ON MY PROFILE you dumbass. ;)
So is my education, experience, credentials, etc etc etc. If you couldnt even figure THAT out, you're a total incompetent.
'Fraid I don't have the spare time to click around checking out sockpuppet ids Muse... you call that incompetence, fine.
See, you're not the important person in the grand scheme of things that you seem to think you are. .... whilst its obvious to all & sundry you have deep unresolved anger issues surrounding the status quo being challenged.
So .... to reiterate. There's nothing in the totality of Apollo media that could not be a stage-managed production and/or involving image- manipulation.
You obviously dont even know what that word means. ;)
Who am I a "sockpuppet" of exactly?
Well you obviously made an idiot of yourself before and now want to desperately save face. (too late). ;)
This is my REAL screenname. My profile has my REAL name in it in absolute public. Now if you couldnt even take the rudimentary research to click my name before saying something stupid as you did-
-HOW can we possibly trust you with anything TECHNICAL? ;)
Why is it with your stupendous "engineering" degree, the extent of your technical language tops out at "could be?"
Why do you forgo any discussing of evidence to waste everyones time with a "well it MIGHT be..." and equal language indistinguishable from any 8th grader?
I've argued with a great many would-be "truthseekers" pretending to be physicists and engineers and photographers etc etc and exposed far too many as bluffers and fakers. Add yourself to that list at your own peril.
You suffer from a colossal over-inflated ego as well as intellectual fascism of the worst kind, STM.
If you were half as intelligent as you claim, you wouldn't have to use sarcasm as the main armament in your debate weaponry.
Same goes for Killian.
Now if you want to disprove my claim that within the entirety of Apollo media there is no categorical proof they went - within the bounds of decent civilized debate - fine.
If not, dump your crib-rattle rage somewhere else.
The presence of sarcasm in no way negates the validity of an argument; in fact, it can be an excellent tool for showing precisely where the fallacy lies.
Complaints about sarcasm are only levied by people who aren't clever enough to use it well.
Not complaining Shane, its just that I personally find it childish and tedious... .. whereas both stm and your good self obviously don't subscribe to the generally accepted notion that it's the Lowest Form of Wit.
Well, good to see you have it in you to go against the grain on something at least.
Like saying there's a moon "stage" and giving no proof of it? Where is this stage Mike? Who built it? Who filmed it? Why, after 40 years, cant the moon dorks even agree AMONGST THEMSELVES where it is?
You argue no evidence, post no evidence, have no evidence. Therefore we talk about you, and why you believe stupid things without any evidence.
Logical enough transition. ;)
And I agree with shane, you're only mad at sarcasm because you're personally inarticulate. ;)
Already done, Shane.... heavy solid block of lead as "the clip" / footage slowed to x% to run oscillations in parallel with 1/6g c/w insufficient image res' info' or running time to show otherwise.
Single frame image doctoring common since the birth of photography, so what's your big deal about multiple frame fakery?
Sigh...except that if you speed up the video to where it's Earth-normal the astronauts go all Benny Hill again!
Multi-frame fakery CANNOT be achieved without computer tracking without leaving visible artifacts. MANY experiments were tried. It is just quite simply impossible for a human being to doctor the second frame precisely the same as he did the first one.
Listen up shane....if you want to continue debate in a civilized fashion, fine. What I wont tolerate is every response being eplete with juvenile insult.
You don't even allocate the common courtesy to visitors to explain points fully before labelling them "idiot".
Obviously any half-smart moon hoax director creating footage he knows will be slowed-down in post-production to represent a real time shoot would instruct the actors to move their arms faster.
I'm focusing on their arm movements, they would not be difficult for the astronauts to deliberately speed-up during a shoot.... nothing else about their overall movements looks especially unnatural when sped-up by c. 30%.
BTW You seriously need to get a handle on your embarrassingly immature arrogance and aggression - it lets you down badly on all of your otherwise mildly entertaining videos
And you have no idea how difficult or easy it would be to move arms quickly when in a pressurized spacesuit... but of course I'm positing earth location therefore no need for much additional pressurization above sea level ....but of course its understandable you wouldn't want to go there.
ADULT debate is about PROVING A POSITIVE, not hiding behind a double negative like a vindictive 3rd grader.
The "hoax" is your dumb idea, your challenge of the establishment, therefore its YOUR responsibility to prove it. And I'm aghast that I have to give juvenile explanations of debate procedure to an alleged adult.
Sadly for you Muse, I have just as much if not right to justify my claims in terms of " proof they did not " as you have with your tiresome and abusive demands based on a proven liar of a secret military agency's doctored media, mainstream media control and mission cover-ups.
They destroyed their multi-million dollar moon globe & landing track models soon after 72,
Now give me one sane reason why they would want to do that ... besides destroying evidence of a crime of course.
"If you dont have any witnesses, than thats your problem, not ours.
Of you dont have any documents, thats your problem,"
Vociferous witnesses denigrating NASA have tended to go the way of Ronald Baron... and because NASA media is initially tightly controlled after strict in-house procurement, they have plenty time to perfect /cross reference their adulterations.
And as I say no one - least of all you chumps - is able to cite a single piece of Apollo media as definitive proof for your case.
The moronic invention of ANOTHER superficial and proofless conspiracy to explain your incompetence in proving the FIRST superficial and proofless conspiracy.
If you cant prove ANYTHING without a ceaseless parade of "conspiracy A is proof of conspiracy 4, not to be confused with conspiracy X which requires simultaneous blind belief in conspiracies 3,7, and Z," then you should admit it like a man and stop wasting our time with juvenile fabricated fairytales.
Unless, in the last hour, you've broken the alibi of all 12 Apollo astronauts, we have all the proof we require. Eyewitness testimony is accepted in a court of law.
ESPECIALLY when the opposition has no more mature counter-argument than "liar liar pants on fire," which you've admitted is all you can do.
If only they'd come back with physical evidence, the landing would be proven beyond all doubt of youtube wannabes.
BTW, who gets to decide "definitive?" An espoused conspiraholic with admitted bias towards the proponents and admitted vacuum of facts? Your prejudice TOTALLY steers you toward any dismissal of the opponents evidence as it absolutely highlights the absence your own. ;)
I prefer to have "definitive" defined by the actual experts in the field, professional astronomers and geologists and physics who dont let personal paranoia interfere with their analysis.
But ONLY an idiot would then refuse to listen to the answers because they didnt tell you want you wanted to hear, coddling your fear-mongering bias. ;)
If you asked questions of professional geologists and physicists, and actually listened to what they said, you wouldnt be taken in by hoax-pushing newbs and amateurs nearly so easily.
All you ever do is shoot your big mouth off with slander and denigration - you make no serious attempt to answer my points or to debate in a civilized fashion.
You've deflected your yellow-belly way to "moonrocks" and now you cant even answer if NASAs claimed 800 odd lbs figure has ever been independently verified .
If they said they'd found fish fossils in 'em you'd wet your pants with glee.
What does it MATTER if the exact poundage has been verified? The ROCKS THEMSELVES have been INDEPENDENTLY verified NUMEROUS times! And they have ALWAYS been found to be from the moon, and could ONLY come from the moon!
Sure shane, what the hell does it matter if NASA claim 800lbs of assorted Apollo moon rocks when they only have 50lbs, for example... of lab-adulterated lunar meteorites.
BTW Mike, I've asked you numerous times to point out ANY geologist who has called the rocks "lab-adulterated."
If you fail, then you fail. No one to blame but yourself for making up a newb conspiracy you knew you had zero proof for except your own childish paranoia.
Three more chunks of convoluted waffle from Mr Angry.
You type reams without saying anything..
You deflect to moonrocks because you're soundly thrashed on Apollo media as proof , and on Baron's missing A1 report.
Theres no indy verification on 800lbs of rocks . They "lose" the LM blueprints, lose the LM simulation footage, trash the multi million dollar moon globe... hell even one of the Apollo astronauts isnt certain they went!
And you label legit questioning "childish paranoia"!
You're assuming of course that John Young's jump salute descent, for example, had to be freefall and not controlled.
But then of course shane, your cute Benny Hill argument goes right out the window :-)
Yet I'll grant you it is an interesting apparent anomaly that considering lunar g actions only 5.4ft/s sq on falling objects as opposed to the massive X c. 6 32.17 for earth -less air res', -;that the mere 2 1/2 X speed increase figure you quote apparently applies.... but I digress.
Means of support concealed against black sky quite easily - and as weve discussed awhile back, piss poor footage quality doesnt allow for detailed analysis.
Plus a full rig need not have been used as only a fraction of the astronaut's weight is being supported to accentuate lift X2 3 mill dia matt black-coated high tensile steel wires would do the job.
And another thing - the H & F demo need not necessarily have been speed-tampered either from the original earth shoot.
Sigh... NO, THEY AREN'T, IDIOT, and that's according to the BEST special effects engineers of the time! Are they all in on the conspiracy, too?
Simply bringing up the contrast would reveal the cables. Once again, you're an ignorant moron who doesn't want to learn--you could have just LOOKED THAT UP and saved yourself the embarrassment!
Wrong. Theres insufficient picture information (detail) for that. Bringing up the contrast would merely increase the already substantial picture noise. Two ultra thin matt coated wires would NOT be apparent @ several yards away
because both Apollo DAC and especially Rover TV picture quality was beyond lousy - a bit like your online manners.
Wrong again 'fraid. If fine detail present in the scene being recorded is not picked up and recorded by the image sensoring device / film emulsion, obviously no amount of contrast/brightness/sharpness tweaking of the image is going to show it. As I say, all you'll do is enhance the picture noise - which with the low res' of Rover TV is substantial.
Jeez, you can barely make out Young's PLSS radio antennae on jump salute, never mind the much thinner wires required for his "1/6 g" assist.
Mike, since professional movie-makers have shot down any "hoax,"
-professional physicists have shot down any "hoax."
-professional geologists have shot down any "hoax,"
Who then, might we ask, is left?
Since you linked that moonrock movie instead of the original news story, its obvious you're just cut and pasting the webpages of other wankers, pretending to be an expert.
Well, "pretend" is all you'll ever be able to do. ;)
If so many people have shot down the hoax how come so few step up to the plate to challenge the hoax facts... that no Apollo media cannot be duplicated on earth... that theres no proof of 800lbs of moonrocks .. about where Barons A1 report went... why they trashed the multi-million $ moon globe and LM simulation footage.. about why even an ex Apollo a/naut isn't sure they went... the list goes on.
I cut and paste nothing; I simply dont spend my time sucking on establishment wieners, Bernard.
YOU claim it can be done. YOU have not done ANYTHING to support that. All you have are insults and childish rantings. WE have the evidence, and you have NOT refuted it.
During the feather drop, the actor in the film held the feather so it was pointing straight down, streamlined in its direction of motion, however, the Apollo 16 astronaut held the feather on its side.
david52875 2 months ago
@david52875 One of MANY problems with that "experiment."
Something to ponder: why is he wearing a lab coat? There's no danger to his street clothes.
shanedk 2 months ago
@shanedk Because stupid people care more about appearances than about scientific accuracy, and these blathering hoaxtards know how to exploit those people.
TuxedoClam 2 months ago
Hehehe, today at work the footprints and lunar rover were photographed from the moon's orbit via satelite. SUCK IT HOAXTARDS!
NUTCASE71733 5 months ago
man i cant even watch this video to the end. Its not because of the video maker. I m sick to my stomach to listen what these hoaxers say. They dont even deserve a respond of any kind
Serpico261 8 months ago 3
now, unless you already did this one (or don't wish to do it) the 9/11 truther nonsense needs to be debunked.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
I suspect that Percy's feather and hammer video uses a fake feather. I real feather would flap around as it fell and it certainly wouldn'y bouce on hitting the ground. I think he might have used a metal feather.
PayasYouListen 1 year ago
@PayasYouListen "I suspect that Percy's feather and hammer video uses a fake feather."
What evidence do you have that it was faked?
"I real feather would flap around as it fell"
Not if there's no air.
"and it certainly wouldn'y bouce on hitting the ground."
Please show your math resulting in a coefficient of restitution between a falcon feather and lunar regolith as being near-zero. Remember to show your work!
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk No I mean Percy's guy in labcoat video uses a fake feather. There is obviously air there as the guy is alive. I think he's lying, using a his own fake because what we see in the NASA footage cannot be reproduced with a real feather on Earth.
Well OK. I admit we can't see labcoat guy's head and he might have some sort of breathing apparatus and he'll be in some sort of vacuum chamber, but that seems a bit of a stretch.
PayasYouListen 1 year ago
@PayasYouListen "No I mean Percy's guy in labcoat video uses a fake feather."
Oh, I see--my fault for not reading carefully. Yes, I agree the one in the bogus demo is a fake feather. I thought you were talking about the one actually taken on the moon.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk No worries mate. Well done for quick replies though. I just thought that could have been mentioned in the video.
PayasYouListen 1 year ago
"Except that at that point it ISN'T 50% anymore! What was 50% under the OLD frame rate is now 100% under the NEW frame rate"
Dude I got what you did in my second post! If you you would just read further down!
No I just proved to you that your math is totally flimsy!! with statements like "200% is 2 by definition!!!! lol
And your throw David Percy under the bus, because you could not figure out that he left is original video at 100%. This was your whole point of your video! And you are WRONG!
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@shandk Your statement " if you have a video at 50% and you want to double it you have to increase it to 200% is FALSE!
To start every time with 100 % over is truly on 4th grade level!
!!David Percy did not say anything wrong here!!
Your video is pointless, false shows you have no clue about math!
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@Gigaloader
All video editing software starts at 100% by default. You are an idiot on the topic.
Go count how many videos shane has uploaded, how many I have uploaded, and come back and explain to us all why we dont know anything about editing software.
Dumbass. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse "All video editing software starts at 100% by default. You are an idiot on the topic"
Oh yeah - what has that to do with shanedk statement "if you have a video at 50% and you want to double it you have to increase it to 200%".
I never denied that video software would do any different!! Learn haw to read you "DISINFO TROLL".
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse ""Go count how many videos shane has uploaded, how many I have uploaded""
I know you guys cuddle with each other!! lol
Gigaloader 1 year ago
Do a bogosity episode about nature vs nurture!
rebelq1 1 year ago
@rebelq1 Which one's the bogosity?
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
Genetically inherited intelligence, adrenaline junkies psychos, genetically violent and some others.
It's our education and how you were raised that determines your intelligence and your behaviour not your genes!
rebelq1 1 year ago
You are dumb - you calculate with % as they are numeric values of the video itself!
% means out of hundred thats all!
The ORIGINAL video is 100%! You have to go from there!
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@Gigaloader They ARE numeric values. A percentage is that number divided by 100. So 50% is 50/100 or .5.
So, in my last equation, 10 pieces of cake * 50% = 10 * .5 - 5; 5 pieces of cake * 200% = 5 * 2 = 10.
Put that into ANY calculator and you'll get the same result.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk yeah but is nothing to do with frame rates of the video!
i don't think you understand the concept why we calculate with %!
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@shanedk "So, in my last equation, 10 pieces of cake * 50% = 10 * .5 - 5; 5 pieces of cake * 200% = 5 * 2 = 10.
just as i said you assume the 5 pieces of cake as your new 100%!
how do think 200% = 2 to multiply ????? you just say its 2, lol!!
Man you really have math gaps its not funny
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@Gigaloader "just as i said you assume the 5 pieces of cake as your new 100%"
Yes, that's what you have to do!!!
200% IS 2. All the time, every time. 4th-grade-level math.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk 200% IS 2, no mathematical explanation - LOL
You just do that because it sounds good.
Yes only a 4th grader starts wit every calculation at 100%. So they don't screw up.
But you could not figure out that David Percy kept the original video at 100%.
Which makes a lot more sense in Complicated Mathematical Equations!
Get educated before you a video just because you think know some thing!
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@Gigaloader I don't NEED a mathematical explanation! 200% IS 2, by definition!
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Your statement " if you have a video at 50% and you want to double it you have to increase it to 200% is FALSE!
To start every time with 100 % over is truly on 4th grade level!
!!David Percy did not say anything wrong here!!
Your video is pointless, false shows you have no clue about math!
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@Gigaloader "To start every time with 100 % over is truly on 4th grade level!"
But that's how it works! Look, when you pull a video into the editing software, it DOESN'T MATTER what happened to the video before, sped up, slowed down, whatever, IT ALWAYS COMES IN AT 100%!!!
So if it's half-speed, and you import it, the 100% is the speed of the already-slowed down video! 100% WOULD KEEP IT AT HALF SPEED!
Geez, I have a 9-year-old daughter who's easier to explain things to...
shanedk 1 year ago
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@Gigaloader Except that at that point it ISN'T 50% anymore! What was 50% under the OLD frame rate is now 100% under the NEW frame rate!
What, is the editing software supposed to have some sort of supernatural ability to look back in time 40 years and see what was done to a copy generations ago to "remember" that the frame rate is 50% of what it was originally?
Idiot.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk I think we have figured out who the idiot is!
IT IS YOU!
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@shanedk David Percy said it was slowed down by 50% to make it appear as they would be in 1/6 gravity! So its original video was 100%!
And you throw him under the bus because you could not figure that out! it actually has nothing to do with jarrah white!
Your mental math gymnastics just prove what a brain low diver you are!
HAHAHA ""200% is 2 by definition"" HAHAHA lolololol
Gigaloader 1 year ago
!100% means out of 100!
So if you half the speed you slow it down by 50% -
and vice versa because the original video is 100%
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@Gigaloader No, to change it back you have to increase by 200%. 100% keeps it the speed it is, so to change it back once it's been slowed to 50%, then you need to increase it by 100% * 50% = 200%.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Oops, sorry--that should be 200% * 50% = 100%. Clear now?
shanedk 1 year ago
This video is full of errors! shanedk claims when you have a video at 50% in order to double the speed you have to increase it to 200%!!!!!!!????? i mean 150% is already stupid but 200% is very stupid.
if your video is already at 50% you only have to speed it up by 50% to double the speed!!!!
David Percy was right! But shanedk and jarrah white are wrong here.
It is very important to establish what your original 100% video is!
This is what this video totally misses!
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@Gigaloader 100% is 100%, always and forever.
If you start out at 30fps, and you slow it down 50%, your new frame rate is 30fps * 50% = 15fps.
To speed it back up, you need to speed it up 200%: 15fps * 200% = 30fps.
One more hoaxtard who can't handle 4th-grade math...
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk so you tell me if you eat half a cake (50%) you have to replace it with 1 1/2 cake to make it full again?
You are dumb!
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@Gigaloader Let's say your cake is divided into 10 pieces. Eating 50% of the cake leaves you with 10 * 50% = 5 pieces.
To make the cake whole again, the number of pieces you have to add back is 5 * 200% = 10 pieces. You now have the cake back.
How is this IN ANY WAY difficult?
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk dude your assume the 50% slowed down video as your new 100%!!!
And then you are right - 200% is double.
But you don't say that in your video!!!!!!!
Get it 4th grader!
Gigaloader 1 year ago
Comment removed
Gigaloader 1 year ago
Hey shane Don't Know, you are absolutely right about one thing. The Lunar surface footage is actually slowed down about 40% (plus or minus a few points). Question: why would a feather fall so quickly on the moon?? You know what, don't even answer that.
imnazhole 1 year ago
Why do the astronauts move slower on the moon than they would move on earth when there is no atmosphere, air pressure, or "wind" resistance to slow down their movements when moving around or running or jumping?? With no atmosphere or air friction or pressure they should move faster and gain higher distances. The sand off of the rover space vehicles tires is moving in slow motion but does not go any higher than it would on earth. The astronauts move slowly and sluggish as if they are under water
imnazhole 1 year ago
@imnazhole No, idiot. Gravity on the moon is 1/6th that of Earth. That means movement is not going to be as fast. Atmospheric pressure doesn't impede your movement that much, and I have no idea why someone would be so completely clueless as to think that it would.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Aahh, so I am the idiot who does NOT understand that when there is no atmospheric pressure, air resistance, gravity and friction that a physical body will move slower than on earth, hence the slow motion action on the "moon". So if this is correct that means that the moon vehicles should be able to travel at 4,000 mph in earth's atmosphere without burning up, like the space shuttle Columbia did in earth's atmosphere when fire from the outer hull due to atmospheric friction breached in??
imnazhole 1 year ago
@imnazhole You're the idiot that doesn't realize that lower gravity means slower acceleration, yes. You're just using the atmospheric stuff as an excuse to say that "slow motion" means it couldn't have been filmed on the moon. Riiiight.
Atmospheric reentry has NOTHING to do with this, and anyone with an OUNCE of sense knows it. You're pathetic.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk WWOOWWW!!!! You mean that you buy the slow motion photography as authentic proof and natural characteristic of low earth gravity? As your former master George W. Bush would say: UN-BELEEEVABABLE! XD
imnazhole 1 year ago
@imnazhole I've PROVED IT!
TWICE!!!
Idiot.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Nah, but you have proven countless times how much of a gullible shit head you are who can not argue with logic, or facts (no atmosphere makes acceleration slower, fucking moronic).
imnazhole 1 year ago
@imnazhole It's GRAVITY that makes it slower, idiot. The moons gravity makes their acceleration MUCH lower than Earth normal, to a MUCH greater degree than the atmosphere does on Earth. And anyone who's NOT a complete idiot knows that.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk what a crap you are spreading here!!
If you throw a baseball with 30 m/h there is no difference in acceleration on the moon and earth!
Gigaloader 1 year ago
Dude, you are just making the stronger case for the moon landings being a hoax.
imnazhole 1 year ago
Comment removed
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
the feather is obviously weighted
kargaroc386 1 year ago
@kargaroc386 First of all, why would that be so obvious, and second, even if it were, why would it fall flat like that? A weighted feather would either fall length-down or tumble over and over.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk i mean the feather in the recreation on earth
kargaroc386 1 year ago
@kargaroc386 Ah, yes, I'm not even sure it's an actual feather. And notice he holds it vertically, not horizontally as Scott did. (I wonder how many takes it took them?)
(And why the *&% is the guy wearing a lab coat???)
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
Saying that it ISNT a feather would be just inventing another conspiracy. And using the new conspiracy as your proof of the old conspiracy.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse I was talking about Percy's demonstration.
But the moon hoaxers are not above making such regressive conspiracies around conspiracies.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
Just like the creationists, eh?
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@shanedk Looking at that bit with the feather drop in the studio, it strikes me as rather odd looking. The closeup looks like a feather, and the one in the medium shot looks the same, but it doesn't appear to fall quite normally or a feather, and it seems to bounce rather a LOT more than a feather should. It falls and bounces, in fact, as if it was made of something a LOT denser than is normal for feathers.
evensgrey 1 year ago
I am amused how hoaxers can ignore loads of genuine evidence of the moon landings and make wild claims about huge conspiracies on the basis of an odd shadow. I think this video proves that hoaxers are lying and that they know they are. However, I must admit I don't know why.
AbelMagwitch73 2 years ago 3
@AbelMagwitch73 Even worse (for the hoaxers, that is) it isn't that there are odd shadows, it's that there are shadows they don't bother to understand.
evensgrey 1 year ago
I just finished doing a lot of video editing, and when I saw him speed up his clip to 150% I laughed so hard I fell out of my chair.
tekproxy 2 years ago
I surely hope this Percy, who isn't even a crackpot but a cheap liar. It's such a cheap shot at the moon landing, it's so silly. Thanks Shane for taking the time to debunk this ....
starbuck125 2 years ago
I dont belive they landed on the moon. it was all produced to do what it did,and that was to break the russian.who were trying to beat us to the moon. that is why kennedy put forth the challange.kennedy got involved with marylin monroe while he was in california to produce this hoax.i only have two questions, where is the crater that would have been under the lem when it landed. should have been big enough to put a vw in??. who did they leave on the moon to take the pictures of its blast off?
DoctorLucky1 2 years ago
There wouldn't have been a crater. The pressure from the rocket would have been less than 1.3psi.
The cameras were controlled remotely from Mission Control.
shanedk 2 years ago
a leaf blower would have made a hole dipstick. how many seconds would it take Mission Control to make thes adjustments???
DoctorLucky1 2 years ago
No, a leaf-blower would have blown away the top layer of dust, which is what the rocket did. How would the leaf-blower affect the rock underneath?
shanedk 2 years ago
Dude, if MC remotely controlled the cameras then how did that work with the 6 second delay?
I thought the camera was filming full frame and the illusion of the camera following the vehicle up was an editing trick done later.
gonyea12 2 years ago
First of all, it's a 1.5 second delay. And second, they sent the command, and 1.5 seconds later the camera responded. Duh!
How do you do editing tricks on live video?
shanedk 2 years ago
@shanedk The guys in mission control also knew when the ship was going to launch just as well as the crew in it did (if not BETTER) since they had a full telemetry feed from it. All the camera controller had to do was get his timing right, and on 17 the camera controller did it quite nicely. (Apparently, something went wrong on 16, and none of the earlier missions left a remotely controllable camera with tilt on the surface.)
evensgrey 1 year ago
The dust layer was only 30cm - it was regolith and rock underneath that. If you can find some confirmation that the moon is sandy to a depth of 2m then you can send me a message with the link.
And it takes 1.2 seconds for radio to get to the moon. After some time the operator was skilled enough to anticipate the motion of astronauts and the ascent stage.
krisdevalle 2 years ago
@krisdevalle There's also the observation that the lunar regolith packs down as hard as concrete (or harder) within a few inches. One of the crews wasn't able to fully deploy their heat flow probe because they weren't able to get a core hole fully sunk into the surface, the regolith was just to hard to drill through (and this is with a core drill that punched through all the test materials quite nicely on Earth).
evensgrey 1 year ago
@evensgrey Quite true - all geologic data confirms the dust layer averages about 3 inches. You see sometimes they can't even get a sampler in - sometimes, rarely, it just pushes right down. But we're agreeing - our time is (perhaps) better spent telling people who are simply asking questions about this. The most hardline hoaxers are really beyond help.
krisdevalle 1 year ago
No professional physicist says there should be a hole. You cut and pasted that claim from a dufus website without bothering to see how stupid everyone else thinks it is.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
The "crater" is a dumb idea made by non-physicists with zero education in the matter. Why do professional physicists never make this claim? Why is it always amatuers and newbs? And dont tell me you computed "vw" all by yourself. You cut and pasted a dumb dork webpage pretending to be clever.
Since you were too incompetent to research that they left a remote camera behind, we're certainly not going to trust your physics expertise.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Yeah, that was flipping great :D
HerrDerDinge 2 years ago
rofl fantastic!
somtwo 2 years ago
The feather the white coat guy dropped looks like it was made of rubber.
dangerouslytalented 2 years ago
luckily this conspiracy theory doesn't do any harm (anymore?) buth there are tons of them out there and they all have the same mechanics of liars spoonfeeding morons.
MWcrazyhorse 2 years ago 5
Not real harm no. But it brings harm to the brave men that went there and are real heroes. In the minds of those who believe this crap, they're liars. In my opinion, it makes it just as harmful.
mornmeril 2 years ago 2
you don't think it is harmful to have an increasing percentage of the population believe 9/11 was an inside job and/ or Barack Obama is of the masonic Order and a Muslim terrorist etc etc.?
MWcrazyhorse 2 years ago
@MWcrazyhorse I dunno, pandering to such 'theories' only invites more spread of misinformation. Which is definately a bad thing! So I think hammering the nail into things like this is still a good idea.
andromidius 8 months ago
Love your videos, hahaha they are such liars!
dilemmix 2 years ago 3
4 stars? I don't buy this. Definitely votebotted.
noodles321321 2 years ago 3
Great video
RabidLarmer 2 years ago
Wow, this video got vote boted... Just check the stats..
vava54own 2 years ago
ye you're right. creationists and now also conspiracy nuts are using this method.
MWcrazyhorse 2 years ago 2
Now if I can just get my in-laws to watch these ... :D
xmacd 2 years ago
X, I have found, in the exact same situation, that it helps to let the person know that they are being lied to and taken for a fool by the "hoax" perpetrators and you can prove it to them. This video proves those lies pretty well.
I had a similar thing happen when my gf's aunt (I ashamed to even know someone like this) actually believed Sylvia Browne was a real psychic. I convinced her to see that stop Sylivia site by telling her she was bing lied to and I could prove it. It worked.
jimbrown257 2 years ago
I'll give it a try. Thanks.
xmacd 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This video sucks.
straydog02 2 years ago
Trumbull and Kubrick didn't even try to simulate 1/6 in 2001. They just had actors walk slow. They didn't even change the film speed. Jarrah seems to be more vocal about vodka than percentages!
satweavers 2 years ago 2
Scott's feather was oriented horizontally, while Percy's lab coated stage hand had his feather pointed down like a dart. Percy could have done a better job of replicating the experiment. Could that have an effect on the air resistance of the falling feather?
satweavers 2 years ago
Small spherical lead shot weights strategically placed inside the feather quill would keep it at the horizontal during its fall.
To reiterate, there's practically nothing within NASAs entire Apollo media archive that could not feasibly be an earthbound simulation of lunar activity.
michaelstmark 2 years ago
But the change in Moment of Interia would result in the feather spinning.
shanedk 2 years ago
If you had ever offered any evidence to back up any of your claims, that statement might have some meaning.
satweavers 2 years ago
... or if you ever highlighted any single piece of Apollo media that couldn't feasibly be an earthbound forgery, so might yours.
michaelstmark 2 years ago
Who gets to decide "feasibly?" A hoax spaz not even educated or qualified in the topic in the first place?
Is all the evidence "feasibly" fake because making a flying guess you'll never prove is so much easier than finding anyone over the age of 14 to agree with your hair-brained illiteracy?
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
The pendulum? When have you hoaxtards ever explained THAT?
shanedk 2 years ago
"spherical lead shots"
Which, of course, you have zero evidence for.
A flying guess pulled straight out of your fat ass doesnt count as evidence, unfortunately. This "hoax" stupidity is always SO much easier when you can just make it up as you go along, now isnt it? ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
... Apollo could have been made up as it went along you mean. You have absolutely zilch conclusive evidence it wasn't.
And that's why you're getting your knickers in a twist 'Musey.
michaelstmark 2 years ago
Shifting Burden Fallacy.
shanedk 2 years ago
Strap "clip" a heavy solid block of lead... footage not of sufficient resolution to determine a small lightweight clip... footage slowed to the appropriate percentage to obtain 1/6g oscillations.
Length of the footage then would be too short to distinguish between swinging in a vacuum or slowing very fractionally in atmosphere. Also you are merely guessing the friction component .
And in any case that particular close-up scene could have been taken in a vacuum/ virtual vacuum chamber.
next.
michaelstmark 2 years ago
A lead "clip" you cant produce, with documentation you dont have, seen by witnesses you cant name?
I had no idea your "evidence" was quite so extensive. ;) Making this up as you go really DOES save a whole lot of time. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
On the contrary we've been able to keep a CONSISTENT story for 40 years. We can tell you who landed, where they landed, when they landed, how long they were there and what they brought back.
Its the hoaxtards like you who continually change your story whenever you're outsmarted (which is often).
The moon "set" is in Area 51, NO WAIT, its in Hawaii, NO WAIT, its in Hollywood
The moon "rocks" are from antartica, NO WAIT, they're from a robot probe
etc etc You havent kept one story about ANYTHING
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
"zilch"
I'd prefer to hear that from a professional engineer who, like, works for a living. ;)
Whereas we love the corny ramblings of hoax dorks, you're far too emotionally biased to take seriously.
The 12 men who walked on the moon for example. After 40 YEARS, not only CANT you break their alibi, you have no counter argument whatsoever other than "Liar liar pants on fire!"
WELL THAT SURE EXPLAINS IT! ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Comment removed
michaelstmark 2 years ago
"BSC honours"
And you're widely known around here as illiterate quack nonetheless. Your "evidence" comes nowhere NEAR engineering level, with your posts here rising no further than "is too IS NOT." You, your intelligence, and your "facts" are all unimpressive at best and laughable at worst.
Case in point:
"hiding behind anonymity"
MY NAME IS ON MY PROFILE you dumbass. ;)
So is my education, experience, credentials, etc etc etc. If you couldnt even figure THAT out, you're a total incompetent.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
'Fraid I don't have the spare time to click around checking out sockpuppet ids Muse... you call that incompetence, fine.
See, you're not the important person in the grand scheme of things that you seem to think you are. .... whilst its obvious to all & sundry you have deep unresolved anger issues surrounding the status quo being challenged.
So .... to reiterate. There's nothing in the totality of Apollo media that could not be a stage-managed production and/or involving image- manipulation.
michaelstmark 2 years ago
Image manipulation??? You DO realize that this was the late 1960s, don't you?
shanedk 2 years ago
"sockpuppet"
You obviously dont even know what that word means. ;)
Who am I a "sockpuppet" of exactly?
Well you obviously made an idiot of yourself before and now want to desperately save face. (too late). ;)
This is my REAL screenname. My profile has my REAL name in it in absolute public. Now if you couldnt even take the rudimentary research to click my name before saying something stupid as you did-
-HOW can we possibly trust you with anything TECHNICAL? ;)
Amatuer.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
"stage-production"
Could've would've shoud've. You can keep repeating cliches and you'll keep getting ridiculed for them.
The "stage" built with a crew you cant identify, with blueprints you cant produce, in a building you cant find, filmed by a director you cant name?
Well THANK GOD you've got this all figured out. I was worried you were just grasping at straws and making it up as you went. ;)
YOU keep the dumb guesses, WE'LL keep the professionals who can buy and sell your education.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
"could be"
Why is it with your stupendous "engineering" degree, the extent of your technical language tops out at "could be?"
Why do you forgo any discussing of evidence to waste everyones time with a "well it MIGHT be..." and equal language indistinguishable from any 8th grader?
I've argued with a great many would-be "truthseekers" pretending to be physicists and engineers and photographers etc etc and exposed far too many as bluffers and fakers. Add yourself to that list at your own peril.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
You suffer from a colossal over-inflated ego as well as intellectual fascism of the worst kind, STM.
If you were half as intelligent as you claim, you wouldn't have to use sarcasm as the main armament in your debate weaponry.
Same goes for Killian.
Now if you want to disprove my claim that within the entirety of Apollo media there is no categorical proof they went - within the bounds of decent civilized debate - fine.
If not, dump your crib-rattle rage somewhere else.
michaelstmark 2 years ago
The presence of sarcasm in no way negates the validity of an argument; in fact, it can be an excellent tool for showing precisely where the fallacy lies.
Complaints about sarcasm are only levied by people who aren't clever enough to use it well.
shanedk 2 years ago
Not complaining Shane, its just that I personally find it childish and tedious... .. whereas both stm and your good self obviously don't subscribe to the generally accepted notion that it's the Lowest Form of Wit.
Well, good to see you have it in you to go against the grain on something at least.
michaelstmark 2 years ago
"childish"
Like saying there's a moon "stage" and giving no proof of it? Where is this stage Mike? Who built it? Who filmed it? Why, after 40 years, cant the moon dorks even agree AMONGST THEMSELVES where it is?
You argue no evidence, post no evidence, have no evidence. Therefore we talk about you, and why you believe stupid things without any evidence.
Logical enough transition. ;)
And I agree with shane, you're only mad at sarcasm because you're personally inarticulate. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
... and I'm still waiting for you to provide one piece of Apollo media that could not possibly have been faked on earth.
So far you're all bull, bluster and juvenile put-down.
michaelstmark 2 years ago
Pen-du-lum! PEN-DU-LUM!!!
And you still haven't explained how they had technology to do frame-by-frame image manipulation in the 1960s without leaving artifacts.
shanedk 2 years ago
Already done, Shane.... heavy solid block of lead as "the clip" / footage slowed to x% to run oscillations in parallel with 1/6g c/w insufficient image res' info' or running time to show otherwise.
Single frame image doctoring common since the birth of photography, so what's your big deal about multiple frame fakery?
michaelstmark 2 years ago
Sigh...except that if you speed up the video to where it's Earth-normal the astronauts go all Benny Hill again!
Multi-frame fakery CANNOT be achieved without computer tracking without leaving visible artifacts. MANY experiments were tried. It is just quite simply impossible for a human being to doctor the second frame precisely the same as he did the first one.
You are an IDIOT. You LOSE.
shanedk 2 years ago
Listen up shane....if you want to continue debate in a civilized fashion, fine. What I wont tolerate is every response being eplete with juvenile insult.
You don't even allocate the common courtesy to visitors to explain points fully before labelling them "idiot".
Obviously any half-smart moon hoax director creating footage he knows will be slowed-down in post-production to represent a real time shoot would instruct the actors to move their arms faster.
Try a modicum of common sense?
michaelstmark 2 years ago
If you HONESTLY think the astronauts were zipping around like Benny Hill with those bulky space suits on, you ARE an idiot.
You DID explain your position. And it's STUPID.
shanedk 2 years ago
I'm focusing on their arm movements, they would not be difficult for the astronauts to deliberately speed-up during a shoot.... nothing else about their overall movements looks especially unnatural when sped-up by c. 30%.
BTW You seriously need to get a handle on your embarrassingly immature arrogance and aggression - it lets you down badly on all of your otherwise mildly entertaining videos
michaelstmark 2 years ago
Are you HIGH??? Have you TRIED it??? It's hard enough to do it WITHOUT wearing a spacesuit!
I only appear arrogant because of the pathetic levels of imbecility I'm having to address.
shanedk 2 years ago
And you have no idea how difficult or easy it would be to move arms quickly when in a pressurized spacesuit... but of course I'm positing earth location therefore no need for much additional pressurization above sea level ....but of course its understandable you wouldn't want to go there.
michaelstmark 2 years ago
You're honestly not saying a pressurized spacesuit would make it EASIER, are you?
shanedk 2 years ago
"common courtesy"\
Is EARNED, not given away. Your very position and actions are discourteous and ignorant. We are not arguing from equal positions.
WE have witnesses, support of the scientific professionals, and physical evidence.
You DONT.
No witnesses, no evidence. You're reduced to nothing so banal and juvenile as "could've would've should've" innuendo and dumb guesses.
A dumb argument will lead to you being treated dumb. Simple transition. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
"You cannot prove that it isnt."
CAUGHT YOU.
Caught you right there. ;)
ADULT debate is about PROVING A POSITIVE, not hiding behind a double negative like a vindictive 3rd grader.
The "hoax" is your dumb idea, your challenge of the establishment, therefore its YOUR responsibility to prove it. And I'm aghast that I have to give juvenile explanations of debate procedure to an alleged adult.
WE have positive proof:
Astronauts you cant refute
Moonrocks you cant refute etc etc
You have nothing.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Sadly for you Muse, I have just as much if not right to justify my claims in terms of " proof they did not " as you have with your tiresome and abusive demands based on a proven liar of a secret military agency's doctored media, mainstream media control and mission cover-ups.
They destroyed their multi-million dollar moon globe & landing track models soon after 72,
Now give me one sane reason why they would want to do that ... besides destroying evidence of a crime of course.
michaelstmark 2 years ago
NO YOU DO NOT! The burden of proof is on YOU. And you fail, fail, FAIL with that EVERY TIME.
shanedk 2 years ago
This isnt about "rights" Its about RESULTS.
And you dont have any.
If you dont have any witnesses, than thats your problem, not ours.
Of you dont have any documents, thats your problem, not ours.
"proven liar?" Horse shit. Just ask any moon nerd right? ;) You cant use ONE dork conspiracy as your "proof" for another dork conspiracy.
"Doctored media" Dork propaganda,
"media control" Dork propaganda
"cover-ups" Dork propoganda.
Can you prove ANYTHING without inventing ANOTHER conspiracy?
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
"If you dont have any witnesses, than thats your problem, not ours.
Of you dont have any documents, thats your problem,"
Vociferous witnesses denigrating NASA have tended to go the way of Ronald Baron... and because NASA media is initially tightly controlled after strict in-house procurement, they have plenty time to perfect /cross reference their adulterations.
And as I say no one - least of all you chumps - is able to cite a single piece of Apollo media as definitive proof for your case.
michaelstmark 2 years ago
"Ronald baron"
The moronic invention of ANOTHER superficial and proofless conspiracy to explain your incompetence in proving the FIRST superficial and proofless conspiracy.
If you cant prove ANYTHING without a ceaseless parade of "conspiracy A is proof of conspiracy 4, not to be confused with conspiracy X which requires simultaneous blind belief in conspiracies 3,7, and Z," then you should admit it like a man and stop wasting our time with juvenile fabricated fairytales.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
"single piece"
Unless, in the last hour, you've broken the alibi of all 12 Apollo astronauts, we have all the proof we require. Eyewitness testimony is accepted in a court of law.
ESPECIALLY when the opposition has no more mature counter-argument than "liar liar pants on fire," which you've admitted is all you can do.
If only they'd come back with physical evidence, the landing would be proven beyond all doubt of youtube wannabes.
Oops, the moonrocks.;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
"definitive"
BTW, who gets to decide "definitive?" An espoused conspiraholic with admitted bias towards the proponents and admitted vacuum of facts? Your prejudice TOTALLY steers you toward any dismissal of the opponents evidence as it absolutely highlights the absence your own. ;)
I prefer to have "definitive" defined by the actual experts in the field, professional astronomers and geologists and physics who dont let personal paranoia interfere with their analysis.
And THEY say its real. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Three more john wall scrawls from the YT rage cripple.
So. After a half dozen tries I guess its fair to say you cannot provide a single example of Apollo media that proves beyond doubt they went.
Plus you dont wish to debate why they demolished the moon globe.. nor what happened tp Barons 500 page A1 report.
..so you deflect to "moonrocks"
Okay, so.
"800lbs" allegedly returned by Apollo ... has that amount, or anything remotely approaching it, ever been independently verified all together?
michaelstmark 2 years ago
No, we HAVE; you're just too much of an IDIOT to see the basic physics involved.
shanedk 2 years ago
You use that word a lot shaney. Strictly speaking then, lets go with its original etymological derivative... IDIOSyNCRATIC.
You know, I'm actually quite happy with that.
Better the free spirit questioner than the penned-in inbred mountain goat that goes " baaaa" , what.
michaelstmark 2 years ago
"questioner"
Any IDIOT can ask a "question."
But ONLY an idiot would then refuse to listen to the answers because they didnt tell you want you wanted to hear, coddling your fear-mongering bias. ;)
If you asked questions of professional geologists and physicists, and actually listened to what they said, you wouldnt be taken in by hoax-pushing newbs and amateurs nearly so easily.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
All you ever do is shoot your big mouth off with slander and denigration - you make no serious attempt to answer my points or to debate in a civilized fashion.
You've deflected your yellow-belly way to "moonrocks" and now you cant even answer if NASAs claimed 800 odd lbs figure has ever been independently verified .
If they said they'd found fish fossils in 'em you'd wet your pants with glee.
You're all big angry mouth, 'muse.
michaelstmark 2 years ago
What does it MATTER if the exact poundage has been verified? The ROCKS THEMSELVES have been INDEPENDENTLY verified NUMEROUS times! And they have ALWAYS been found to be from the moon, and could ONLY come from the moon!
shanedk 2 years ago
Sure shane, what the hell does it matter if NASA claim 800lbs of assorted Apollo moon rocks when they only have 50lbs, for example... of lab-adulterated lunar meteorites.
Rant on, my man....
michaelstmark 2 years ago
"lab-adulterated"
Mr. Predictability.;)
If you're incompetent in proving ONE shallow conspiracy, just invent ANOTHER shallow conspiracy!
(I could've sworn I've caught you at this before, so thanks for proven me right.)
Go ahead and invent conspiracy after conspiracy, that'll REALLY show us that you've got your engineering education. ;)
"Labs" staffed with geologists you cant name, in a building you cant identify, using a process you dont know?
Thank god you're not making this up as you go. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
BTW Mike, I've asked you numerous times to point out ANY geologist who has called the rocks "lab-adulterated."
If you fail, then you fail. No one to blame but yourself for making up a newb conspiracy you knew you had zero proof for except your own childish paranoia.
Some "engineer." ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Three more chunks of convoluted waffle from Mr Angry.
You type reams without saying anything..
You deflect to moonrocks because you're soundly thrashed on Apollo media as proof , and on Baron's missing A1 report.
Theres no indy verification on 800lbs of rocks . They "lose" the LM blueprints, lose the LM simulation footage, trash the multi million dollar moon globe... hell even one of the Apollo astronauts isnt certain they went!
And you label legit questioning "childish paranoia"!
Graze on.
michaelstmark 2 years ago
YOU'RE the one who's still arguing against BASIC MATH!
Or have you finally figured out that 246% is the correct rate to speed up the moon footage to match Earth free-fall?
shanedk 2 years ago
You're assuming of course that John Young's jump salute descent, for example, had to be freefall and not controlled.
But then of course shane, your cute Benny Hill argument goes right out the window :-)
Yet I'll grant you it is an interesting apparent anomaly that considering lunar g actions only 5.4ft/s sq on falling objects as opposed to the massive X c. 6 32.17 for earth -less air res', -;that the mere 2 1/2 X speed increase figure you quote apparently applies.... but I digress.
michaelstmark 2 years ago
I don't ASSUME that! I conclude that because any means of support would be clearly visible in 1960s technology.
Besides, how would they change the rate the pendulum swung?
shanedk 2 years ago
You haven't engaged my point about the jump salute clip not necessarily having needed to have been speed-altered if taken earth using a gravity rig.
Thats the prime subject of the vid'.
michaelstmark 2 years ago
Means of support concealed against black sky quite easily - and as weve discussed awhile back, piss poor footage quality doesnt allow for detailed analysis.
Plus a full rig need not have been used as only a fraction of the astronaut's weight is being supported to accentuate lift X2 3 mill dia matt black-coated high tensile steel wires would do the job.
And another thing - the H & F demo need not necessarily have been speed-tampered either from the original earth shoot.
RIP Benny Hill, lol
michaelstmark 2 years ago
Sigh... NO, THEY AREN'T, IDIOT, and that's according to the BEST special effects engineers of the time! Are they all in on the conspiracy, too?
Simply bringing up the contrast would reveal the cables. Once again, you're an ignorant moron who doesn't want to learn--you could have just LOOKED THAT UP and saved yourself the embarrassment!
shanedk 2 years ago
Wrong. Theres insufficient picture information (detail) for that. Bringing up the contrast would merely increase the already substantial picture noise. Two ultra thin matt coated wires would NOT be apparent @ several yards away
because both Apollo DAC and especially Rover TV picture quality was beyond lousy - a bit like your online manners.
michaelstmark 2 years ago
You don't NEED detail for that, you IDIOT, you just need contrast!
Okay, why don't you set it up for us and show us--using ONLY 1960s technology?
shanedk 2 years ago
Wrong again 'fraid. If fine detail present in the scene being recorded is not picked up and recorded by the image sensoring device / film emulsion, obviously no amount of contrast/brightness/sharpness tweaking of the image is going to show it. As I say, all you'll do is enhance the picture noise - which with the low res' of Rover TV is substantial.
Jeez, you can barely make out Young's PLSS radio antennae on jump salute, never mind the much thinner wires required for his "1/6 g" assist.
michaelstmark 2 years ago
Then PROVE it. DO it. Using the SAME technology, and a camera with the SAME settings.
shanedk 2 years ago
Mike, since professional movie-makers have shot down any "hoax,"
-professional physicists have shot down any "hoax."
-professional geologists have shot down any "hoax,"
Who then, might we ask, is left?
Since you linked that moonrock movie instead of the original news story, its obvious you're just cut and pasting the webpages of other wankers, pretending to be an expert.
Well, "pretend" is all you'll ever be able to do. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
If so many people have shot down the hoax how come so few step up to the plate to challenge the hoax facts... that no Apollo media cannot be duplicated on earth... that theres no proof of 800lbs of moonrocks .. about where Barons A1 report went... why they trashed the multi-million $ moon globe and LM simulation footage.. about why even an ex Apollo a/naut isn't sure they went... the list goes on.
I cut and paste nothing; I simply dont spend my time sucking on establishment wieners, Bernard.
michaelstmark 2 years ago
Because you don't HAVE any facts! You CLAIM it can be duplicated, but then you DON'T duplicate it--even when DIRECTLY CHALLENGED TO DO SO!
shanedk 2 years ago
I don't claim it can be duplicated, I'm offering the science of HOW its duplicated.
For eg I suggest theres no need for slo-mo to accurately duplicate either Young's jump or the H & F... yet you don't want to know.
And its too hot for you to handle, that's why you get your knickers in a twist.
If you don't like the hoax heat get out the NASA-sucking kitchen Killian.
michaelstmark 2 years ago
YOU claim it can be done. YOU have not done ANYTHING to support that. All you have are insults and childish rantings. WE have the evidence, and you have NOT refuted it.
shanedk 2 years ago
Look. Let's make it simple for you. You've been harping on interminably they could never have hidden wire supports in Rover TV media.
Only a few posts back I stated they didnt need very thick and complex wire rigs because they werent flying anybody.
High tensile 2-3mm diameter wires are more than enough to do simple jump assists in earth gravity.... and matt coated to avoid glints.
So if Youngs 5mm highly reflective antenna blade can't be made out on Rover TV what chance the wires?
Hey?
michaelstmark 2 years ago
"2-3mm diameter"
GREAT! Now all you have to do is provide even a SINGLE WITNESS TO SAY "I built those wires."
"Wires" built with blueprints you cant provide, by a crew you cant identify, filmed on a set you cant find?
THOSE wires? ;)
We appreciate desperate flying guesses, but a hundred or even a thousand of them dont add up to even ONE minimal element of proof.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago