@GoneToPlaid I'm sorry but you don't have to be a topology expert to see there's something fishy going on here, in the left photo there's a rock debris field spreading all throughout the scene, in the middle pic its just a bit of rougher ground and on the right pic its all lovely and smooth, does the rock debris field abruptly end somewhere? Either someone was busy with a rake up there or there is something dodgy about these pics..........
@smokebeerdrinktabs And then of course you could have used Google Moon to learn that Mt. Hadley towers 4000 meters or 13 thousand feet above the Apollo 15 landing site, that Station 7 is 4 and 1/2 km from the landing site, that Station 9 is 1 and 1/2 km from the landing site, and that Station 9 is 5 km from Station 7.
Prove to me WHY this video proves nothing.. Go on, what's your reasoning. Since you accuse GTP of being wrong. back up your ridiculous claims with some evidence or just get off of your computer.
Thank you Cadu. Thank you for confirmation. Your reaction and abusive language is a perfect acknowledgement of the fact that you are just another hoaxhead, who thinks he is smarter than all those engineers and scientists which worked on Apollo and studied its results.
There were a hell of a lot more people hyping the WMD story than just the "Bush administration".
My example goes to the distrust some people have of the "official story". Recall, if you can, what the people that wanted proof of WMDs and imminent threat from Iraq were called. "Paranoid nuts". Sound familiar?
Change history however your worldview comfort zone allows, the fact remains that governments, corporations and large institutions lie to suit their needs.
I don't agree. The WMD issue has nothing to do with Apollo. On the other hand; it shows that a lie or a conspiracy sooner or later is revealed. If Apollo was faked, someone would have spilled the beans years and years ago.
Somebody may have spilled the beans, but if no one paid attention? That's the power of the media over short-attention span America. You and I share a backyard, my apple tree grows a branch over the fence and soon enough, an apple from my tree falls by gravity into your yard. According to the law (and common sense) is that apple yours or mine?
Its yours of course. That very basic principle is under fire by an American corporation. Am I telling the truth? Hmm, the media hasn't told you yet, so?
No one paying attention if a reputable engineer or high-ranked 'insider' at NASA is going to spill the beans? Get real. There would have been thousands of people in on this conspiracy. Astronauts, management, technicians, film crews, moon stage builders, filmdirectors, scientific advisors to oversee every aspect of every bit of film , video or voice transmission. Surely some of them would have had a guilty conscience and picked up the phone and rung a tv-station.
No because believing that Iraq had WMD in defiance of all the available evidence is itself a conspiracy theory, and the confused illogic of the Bush administration is very similar to yours on many issues.
At the end of the day you're still a paranoid nut just like Bush, Cheney etc.
Hoaxers? A very tiny few of them are willing to read. Most of them only do a quick watch on YouTubeMost and start shouting "fake!" or insulting dedicated men and women, without even notice it. Hoaxers are a bunch of distrusters with hatred towards authority. They 'see' evidence of NWO, 9/11byBush, Moonhoax, Illuminati, Freemasons, and so on. As soon as they are proven wrong (basics only needed for that) they start shouting "shill" or "disinfo agent".
I have considered both approaches, and long before I knew about you. I decided to allow myself the freedom of expression, on a personal level, that hoaxers deserve. They deserve contempt. But still, I will make legitimate arguments and they will constitute the overwhelming majority of what I post.
If I am hired by a television network to do a series, my approach will change. I do not need to conform to some professional standards. I'm an amateur and people can take that or leave it.
Which photo in the ALSJ are you referring to? I'm curious and want to take a look. I do recall that the astronauts resorted to making a sunshade for the video camera before a sunshade was included on the video camera on later missions. I can't remember which mission where I saw that photo.
I have done further analysis and further found out where Rourke made his mistakes. First, and the obvious, were his errors in distance measurements from S7 to his chosen points on Hadley. Second, and less obvious, was that the wide area topo map of Hadley contains gross errors. Rourke should have used the 8X higher resolution (and thus 8X more accurate topo map produced from AP15's Mapping Camera rather than from the Panorama Camera.
Cut the crap until I compile and upload the new video which shows Rourke's mistakes and which proves that the AP15 EVA photos are indeed real.
Rourke is right in that the wide area topo map produced from the Panorama Camera photos doesn't match the EVA views of Hadley. Yet the topo map produced from the 8X better resolution Mapping Camera photos DOES to a very high degree of accuracy! As I have said, Rourke didn't do his homework and research all of the available data!
"There's a summary of hoax evidence on a science forum. To see it, Google "The Naked Scientists". In the "New Theories" section of the forum there's a thread entitled "Did We Land on the Moon". The summary is on page 15. It's the seventh post from the top."
I seem to be blocked. Why is it so hard to post links to summaries of hoax evidence on the channel pages of pro-Apollo people?
I determine whether I have a need for it or not and I do not answer to you.
It wouldn't make any difference what kind of videos I make; you would find something to object to. You think we didn't go to the moon and you don't understand why you and other HBs get sneers from people like me.
Quite honestly, I don't care if you watch my videos or what you think about them. You are one of many conceited, ill-informed, insulting CTs and you do not deserve any consideration from me.
Another conspiracist/moon hoaxer asking the other side to take the moral high ground and be more polite.
The insult was committed by those who accused thousands of decent hard working people of fraud. I say Kaysing was insane because he WAS. I say JW is illogical and wrong because he IS. I say Rourke demonstrated academic incompetence because he DID.
It is not low morality when one condemns the actions of someone who has committed condemnable acts or is an insulting troll, himself.
My newest Debunk #4 video is posted on YouTube. In it I show Rourke's erroneous data, and I show lots of orbital views of Mount Hadley as well. Rourke assumed that all of his calculations were correct even though all of the photo evidence screams that somewhere he must have made a mistake. That SHOULD have made him go back and check his calculations. But no, Rourke instead jumped to his "fakery" conclusion since that obviously was the result he was looking for in the first place.
In short, Rourke screwed up in measuring the distances from Station 7 to each of his chosen data point locations on Mount Hadley. He chose those data point locations very accurately, as my Debunk #4 video shows. Yet unfortunately Rourke screwed up when calculating the distances from Station 7 to those data points. I guess the topo map's scale bar in the topo map's bottom legend was too much of a bitch for him to handle.
Rob ..It never even occured to me to post a fake e-mail to Pedro... but I can clearly understand why you would think that.
You really are to be pitied.. Not only did you fall for "rudbrps" act of posting only one PM from me, which was taken out of context, but now you think I made up my other reples to him !?!?... I'm afraid that makes you almost as dishonest and as delusional as he is.
Hi rudbrps ... I'm a friend of greenmagoos ( Pedro ) ..We make hoax videos together here on YouTube under straydog /greenmagoos Productions .
He told me that you were contacted by a government agent and that you were concerned about having this video on YouTube ... I know that you know nothing about the Apollo moon hoax but what you have is worth a fortune ... and I'm not joking ... Please hide the original in a safe place and don't let anyone take it away from you ...
There are top conspiracy researchers that would pay you a ton of money to have this in their possession .. I am working with two of them at this time .. Jack White and David Percy and they both would be very interested in possibly obtaining your film .
Whatever you do , please don't turn it over to the government .. They are just playing games with you and trying to intimidate you into taking it down ( Pedro told me that your wife received a phone call from a government employee ) ..
"You have no idea what seeing this video means to me ..It's like a dream come true .. I have fought for this cause for over eight years , four of them on internet discussion forums .. I have been ridiculed , insulted , and banned from almost every forum I ever debated this subject on , all because I wanted the truth to come out about nasa faking the moon landing photography .
And thanks to you , I can finally rest in knowing that what I believed all along was true .. Thank you ."
Roben .. Since you seem to know so much about my correspondence with "rudbrps" would you mind saving me the trouble and please post my LAST PM to that psycho here?
Strawfag. The attack dog of Jawa. You know, the little guy from the crater making concrete busting rockets. The guy in black that researches lunar foottracks, 'oddities' concerning retro-reflectors and LRO. The guy acknowledging the landings to prove the fakery of LRO pictures and calculating150% of 0.5. The C130 guy.
"also another code was ECO-7252, he Said this means it s called Ecktachrome Commercial Film, type 7252, made in 1970.i hope that helps, i sent to info to moontrue also because he said he was
intrested.
hey, i have another film- you wont beleve where this one came from!, i had this one made over to a dvd it looked boring
at 1st but then i noticed a flag that blew like form a puff of air (not pedros video either). and he gave me a mpeg on disk too so i can send a better quality to youtoob."
While I'm waiting for you to post my last PM to "Denny", I will post some more of his silly "stupidity" here.
"it doesnt say anything top secret or anything but does have some wierd writing and stuff. you intrested in seeing that?i'll try to send it upit my channel, should be a few more days, im
still trying to figur out my new puter! haha
bye for now
Dennis"
TOO FUNNY !!!
I laughed my ass off when I first got these dumber than dirt messages, but they're even funnier today!
Jawa. In his slight defense, his basic strategy looks for inconsistencies in the official record that might belie a fakery. Assuming for the sake of his argument that Apollo imagery is real and then goes looking for discrepancies between it and LRO imagery.
Of course, his so-called discrepancies are all easily explained with math, science and logic, none of which he knows. When encountered too close, he calls in the attack dogs. Or just blocks the inconvenience.
Who is David Percy?.. He's the conspiracy researcher you rabid Apollogist creeps character assassinated, before you sunk your teeth inro Professor Rourke.
Roben .. Here's some of my PMs to rudbrps that I bet he forgot to share with all of you.
"Dennis.. Hey thanks for the update on your film ...There was never any doubt that's it original nasa footage, but the question still remains as to whether it was faked by editing the stagehand in, or was it raw footage before the stagehand was edited out ?"
"The fact that the "official" clip on the ALSJ has been cropped is a good thing for the conspiracy side ..The fact that the the "official" clip has a better picture quality than yours, is a good thing for the pro Apollo side.
But the bottom line is this ... Whether your film is real or fake, Apollo was still a photographic fraud.
Yes, I would be very interested in seeing your other video ... Where did it come from ? ... Duane "
mhm, oic.. and me as your acting psychological physician today, I have come to one solid conclusion, of your implicit idiocy, and single minded , vulgar, egotistical, under educated, attempt to prove a point *moon hoax* which has been debunked by thousands of scientific minds across the board for dozens of years, is that you are invalid and have no common interest other than to succeed somewhere it is impossible to, for your own recurring assurance that you can't possibly be wrong~
Wow .. That's pretty "profound" shit coming from a 19 year old ignoramous.
A word of advise 999is666 .. If you really want people to read all of the inane crap you 've plastered all over your profile page, you might wanna reconsier your choice of wallpaper.. All that black at the bottom makes it a tad difficult to read all of that "important" information.
Roben .. I'm saving the best for the last.. Meaning my last PM to "Denny", but before I post it, I thought you might like to read an e-mail to my buddy greenmagoos about how I really felt about the "rudbrps" video.
Here's one dated Monday, June 18, 2007 5:29 PM
"Pedro,
I would like to PM that mother fucker Denny from Boca Raton and tell him to stick his fucking tape up his fucking ass.. but then he will know that we know it's a fake and the game will be over with.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Oh dear Roben .. Now you think that Buzz Lightyear is your friend!?!?
L O L
No, I don't like the word f*ck .. but I only use it when referring to lying sociopathic pieces of sh*t like svector/ rudbrps/ Denny, and all of the other sockpuppet names that psycho from hell uses to play his ridiculous mind f*ck games here.
You're offened by the word f*ck? .. Wow .. You really are a female!
Another thing that proves how pathetic you are Roben, is the fact that you need to either delete my comments ( explaining how the Apollo landing footage was faked ), from one of your silly videos, and then LIE about it being insulting.. and also thumb down my comments on every chanels you possibly can, to make them disappear.
The Apollogists are so desperate to debunk Professor Rourke that they have to make up a boat load of nonsense to pretend to refute his evidence.
Then there are the clowns like you Roben, who claim I've just made up my PM's and e-mails, that prove what I really think about "rudbrps" ridiculous video.
How sad that your life is so empty that you have to play sick, dishonest mind games on YouTube, as a way to defend your lost cause.
You've done what professor Rourke failed to do. At least he should have tried to flip three scaled photographs in a sequence in front of him. With enough speed, he would see the moving pictures, to help him to get the picture...
Hoaxers fall victims to lack of that spatial imagination. Without typical references, their brains fail to realize the scale and distances in lunar images.
Additionally, pt1gard is blocked for calling others disgusting names, i.e., "pussyshit", "dumbfuck" et cetera. Apparently pt1gard is too immature to carry on a civil discussion.
Your eyes and brain obviously aren't working when you've got nasa's own lunar simulation de-bunking every sec of their alleged filmed on the moon videos.
Give me some footage that matches the ballistic velocity charaterisitics displayed in the langley lunar g sims?
The langley video prefectly demonstrates the ballistic trajjctories of objects in one six gravity be they spacemen or dust booted,disturbed or carried along attahed to spacesuits.
I also have footage of Apollo 17 nots training for eva activities on the vomet comet and a brain damaged gold fish would be able to tell the difference in nasa's silly bellcomm tv studio moon videos.
Your great efforts at proving the hoax reduced to rubble just by me asking you to choose between 4 scenarios a high school student would know immediately?
You pick the exps andd describe the ballistic trajectory characteristics of the langley-not and how the energy he expends would be transferred to dust which WEIGHS LESS THAN THE LANGLEY-NOT!
BIGGER AND WDER PARABOLIC ARCS OF DUST.
Show me the nasa moon video where anything moves in a similar ballistic trajectory to the langley-not.
If I pick Buzz Aldrin up on the moon and throw him using x force, and then repeat the exercise with a handful of dust that weighs considerably less than Buzz, using the same x force Buzz the goat tampering mason ain't coming down anywhere near the height or distance the dust lands so
Is that your answer to my question? You need to answer that first, then I can tell you if you'r eright or wrong, and also answer your question, and explain any differences between th etwo scenarios-back later, so don't wait for an immediate reply
Eh I am assuming you have watched the Langley video and paid attention to the ballistic trajectory characteristics of the langley-not because whenever he moves he seems to be travelling up.
Are you confirming that would seem to the general motion?
Because it takes very little force for an astro-nots to push down on the regolith and travel up.
It will take a small precentage of that force to transfer to any dust that WILL BE DISTURBED and that to will travel UP following the same ballistic trajectory pattern.
Apollotls. Imagine yourself in a sand pit as a child jumping up the way.
You will disturb some of that sand jumping up the way and if there wasn't earth gravity and 14.7 psi air pressure at sea level the sand you would disturb would sail up past your head because it weighs considerably less than you.
Stop kidding on that the nasa moon videos are filmed on the moon.
BALLISTIC TRAJECTORY CHARACTERISTICS!!!
Watch the langley video and imagine the langley not is a grain of lunar dust.
@greenmagoos if there wasn't earth gravity and 14.7 psi air pressure at sea level the sand you would disturb would sail up past your head because it weighs considerably less than you
Its really extraordinarily easy for anybody to fly UP going by the langley-not in the video.
Why wouldn't you expect some excess lunar dust to be not be completely flattened down every time its disturbed by boots and behave with the same ballistic trajectory characteristics as the langley not?
Would you find it easier throwing a handful of sand into the air or a fully suited up spaceman?
Where is all this transfer of energy to the disturbed dust?
Hmmm. If the transfer is downwards why is Larry the Langley not going UP QUITE EASILY?
Are you seriously suggesting that spacemen on the moon would have those ballistic velocity characteristics while the dust at their foot would be getting trampled completely flat every time....?
Lets not get into the 'ah but apollo...' because those videos are filmed on a bellcomm tv studio with front projection screens on top of nothing moves in lunar gravity. NO LUNAR ARCS
He gos up quite easily because he weighs so little. He doesn't need quite as much energy to leap and vault to those heights.
If actually on the moon he'd been standing or moving through or leaping up through lunar dust which will have the same ballistic velocity characteristics as langley-not but it will be going higher and farther away because when the energy from whatever he is doing is transferred because the dust weighs less it gos higher and farther in the same arc
It works like this - the astronaut uses his legs to project himself, and the dust sticking to him, to a certain velocity.
If particles of dust come free of the astronaut, they will fly their own trajectories determined by the velocity they had just at the moment they come free from the astronaut. And this will be fairly close to the speed of the astronaut.
Thinking about transfer of energy is wrong. You need to think about initial velocity and then the equations of motion.
It works like this. Dudes actually on the moon would be leaping with ease over giant boulders and sending the thick layers of dust that should be over their boots in wild rainbow arcs every time they moved an inch because anytime they used force its transfers to the dust in the same ballistic velocity characteristics.
The dust doesn't weigh anything like a fully suited up spaceman and it shouldn't fall straight to the surface
One of its final gurgles was 'even I can swoosh stones around in the bottom of my fish tank with my tail. With all that water pressure on top of it to boot. Is that clown that thick he doesn't realise there is no air pressure on the moon stopping said dust from following the langley-not in the same ballistic velocity characteristics, and does he not know the difference between applied force via astro-not exertion to different weights dust/spaceman.... AT THE SAME TIME...?
"The dust doesn't weigh anything like a fully suited up spaceman and it shouldn't fall straight to the surface" -- greenmagoos
GM, the mass doesn't matter. Only its initial velocity vector does. All objects on the moon will fall at the same rate regardless of their mass. Recall the famous feather and hammer drop video? If you could separately punt a football and a grain of moon dust with the same initial velocity vector, then both would follow the same ballistic trajectory. Physics 101 dude.
Velocity is expressed in terms of distance over time, such as miles per hour, kilometers per hour, feet per second, meters per second, et cetera. Do you see mass (grams, kilograms) anywhere in there? You sit in a car which is traveling at 80 km per hour. Even though the car has more mass than you do, both you and the car have the same velocity.
I do if I swing a boot at a rock and transfer x force while also kicking some dust at the same time transferring x force that weighs considerably less than the rock so how do they have the same velocity?
If both the dust and the rock start off with the same speed and are moving in the same direction, then they both have the same velocity. That is the definition of velocity. The mass of the rock and the dust doesn't matter.
We aren't booting one thing that weighs one weight and then booting something else considerably lighter and reducing the force/energy transferred to come up with the same velocity???
You are transferring energy to two seperate items that weigh differently AT THE SAME TIME!
Go and look up BALLISTIC VELOCITY CHARACTERISTICS and compare the langley not to the nasa's moon videos.
Then map that ballistic velocity characteristic to dust . Same expended astro-not energy onto the dust and yet while he can fly around langley you think magic moon dust wuill fall straight to the surface.
I don't want to kill any more goldfish by letting it read your idiotic mindless ideas about lesser gravity and airless environments.
Well it must be magic dust because it doesn't follow the ballistic trajectory characteristics of the langley-not in simulated lunar gravity and dust wasn't concerned about ripping it spacesuit so it was free to leap around in a similar fashion to langley-not whenever disturbed.
For some reason nasa's magic mooset dust falls straight back down to the suface no matter if the astro-not is leaping like a kangaroo or falling over
GM, think of it this way. Stomp down with your foot into a pile of sand. Very little sand actually flies a bit outward and doesn't fly very far, maybe several inches. On the moon with its 1/6 earth gravity, the same sand would fly 6 times further. This is what we see when the astronauts bunny hopped -- dust clouds which are only two or three feet in diameter at most. The fact that we see these dust clouds in the videos proves that the astronauts were on the moon in 1/6 earth gravity.
I'll tell you what you see in nasa's moon video. Shot in a bellcomm tv studio with minor alterations done to the disturbed dust- via slowed down playback, and work done to the length of the arc. It may look authentic to the unintiated but it clearly isn't lunar grabvity by a long stretch.
Please stop trying to kid on dust moves up and outward six times the height distance it should have.
LANGLEY VID- BALLISTIC VELOCITY CHARACTERISTICS- MAP THEM ONTO NASA VIDS AND YOU'LL SEE THE DIFFERENCE
I should have added of course that children will leave footprints as well as spraying sand while jumping in a sand pit.
Good ole nasa. They send wandering jew tinker masons to a planetary body with a sith the gravity, absolutely no air pressure worth mentioning, provide videos of the BALLISTIC TRAJECTORY CHARACTERISTIC of locomotion in lunar simulations, and in their moon videos they have spacemen and dust moving about and falling straight to the surface in a manner that does not match
I'm not learning anything other than paying attention to the ballistic trajectory characteristics of the langley-not in this simulated lunar gravity video-
watch?v=pJBbIEhWAAE
Following the path of his ballistic trajectory and comparing it to the nasa moon videos wether its spacemen or the dust they are disturbing doesn't match even the slightest.
GM, I understand what you've been saying and it is true. If you kick a grain of dust with the same force that you kick a ten pound rock, the dust grain will travel farther because of its lower mass. However, NEITHER will travel faster than the boot.
The amount of force transferred is also dependent on the mass of the object that hits is. The difference in velocity between the rock and the dust is a matter of how much either was able to slow down the boot on impact. (cont'd.)
@Astrobrant2 I have no doubt that GM actually understands this to be true. But he must keep up his appearances for the followers because it is very scary if his followers discovers that he is wrong all along.
Moonhoaxers had a pretty easy life since there was no new proof but nowadays they get more and more caught in the corner.
How many lives has been destroyed because they choose to follow those hoax and people laugh at them or get divorced?
I'm remembering 909 people in Guyana in 1978 who lost their lives because they just couldn't (or wouldn't) use a little critical thinking skill. Their belief that they were a "special group" or the only ones who really know the truth proved lethal to them. And yes, they were immersed in conspiratorial, paranoid thinking, too.
pt. 2. This has been a matter of a moving object hitting two other moving objects at the same speed, (which decreases slightly, depending on the mass of the object being hit.)
But that is not what is happening in the moon videos. ALL of the astronaut's muscular force is applied downward. Any dust that gets kicked up is because of the motion of his boots in an upward direction, catching a few grains resting against the boots.
And there is NOTHING in the Langley video which would apply to dust.
On the other hand, and this is the point which GM is missing, is that you kick a rock and a dust grain such that they both have the same initial velocity and velocity vector, then both will travel the exact same distance on the airless moon. GM thinks that in this case the dust, being lighter, should travel much further simply because it is smaller and less effected by lunar gravity.
I think I understand now what Green had on his mind. He says that it takes a certain force for the astronaut to jump to a certain height. He then seems to think this same force is acting on regolith, so the regolith will travel higher than the astronaut.
In a way, he's right. The regolith does experience the same force as the astronaut. Unfortunately he hasn't realised that the force applied to the regolith by the astronaut is in the opposite direction. ie downwards, not upwards
He also hasn't ralised that the dust we see flying isn't a direct result of the astronaut applying force to the ground, but more of dust on his foot, sticking to the underside of his boot etc, that gets carried along with him as he jumps. Getting a free ride as someone said.
Hmm. Amazingly enough I have watched and recorded my attempts to kick sand on a beach, and I've also recently observed the difference kicking hard packed snow.
Your moon videos are filmed in a smallish belcomm studio and composited in front of 12 inch cement model mountains and somebody I know has photos.
apollo 11 press sconference, wtach the liars squirm ... just like snake the shill ... his heroes wont even debate or let themselves be interrogated ... take a lie detector test, would be hysterical ... theyd all wet
"shill shill see that you just joined with a new name and account, you have been multiple people which makes me laff.... how much you getting paid, same as other shill Nazi WHO you prob are ... gawd, do you have a life, I am sure you look like a loser, are a fat ass ugly scum who never gets laid .... really, have you ever played a sport?
lets get personal here and come clean to prove your slimyness"
also, again, why no pics, why no talk about them carrying it, why bc it covers the fact there is no tracks under the damn thing over and over ... why a hoax you are ... the nauts carried the LR, yeah and easter bunny helped them at times, LMAO... had other apollogists like you tell me they never carried it, so which is it?
@pt1gard ALSJ A15, vid clip at 120:21:55 read 120:22:43 120:29:20 167:15:40 I'm particualrly fond of the last one, as it explains something exactly how it was, and how I told you to do some research on. 2 astro's on lunar surface-who'd take the picture? TV camera mounted on Rover, antenna on Rover, what happens to picture when Rover moved? "LMAO" Indeed. You are a dipshit, and you brought it all on yourself! Time to squirm for Pt!
The same ballistic trajectory as is displayed by the spaceman in lunar g simulations except with higher and wider arcs because the spaceman uses the same force displacing dust at his feet if really on moon.
That test isn't carried out in a vacuum chamber so the ballistic trajectory arc(s) will be higher and wider again on an airless moon.
@greenmagoos What do you mean with force displacement exactly?
You mean impuls?
What is the formula so I can check it.
In case if you are wondering, I am not English speaking so I am not familiar about the English mathematics therms. "Force displacement" means nothing to me.
f=ma is not sufficient to work out trajectories, only the acceleration imparted to an object with known mass with a known force.
You know neither.
Your best bet is the golf ball used by AS. That would be at least a known mass.
THe force could prbably be estimated sufficiently,but the angle,& the problem of mass in the form of regolith blocking the motion of the ball(which could easily be the same or more than the ball)makes subsequent estimates of distance unreliable
I think you need to watch the ballistic trajectory of the spacman in the video I linked and also consider his BALLISTIC PATH in a vaccum without 14.7 psi at earth sea level acting downwards.
Unless you are suggesting Langley carried out those simulations in a vacuum chamber.
Going outside and kicking hard packed snow and ice is a better demonstration of the ballistic path of grains of dust that weigh insignifact amounts on a planetary body with a sixth the gravity of earth and without air
@greenmagoos Acording to you how exactly should the dust move given your f=ma formula. What exactly is wrong with the dust in the noon video's. How should it behave?
If you want to test with snow, then you have to test it in vacuum since snow gets dampened by the air.
LOL. Colin Rourke fails so fucking hard.
unparallelshadows 1 month ago
@GoneToPlaid I'm sorry but you don't have to be a topology expert to see there's something fishy going on here, in the left photo there's a rock debris field spreading all throughout the scene, in the middle pic its just a bit of rougher ground and on the right pic its all lovely and smooth, does the rock debris field abruptly end somewhere? Either someone was busy with a rake up there or there is something dodgy about these pics..........
smokebeerdrinktabs 5 months ago
@smokebeerdrinktabs And then of course you could have used Google Moon to learn that Mt. Hadley towers 4000 meters or 13 thousand feet above the Apollo 15 landing site, that Station 7 is 4 and 1/2 km from the landing site, that Station 9 is 1 and 1/2 km from the landing site, and that Station 9 is 5 km from Station 7.
GoneToPlaid 5 months ago
Video proves nothing, I'm afraid.
dvaidr 10 months ago
@dvaidr Really? Because I think you're a liar...
Prove to me WHY this video proves nothing.. Go on, what's your reasoning. Since you accuse GTP of being wrong. back up your ridiculous claims with some evidence or just get off of your computer.
unparallelshadows 1 month ago
Wow, great job, but man you have to much time on your hands...
azfire2001 1 year ago
@GoneToPlaid
"Which photo in the ALSJ are you referring to? I'm curious and want to take a look."
Well Stalkervision? Which photo?
Rob260259 1 year ago
cadu1995, due to his ranting bullshit and foul language, has been permanently blocked from my channel.
GoneToPlaid 1 year ago
@cadu1995
Thank you for confirmation son. Very clear & solid acknowledgment again.
Rob260259 1 year ago
@cadu0000
Do you do NewWorldOrder, Illuminati, Bigfoot, 9/11byBush, Freemasons and JFK, too?
LOL
Rob260259 1 year ago
@cadu1995
Thank you Cadu. Thank you for confirmation. Your reaction and abusive language is a perfect acknowledgement of the fact that you are just another hoaxhead, who thinks he is smarter than all those engineers and scientists which worked on Apollo and studied its results.
Rob260259 1 year ago
@cadu1995
Take your medication son.
Rob260259 1 year ago
@mercatormac
There were a hell of a lot more people hyping the WMD story than just the "Bush administration".
My example goes to the distrust some people have of the "official story". Recall, if you can, what the people that wanted proof of WMDs and imminent threat from Iraq were called. "Paranoid nuts". Sound familiar?
Change history however your worldview comfort zone allows, the fact remains that governments, corporations and large institutions lie to suit their needs.
Distrust and verify.
nekotech 2 years ago
@nekotech
I don't agree. The WMD issue has nothing to do with Apollo. On the other hand; it shows that a lie or a conspiracy sooner or later is revealed. If Apollo was faked, someone would have spilled the beans years and years ago.
Rob260259 2 years ago
Somebody may have spilled the beans, but if no one paid attention? That's the power of the media over short-attention span America. You and I share a backyard, my apple tree grows a branch over the fence and soon enough, an apple from my tree falls by gravity into your yard. According to the law (and common sense) is that apple yours or mine?
Its yours of course. That very basic principle is under fire by an American corporation. Am I telling the truth? Hmm, the media hasn't told you yet, so?
nekotech 2 years ago
@nekotech
No one paying attention if a reputable engineer or high-ranked 'insider' at NASA is going to spill the beans? Get real. There would have been thousands of people in on this conspiracy. Astronauts, management, technicians, film crews, moon stage builders, filmdirectors, scientific advisors to oversee every aspect of every bit of film , video or voice transmission. Surely some of them would have had a guilty conscience and picked up the phone and rung a tv-station.
Rob260259 2 years ago
"Verify"
Apollo was verified and acknowledged. By thousands and thousands of scientists, engineers, geochemists, physicists, geologists and astronomers.
Rob260259 2 years ago
"Hoaxers are a bunch of distrusters with hatred towards authority."
Care to show us the WMDs Iraq had?
nekotech 2 years ago
@nekotech
No because believing that Iraq had WMD in defiance of all the available evidence is itself a conspiracy theory, and the confused illogic of the Bush administration is very similar to yours on many issues.
At the end of the day you're still a paranoid nut just like Bush, Cheney etc.
mercatormac 2 years ago
Hoaxers? A very tiny few of them are willing to read. Most of them only do a quick watch on YouTubeMost and start shouting "fake!" or insulting dedicated men and women, without even notice it. Hoaxers are a bunch of distrusters with hatred towards authority. They 'see' evidence of NWO, 9/11byBush, Moonhoax, Illuminati, Freemasons, and so on. As soon as they are proven wrong (basics only needed for that) they start shouting "shill" or "disinfo agent".
In my opinion, ofcourse.
Rob260259 2 years ago
I have considered both approaches, and long before I knew about you. I decided to allow myself the freedom of expression, on a personal level, that hoaxers deserve. They deserve contempt. But still, I will make legitimate arguments and they will constitute the overwhelming majority of what I post.
If I am hired by a television network to do a series, my approach will change. I do not need to conform to some professional standards. I'm an amateur and people can take that or leave it.
Astrobrant2 2 years ago
@stalkervision / GoneToPlaid
w w w . lpi . usra . edu/resources/apollo/
Rob260259 2 years ago
@stalkervision / GoneToPlaid
w w w . lpi . usra . edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_15/photography/
Rob260259 2 years ago
@stalkervision / GoneToPlaid
w w w . lpi . usra . edu/expmoon/Apollo17/A17_Photography_orbital . html
Rob260259 2 years ago
Hi stalker,
Which photo in the ALSJ are you referring to? I'm curious and want to take a look. I do recall that the astronauts resorted to making a sunshade for the video camera before a sunshade was included on the video camera on later missions. I can't remember which mission where I saw that photo.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
Hi everyone,
I have done further analysis and further found out where Rourke made his mistakes. First, and the obvious, were his errors in distance measurements from S7 to his chosen points on Hadley. Second, and less obvious, was that the wide area topo map of Hadley contains gross errors. Rourke should have used the 8X higher resolution (and thus 8X more accurate topo map produced from AP15's Mapping Camera rather than from the Panorama Camera.
All will be shown and explained in a new video.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
Everyone,
Cut the crap until I compile and upload the new video which shows Rourke's mistakes and which proves that the AP15 EVA photos are indeed real.
Rourke is right in that the wide area topo map produced from the Panorama Camera photos doesn't match the EVA views of Hadley. Yet the topo map produced from the 8X better resolution Mapping Camera photos DOES to a very high degree of accuracy! As I have said, Rourke didn't do his homework and research all of the available data!
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
Astrobrant insulting? He should hire you (and your Dutch advising relative) to learn all about insults.
VanBuren...
Rob260259 2 years ago
@stalkervision
pot / kettle
Rob260259 2 years ago
Like Pat Condell says, "You're like a street thug who hollers for the police when his victims fight back."
Astrobrant2 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey Astrobrant2
I just tried to post this on your channel page.
"There's a summary of hoax evidence on a science forum. To see it, Google "The Naked Scientists". In the "New Theories" section of the forum there's a thread entitled "Did We Land on the Moon". The summary is on page 15. It's the seventh post from the top."
I seem to be blocked. Why is it so hard to post links to summaries of hoax evidence on the channel pages of pro-Apollo people?
Cosmored 2 years ago
I determine whether I have a need for it or not and I do not answer to you.
It wouldn't make any difference what kind of videos I make; you would find something to object to. You think we didn't go to the moon and you don't understand why you and other HBs get sneers from people like me.
Quite honestly, I don't care if you watch my videos or what you think about them. You are one of many conceited, ill-informed, insulting CTs and you do not deserve any consideration from me.
Astrobrant2 2 years ago
Another conspiracist/moon hoaxer asking the other side to take the moral high ground and be more polite.
The insult was committed by those who accused thousands of decent hard working people of fraud. I say Kaysing was insane because he WAS. I say JW is illogical and wrong because he IS. I say Rourke demonstrated academic incompetence because he DID.
It is not low morality when one condemns the actions of someone who has committed condemnable acts or is an insulting troll, himself.
Astrobrant2 2 years ago
GTP, the fun of comparing AS15-82-11075, AS15-87-11793 and AS15-90-12208 with Google is awesome.
Debunking Rourke... wonderful job. On the other hand; didn't this professor Rourke got some advise from the infamous Jack White?
Poor Rourke.
Rob260259 2 years ago
My newest Debunk #4 video is posted on YouTube. In it I show Rourke's erroneous data, and I show lots of orbital views of Mount Hadley as well. Rourke assumed that all of his calculations were correct even though all of the photo evidence screams that somewhere he must have made a mistake. That SHOULD have made him go back and check his calculations. But no, Rourke instead jumped to his "fakery" conclusion since that obviously was the result he was looking for in the first place.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
In short, Rourke screwed up in measuring the distances from Station 7 to each of his chosen data point locations on Mount Hadley. He chose those data point locations very accurately, as my Debunk #4 video shows. Yet unfortunately Rourke screwed up when calculating the distances from Station 7 to those data points. I guess the topo map's scale bar in the topo map's bottom legend was too much of a bitch for him to handle.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
"Duane,
don't try to fake e-mails. The propagandists and apollogists will recognize it immediately. It'll be better to just insult them now and then.
Pedro"
Dated Monday, June 18, 2007 5:43 PM
Rob260259 2 years ago 3
Rob ..It never even occured to me to post a fake e-mail to Pedro... but I can clearly understand why you would think that.
You really are to be pitied.. Not only did you fall for "rudbrps" act of posting only one PM from me, which was taken out of context, but now you think I made up my other reples to him !?!?... I'm afraid that makes you almost as dishonest and as delusional as he is.
straydog02 2 years ago
Hi rudbrps ... I'm a friend of greenmagoos ( Pedro ) ..We make hoax videos together here on YouTube under straydog /greenmagoos Productions .
He told me that you were contacted by a government agent and that you were concerned about having this video on YouTube ... I know that you know nothing about the Apollo moon hoax but what you have is worth a fortune ... and I'm not joking ... Please hide the original in a safe place and don't let anyone take it away from you ...
Rob260259 2 years ago
There are top conspiracy researchers that would pay you a ton of money to have this in their possession .. I am working with two of them at this time .. Jack White and David Percy and they both would be very interested in possibly obtaining your film .
Whatever you do , please don't turn it over to the government .. They are just playing games with you and trying to intimidate you into taking it down ( Pedro told me that your wife received a phone call from a government employee ) ..
Rob260259 2 years ago
"You have no idea what seeing this video means to me ..It's like a dream come true .. I have fought for this cause for over eight years , four of them on internet discussion forums .. I have been ridiculed , insulted , and banned from almost every forum I ever debated this subject on , all because I wanted the truth to come out about nasa faking the moon landing photography .
And thanks to you , I can finally rest in knowing that what I believed all along was true .. Thank you ."
LOL
Rob260259 2 years ago
Roben .. Since you seem to know so much about my correspondence with "rudbrps" would you mind saving me the trouble and please post my LAST PM to that psycho here?
L O L
straydog02 2 years ago
Strawfag. The attack dog of Jawa. You know, the little guy from the crater making concrete busting rockets. The guy in black that researches lunar foottracks, 'oddities' concerning retro-reflectors and LRO. The guy acknowledging the landings to prove the fakery of LRO pictures and calculating150% of 0.5. The C130 guy.
Would someone like that need an attack dog..?
Rob260259 2 years ago
"also another code was ECO-7252, he Said this means it s called Ecktachrome Commercial Film, type 7252, made in 1970.i hope that helps, i sent to info to moontrue also because he said he was
intrested.
hey, i have another film- you wont beleve where this one came from!, i had this one made over to a dvd it looked boring
at 1st but then i noticed a flag that blew like form a puff of air (not pedros video either). and he gave me a mpeg on disk too so i can send a better quality to youtoob."
straydog02 2 years ago
Quick Straw, call Pt1tard or Stakker. You are losing it.
Rob260259 2 years ago
While I'm waiting for you to post my last PM to "Denny", I will post some more of his silly "stupidity" here.
"it doesnt say anything top secret or anything but does have some wierd writing and stuff. you intrested in seeing that?i'll try to send it upit my channel, should be a few more days, im
still trying to figur out my new puter! haha
bye for now
Dennis"
TOO FUNNY !!!
I laughed my ass off when I first got these dumber than dirt messages, but they're even funnier today!
straydog02 2 years ago
Jawa. In his slight defense, his basic strategy looks for inconsistencies in the official record that might belie a fakery. Assuming for the sake of his argument that Apollo imagery is real and then goes looking for discrepancies between it and LRO imagery.
Of course, his so-called discrepancies are all easily explained with math, science and logic, none of which he knows. When encountered too close, he calls in the attack dogs. Or just blocks the inconvenience.
Rob260259 2 years ago
Roben.. Have you changed the subject because you don't have my last PM to "Denny" the dunce from Boca Ratan, Fl. aka: rudbrps ???
Maybe you need to see my e-mails to David Percy that were dated at the same time?
Then maybe even a dumb Dutch dummy like you might understand why I wrote what I did to "rudbrps"
straydog02 2 years ago
David Percy? Who is David Percey?
Rob260259 2 years ago
Who is David Percy?.. He's the conspiracy researcher you rabid Apollogist creeps character assassinated, before you sunk your teeth inro Professor Rourke.
straydog02 2 years ago
Stray, one cannot commit "character assassination" of someone who has already committed "character suicide."
Astrobrant2 2 years ago
Roben .. Here's some of my PMs to rudbrps that I bet he forgot to share with all of you.
"Dennis.. Hey thanks for the update on your film ...There was never any doubt that's it original nasa footage, but the question still remains as to whether it was faked by editing the stagehand in, or was it raw footage before the stagehand was edited out ?"
cont.
straydog02 2 years ago
cont.
"The fact that the "official" clip on the ALSJ has been cropped is a good thing for the conspiracy side ..The fact that the the "official" clip has a better picture quality than yours, is a good thing for the pro Apollo side.
But the bottom line is this ... Whether your film is real or fake, Apollo was still a photographic fraud.
Yes, I would be very interested in seeing your other video ... Where did it come from ? ... Duane "
Did dumb "Denny" ever post that one?
straydog02 2 years ago
mhm, oic.. and me as your acting psychological physician today, I have come to one solid conclusion, of your implicit idiocy, and single minded , vulgar, egotistical, under educated, attempt to prove a point *moon hoax* which has been debunked by thousands of scientific minds across the board for dozens of years, is that you are invalid and have no common interest other than to succeed somewhere it is impossible to, for your own recurring assurance that you can't possibly be wrong~
999is666upsidedown 2 years ago
Wow .. That's pretty "profound" shit coming from a 19 year old ignoramous.
A word of advise 999is666 .. If you really want people to read all of the inane crap you 've plastered all over your profile page, you might wanna reconsier your choice of wallpaper.. All that black at the bottom makes it a tad difficult to read all of that "important" information.
straydog02 2 years ago
well. ok :) hope u have fun getting a life. bye. ^_^ btw we went to the moon D: lions and tigers and bears OH MY!!
999is666upsidedown 2 years ago
btw 999is666, unless you were one of the "we" that claimed to have gone to the Moon, you couldn't possibly know if "we" really did.
Lions and tigers and bears??? LOL
I think you mean .. "the sky is falling.. the sky is falling" .. Right?
straydog02 2 years ago
Roben .. I'm saving the best for the last.. Meaning my last PM to "Denny", but before I post it, I thought you might like to read an e-mail to my buddy greenmagoos about how I really felt about the "rudbrps" video.
Here's one dated Monday, June 18, 2007 5:29 PM
"Pedro,
I would like to PM that mother fucker Denny from Boca Raton and tell him to stick his fucking tape up his fucking ass.. but then he will know that we know it's a fake and the game will be over with.
Duane"
straydog02 2 years ago
Straw, here is a message from my friend:
"Really, these silly hoax idiots do not deserve an answer. No matter what."
cheers,
Buzz
Do you like that word f*ck Straw? Sorry, I will not please you and paste it in the e-mail above.
Rob260259 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Oh dear Roben .. Now you think that Buzz Lightyear is your friend!?!?
L O L
No, I don't like the word f*ck .. but I only use it when referring to lying sociopathic pieces of sh*t like svector/ rudbrps/ Denny, and all of the other sockpuppet names that psycho from hell uses to play his ridiculous mind f*ck games here.
You're offened by the word f*ck? .. Wow .. You really are a female!
straydog02 2 years ago
Yes Straw, you like it. But you hate to admit. Just like you hate to admit that all this correspondence is in your mind.
Silly Straw. I pity you.
Dear.
Rob260259 2 years ago
Another thing that proves how pathetic you are Roben, is the fact that you need to either delete my comments ( explaining how the Apollo landing footage was faked ), from one of your silly videos, and then LIE about it being insulting.. and also thumb down my comments on every chanels you possibly can, to make them disappear.
Your dishonesty is beyond pathetic.
straydog02 2 years ago
Straw.... Jawa and his ilk, are to science, what Genghis Khan was to international relations.
And again:
LOL
Rob260259 2 years ago
The Apollogists are so desperate to debunk Professor Rourke that they have to make up a boat load of nonsense to pretend to refute his evidence.
Then there are the clowns like you Roben, who claim I've just made up my PM's and e-mails, that prove what I really think about "rudbrps" ridiculous video.
How sad that your life is so empty that you have to play sick, dishonest mind games on YouTube, as a way to defend your lost cause.
You really are to be pitied.
straydog02 2 years ago
Nice visualization, GTP.
You've done what professor Rourke failed to do. At least he should have tried to flip three scaled photographs in a sequence in front of him. With enough speed, he would see the moving pictures, to help him to get the picture...
Hoaxers fall victims to lack of that spatial imagination. Without typical references, their brains fail to realize the scale and distances in lunar images.
BlisterHiker 2 years ago
FAKE...
they fake shit ALL THE TIME...even in broad daylight...
watch my featured vid.
wsee 2 years ago
@wsee, is thumbing down all the 'proppagandissts' contributions all you can do?
Rob260259 2 years ago
Comment removed
wsee 2 years ago
pt1gard now is blocked. I won't tolerate anyone making any kind of veiled threats, even if it appears that it was meant as a joke.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
Additionally, pt1gard is blocked for calling others disgusting names, i.e., "pussyshit", "dumbfuck" et cetera. Apparently pt1gard is too immature to carry on a civil discussion.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
I think this professor will lose his job
mahdesimon 2 years ago
I came, I saw and.... still NO intelligent life down here...
Since I don't feed the Trolls, I continue with life as business.... bye!
obaeyens 2 years ago
GM, you are hopeless since you don't understand the basic laws of physics. Obviously you did not graduate from high school.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
Your eyes and brain obviously aren't working when you've got nasa's own lunar simulation de-bunking every sec of their alleged filmed on the moon videos.
Give me some footage that matches the ballistic velocity charaterisitics displayed in the langley lunar g sims?
greenmagoos 2 years ago
I don't think you graduated from high school either.
TremorHellborn 2 years ago
You certainly didn't if you think nasa's magic moon dust would behave like that on the actual moon
greenmagoos 2 years ago
AS11-40-5926
pt1gard 2 years ago
no tracks once again, guess they carried it again ....
AS17-133-20342
pt1gard 2 years ago
The langley video prefectly demonstrates the ballistic trajjctories of objects in one six gravity be they spacemen or dust booted,disturbed or carried along attahed to spacesuits.
I also have footage of Apollo 17 nots training for eva activities on the vomet comet and a brain damaged gold fish would be able to tell the difference in nasa's silly bellcomm tv studio moon videos.
greenmagoos 2 years ago
@greenmagoos Green-two objects being ejected from the end of a boot will leave the boot with
1 the same velocity
2 the same acceleration
3 differetn velocity dependant on mass
4 different acceleration dependant on mass
Choose
snakehipsohoolihan 2 years ago
Who do you think you are telling to choose you cheeky wee gentile monkey.
I've got wandering gypo atlantis celtic blue blood so enough of your lip
watch?v=pJBbIEhWAAE
greenmagoos 2 years ago
@greenmagoos
I was trying to help you get the facts clear.
Do you want to prove your case, or just ramble on?
I previously put you above Stray and Ptgard, but perhaps I shouldn't make a distinction.
snakehipsohoolihan 2 years ago
No you shouldn't be cheeky about stray either.
He's got wandering gypo atlantis blood as well .
Any more of your monkey shenanagans I'll be dabbleling something up with compasses, a goat, and some chickens, at a standing stone site.
greenmagoos 2 years ago
@greenmagoos
Seriously?
Your great efforts at proving the hoax reduced to rubble just by me asking you to choose between 4 scenarios a high school student would know immediately?
snakehipsohoolihan 2 years ago
watch?v=pJBbIEhWAAE
You pick the exps andd describe the ballistic trajectory characteristics of the langley-not and how the energy he expends would be transferred to dust which WEIGHS LESS THAN THE LANGLEY-NOT!
BIGGER AND WDER PARABOLIC ARCS OF DUST.
Show me the nasa moon video where anything moves in a similar ballistic trajectory to the langley-not.
greenmagoos 2 years ago
If I pick Buzz Aldrin up on the moon and throw him using x force, and then repeat the exercise with a handful of dust that weighs considerably less than Buzz, using the same x force Buzz the goat tampering mason ain't coming down anywhere near the height or distance the dust lands so
Are both throws with
1 the same velocity
2 the same acceleration
3 different velocity dependant on mass
4 different acceleration dependant on mass?
Fire away smartalec monkey blood.
greenmagoos 2 years ago
My answer would be 3.
greenmagoos 2 years ago
@greenmagoos
Is that your answer to my question? You need to answer that first, then I can tell you if you'r eright or wrong, and also answer your question, and explain any differences between th etwo scenarios-back later, so don't wait for an immediate reply
snakehipsohoolihan 2 years ago
I'm not telling you monkey chops.
I am telling you to tell me if its the answer to your question.
greenmagoos 2 years ago
@greenmagoos
So you say the answer to my question is 3-different velocity according to mass
OK, then you disagree with 4.
Clarify for me which would have the greater acceleration, the golf ball or the dust particle.
For 1 and 2, which would be moving faster, and which would have the higher acceleration.
snakehipsohoolihan 2 years ago
@green
You firstly make reference to a video showing someone jumping. And you ask us to describe the trajectory of dust.
What makes you think the dust should travel up?
apollotls 2 years ago
Eh I am assuming you have watched the Langley video and paid attention to the ballistic trajectory characteristics of the langley-not because whenever he moves he seems to be travelling up.
Are you confirming that would seem to the general motion?
Is it dawning on you yet?
greenmagoos 2 years ago
Yes, the astronaut travels up. But to travel up he pushes down on the regolith with his legs.
So why should the regolith travel up if the force on it is down?
apollotls 2 years ago
Because it takes very little force for an astro-nots to push down on the regolith and travel up.
It will take a small precentage of that force to transfer to any dust that WILL BE DISTURBED and that to will travel UP following the same ballistic trajectory pattern.
greenmagoos 2 years ago
The force exherted by the astronaut on the regolith is down. The dust will travel down, not up.
That's what causes footprints.
apollotls 2 years ago
Apollotls. Imagine yourself in a sand pit as a child jumping up the way.
You will disturb some of that sand jumping up the way and if there wasn't earth gravity and 14.7 psi air pressure at sea level the sand you would disturb would sail up past your head because it weighs considerably less than you.
Stop kidding on that the nasa moon videos are filmed on the moon.
BALLISTIC TRAJECTORY CHARACTERISTICS!!!
Watch the langley video and imagine the langley not is a grain of lunar dust.
greenmagoos 2 years ago
@greenmagoos if there wasn't earth gravity and 14.7 psi air pressure at sea level the sand you would disturb would sail up past your head because it weighs considerably less than you
Really, really wrong.
snakehipsohoolihan 2 years ago
@green.
How can sand (or dust) fly up if the force exherted by the astronaut (or kid) is in the downward direction?
apollotls 2 years ago
The same way he flies up.
Its really extraordinarily easy for anybody to fly UP going by the langley-not in the video.
Why wouldn't you expect some excess lunar dust to be not be completely flattened down every time its disturbed by boots and behave with the same ballistic trajectory characteristics as the langley not?
Would you find it easier throwing a handful of sand into the air or a fully suited up spaceman?
Where is all this transfer of energy to the disturbed dust?
greenmagoos 2 years ago
The transfer is downwards, into the regolith, not upwards.
This is Newton's third law.
apollotls 2 years ago
Newton wasn't on a bellcomm tv studio moonset.
greenmagoos 2 years ago
watch?v=pJBbIEhWAAE
Hmmm. If the transfer is downwards why is Larry the Langley not going UP QUITE EASILY?
Are you seriously suggesting that spacemen on the moon would have those ballistic velocity characteristics while the dust at their foot would be getting trampled completely flat every time....?
Lets not get into the 'ah but apollo...' because those videos are filmed on a bellcomm tv studio with front projection screens on top of nothing moves in lunar gravity. NO LUNAR ARCS
greenmagoos 2 years ago
Not going up quite easily??
Don't follow you
apollotls 2 years ago
watch?v=pJBbIEhWAAE
He gos up quite easily because he weighs so little. He doesn't need quite as much energy to leap and vault to those heights.
If actually on the moon he'd been standing or moving through or leaping up through lunar dust which will have the same ballistic velocity characteristics as langley-not but it will be going higher and farther away because when the energy from whatever he is doing is transferred because the dust weighs less it gos higher and farther in the same arc
greenmagoos 2 years ago
Green,
It works like this - the astronaut uses his legs to project himself, and the dust sticking to him, to a certain velocity.
If particles of dust come free of the astronaut, they will fly their own trajectories determined by the velocity they had just at the moment they come free from the astronaut. And this will be fairly close to the speed of the astronaut.
Thinking about transfer of energy is wrong. You need to think about initial velocity and then the equations of motion.
apollotls 2 years ago 2
I don't need to think of anything silly man.
Watch the video.
It works like this. Dudes actually on the moon would be leaping with ease over giant boulders and sending the thick layers of dust that should be over their boots in wild rainbow arcs every time they moved an inch because anytime they used force its transfers to the dust in the same ballistic velocity characteristics.
The dust doesn't weigh anything like a fully suited up spaceman and it shouldn't fall straight to the surface
greenmagoos 2 years ago
Green, you're a buffoon
apollotls 2 years ago 3
watch?v=pJBbIEhWAAE
I stuck a goldfish in a bowl in front of the computer screen and explained what was happening earlier.
Then I let it read your comments.
It laughed itself to death 10 mins ago.
greenmagoos 2 years ago
One of its final gurgles was 'even I can swoosh stones around in the bottom of my fish tank with my tail. With all that water pressure on top of it to boot. Is that clown that thick he doesn't realise there is no air pressure on the moon stopping said dust from following the langley-not in the same ballistic velocity characteristics, and does he not know the difference between applied force via astro-not exertion to different weights dust/spaceman.... AT THE SAME TIME...?
greenmagoos 2 years ago
In your world Green, when the fish flicks its tail, I suppose the stones fly in the same direction as the fish.......
apollotls 2 years ago
In your moon world the stones wouldn't be bouncing against other stones and floating up.
The fish would be leaving a pattern of its tail.
ONLY- snork.
greenmagoos 2 years ago
@apollotls
Give up, he's too dumb or dishonest to argue with.
I bet he wouldn't understand if I named his goldfish
"Eureka"
snakehipsohoolihan 2 years ago
"The dust doesn't weigh anything like a fully suited up spaceman and it shouldn't fall straight to the surface" -- greenmagoos
GM, the mass doesn't matter. Only its initial velocity vector does. All objects on the moon will fall at the same rate regardless of their mass. Recall the famous feather and hammer drop video? If you could separately punt a football and a grain of moon dust with the same initial velocity vector, then both would follow the same ballistic trajectory. Physics 101 dude.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
How can they possibly have the same velocity if one weighs considerably more than the other?
greenmagoos 2 years ago
Velocity is expressed in terms of distance over time, such as miles per hour, kilometers per hour, feet per second, meters per second, et cetera. Do you see mass (grams, kilograms) anywhere in there? You sit in a car which is traveling at 80 km per hour. Even though the car has more mass than you do, both you and the car have the same velocity.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
I do if I swing a boot at a rock and transfer x force while also kicking some dust at the same time transferring x force that weighs considerably less than the rock so how do they have the same velocity?
greenmagoos 2 years ago
If both the dust and the rock start off with the same speed and are moving in the same direction, then they both have the same velocity. That is the definition of velocity. The mass of the rock and the dust doesn't matter.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
Well they#ll both have the same ballistic velocity characteristics as the general movement of the langley not won't they.
Show me where the ballistic velocity characteristics of the langley-not matches nasa's apollo-nots or the dust they disturb?
You've got hours and hours to pick from.
Why don't you make a video comparing the two and emphasise BALLISTIC VELOCTIY CHARACTERISTICS????
greenmagoos 2 years ago
We aren't booting one thing that weighs one weight and then booting something else considerably lighter and reducing the force/energy transferred to come up with the same velocity???
You are transferring energy to two seperate items that weigh differently AT THE SAME TIME!
greenmagoos 2 years ago
"You are transferring energy to two seperate items that weigh differently AT THE SAME TIME! "
Please greenmagoos, go to your local library and check out a high school book on physics -- and read the damn book! :-)
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
Go and look up BALLISTIC VELOCITY CHARACTERISTICS and compare the langley not to the nasa's moon videos.
Then map that ballistic velocity characteristic to dust . Same expended astro-not energy onto the dust and yet while he can fly around langley you think magic moon dust wuill fall straight to the surface.
I don't want to kill any more goldfish by letting it read your idiotic mindless ideas about lesser gravity and airless environments.
greenmagoos 2 years ago
"The dust doesn't weigh anything like a fully suited up spaceman and it shouldn't fall straight to the surface " --greenmagoos
Why not, unless the moon dust is magic dust which doesn't obey the known laws of physics?
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
Well it must be magic dust because it doesn't follow the ballistic trajectory characteristics of the langley-not in simulated lunar gravity and dust wasn't concerned about ripping it spacesuit so it was free to leap around in a similar fashion to langley-not whenever disturbed.
For some reason nasa's magic mooset dust falls straight back down to the suface no matter if the astro-not is leaping like a kangaroo or falling over
greenmagoos 2 years ago
GM, think of it this way. Stomp down with your foot into a pile of sand. Very little sand actually flies a bit outward and doesn't fly very far, maybe several inches. On the moon with its 1/6 earth gravity, the same sand would fly 6 times further. This is what we see when the astronauts bunny hopped -- dust clouds which are only two or three feet in diameter at most. The fact that we see these dust clouds in the videos proves that the astronauts were on the moon in 1/6 earth gravity.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
I'll tell you what you see in nasa's moon video. Shot in a bellcomm tv studio with minor alterations done to the disturbed dust- via slowed down playback, and work done to the length of the arc. It may look authentic to the unintiated but it clearly isn't lunar grabvity by a long stretch.
Please stop trying to kid on dust moves up and outward six times the height distance it should have.
LANGLEY VID- BALLISTIC VELOCITY CHARACTERISTICS- MAP THEM ONTO NASA VIDS AND YOU'LL SEE THE DIFFERENCE
greenmagoos 2 years ago
I should have added of course that children will leave footprints as well as spraying sand while jumping in a sand pit.
Good ole nasa. They send wandering jew tinker masons to a planetary body with a sith the gravity, absolutely no air pressure worth mentioning, provide videos of the BALLISTIC TRAJECTORY CHARACTERISTIC of locomotion in lunar simulations, and in their moon videos they have spacemen and dust moving about and falling straight to the surface in a manner that does not match
greenmagoos 2 years ago
@greenmagoos I assume you now realise your errors with the force/boot/golf ball/dust question.
Good. You've learnt something.
If you would now just admit that you were wrong it would show that you at least have some integrity.
snakehipsohoolihan 2 years ago
I'm not learning anything other than paying attention to the ballistic trajectory characteristics of the langley-not in this simulated lunar gravity video-
watch?v=pJBbIEhWAAE
Following the path of his ballistic trajectory and comparing it to the nasa moon videos wether its spacemen or the dust they are disturbing doesn't match even the slightest.
greenmagoos 2 years ago
@greenmagoos
You say "I'm not learning anything"
Finally, you've got something right.
I have explained this to you in a manner my 10 year old nephew understands.
Either you now get it but are too worried of having to admit it that you have gone quiet (I notice you've stopped responding)
or
You dont get it
You are dishonest, or stupid-no other option (except both, of course.....)
snakehipsohoolihan 2 years ago
GM, I understand what you've been saying and it is true. If you kick a grain of dust with the same force that you kick a ten pound rock, the dust grain will travel farther because of its lower mass. However, NEITHER will travel faster than the boot.
The amount of force transferred is also dependent on the mass of the object that hits is. The difference in velocity between the rock and the dust is a matter of how much either was able to slow down the boot on impact. (cont'd.)
Astrobrant2 2 years ago
@Astrobrant2
/watch?v=Q-rz6SlQvwg&feature=sub
pt1gard 2 years ago
The cable they are refering to is the cable to the heat flow experiment. Which got hooked on John Young's boot on Apollo 16 and broke.
Shame that leaving comments on that video has been disabled.
apollotls 2 years ago
@Astrobrant2 I have no doubt that GM actually understands this to be true. But he must keep up his appearances for the followers because it is very scary if his followers discovers that he is wrong all along.
Moonhoaxers had a pretty easy life since there was no new proof but nowadays they get more and more caught in the corner.
How many lives has been destroyed because they choose to follow those hoax and people laugh at them or get divorced?
Too much at stake for GM to accept this.
obaeyens 2 years ago
I'm remembering 909 people in Guyana in 1978 who lost their lives because they just couldn't (or wouldn't) use a little critical thinking skill. Their belief that they were a "special group" or the only ones who really know the truth proved lethal to them. And yes, they were immersed in conspiratorial, paranoid thinking, too.
Astrobrant2 2 years ago
Yep, since then I have never thought of Kool Aid in the same way.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
The reality is that GM is quite delusional.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
pt. 2. This has been a matter of a moving object hitting two other moving objects at the same speed, (which decreases slightly, depending on the mass of the object being hit.)
But that is not what is happening in the moon videos. ALL of the astronaut's muscular force is applied downward. Any dust that gets kicked up is because of the motion of his boots in an upward direction, catching a few grains resting against the boots.
And there is NOTHING in the Langley video which would apply to dust.
Astrobrant2 2 years ago 2
On the other hand, and this is the point which GM is missing, is that you kick a rock and a dust grain such that they both have the same initial velocity and velocity vector, then both will travel the exact same distance on the airless moon. GM thinks that in this case the dust, being lighter, should travel much further simply because it is smaller and less effected by lunar gravity.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
You're a brave man trying to explain such things to Green.
I give up. I wish you luck.....
apollotls 2 years ago
I think I understand now what Green had on his mind. He says that it takes a certain force for the astronaut to jump to a certain height. He then seems to think this same force is acting on regolith, so the regolith will travel higher than the astronaut.
In a way, he's right. The regolith does experience the same force as the astronaut. Unfortunately he hasn't realised that the force applied to the regolith by the astronaut is in the opposite direction. ie downwards, not upwards
apollotls 2 years ago
He also hasn't ralised that the dust we see flying isn't a direct result of the astronaut applying force to the ground, but more of dust on his foot, sticking to the underside of his boot etc, that gets carried along with him as he jumps. Getting a free ride as someone said.
apollotls 2 years ago
Hmm. Amazingly enough I have watched and recorded my attempts to kick sand on a beach, and I've also recently observed the difference kicking hard packed snow.
Your moon videos are filmed in a smallish belcomm studio and composited in front of 12 inch cement model mountains and somebody I know has photos.
greenmagoos 2 years ago
YT:
apollo 11 press sconference, wtach the liars squirm ... just like snake the shill ... his heroes wont even debate or let themselves be interrogated ... take a lie detector test, would be hysterical ... theyd all wet
pt1gard 2 years ago
@pt1gard
Err, I haven't squirmed here or anywhere, it is you who is trying to avoid admitting your Rover lifting and LM pad failure.
Comeon, grow that manly pair of testes you so long for and just admit you were wrong.
Is that so hard for you?
snakehipsohoolihan 2 years ago
@snakehipsohoolihan
are you gay or just have a cock fixation, go check your posts lmao
pt1gard 2 years ago
@pt1gard
Ah, name calling!
So you are 10, or you just have the mental capacity of a ten year old?
You lose...
Again...
snakehipsohoolihan 2 years ago
@snakehipsohoolihan
im not the one with a penis fetish haha
pt1gard 2 years ago
@pt1gard
You clearly have a lot to learn about anatomy if you think testes are a penis
Of course, if you grew a pair, you might, but you just can't face it.
Admit you failed-you are boring me.
snakehipsohoolihan 2 years ago
PT1grad says to me by pm
"shill shill see that you just joined with a new name and account, you have been multiple people which makes me laff.... how much you getting paid, same as other shill Nazi WHO you prob are ... gawd, do you have a life, I am sure you look like a loser, are a fat ass ugly scum who never gets laid .... really, have you ever played a sport?
lets get personal here and come clean to prove your slimyness"
snakehipsohoolihan 2 years ago
@snakehipsohoolihan
What a smooth talking boy!
snakehipsohoolihan 2 years ago
@snakehipsohoolihan Look GM his reaction on the mantra! He is trying to bait me to restart the discussion. LOL
But the discussion is pointless I have nothing more to add. If I start again then he gets again attention what he desperately needs.
obaeyens 2 years ago
everyone should read WE NEVER WENT TO THE MOON by Bill Kaysing ... will show scum like snake as total dolts.
pt1gard 2 years ago
And to complete the humiliation of Pt1-look at picture AS15-82- 11201, clearly showing the handle 2 astronauts used to lift the 35kg moonweight rover
Oops
How do you feel Pt? embarassing to have your failure on public display eh?
snakehipsohoolihan 2 years ago
snake,
also, again, why no pics, why no talk about them carrying it, why bc it covers the fact there is no tracks under the damn thing over and over ... why a hoax you are ... the nauts carried the LR, yeah and easter bunny helped them at times, LMAO... had other apollogists like you tell me they never carried it, so which is it?
pt1gard 2 years ago
@pt1gard
AGAIN
see my original post, it still applies
Who said that a LR was not carried? which mission were they referrring to?
I'm laughing at you, for you are wrong
As usual.
Try harder-do research before you post, not after
snakehipsohoolihan 2 years ago
link pics of carrying LR please, or we all laugh at you ... hey, i went to Mars, debunk that LMAO
pt1gard 2 years ago
snakehipsohoolihan 2 years ago 2
watch?v=pJBbIEhWAAE
The same ballistic trajectory as is displayed by the spaceman in lunar g simulations except with higher and wider arcs because the spaceman uses the same force displacing dust at his feet if really on moon.
That test isn't carried out in a vacuum chamber so the ballistic trajectory arc(s) will be higher and wider again on an airless moon.
greenmagoos 2 years ago
Dust weighs less than spacemen using FORCE displacing it.
Lunar dust grains are a sixth its weight on earth I should have stated
greenmagoos 2 years ago
@greenmagoos What do you mean with force displacement exactly?
You mean impuls?
What is the formula so I can check it.
In case if you are wondering, I am not English speaking so I am not familiar about the English mathematics therms. "Force displacement" means nothing to me.
obaeyens 2 years ago
F=MA
greenmagoos 2 years ago
@greenmagoos what about
s=ut+ 1/2 at^2
Tell me, why do you believe that the moon has 1/6 g, when the people who tell you that are the same people who tell you the moon landings were real?
snakehipsohoolihan 2 years ago
@snakehipsohoolihan
f=ma is not sufficient to work out trajectories, only the acceleration imparted to an object with known mass with a known force.
You know neither.
Your best bet is the golf ball used by AS. That would be at least a known mass.
THe force could prbably be estimated sufficiently,but the angle,& the problem of mass in the form of regolith blocking the motion of the ball(which could easily be the same or more than the ball)makes subsequent estimates of distance unreliable
snakehipsohoolihan 2 years ago
I think you need to watch the ballistic trajectory of the spacman in the video I linked and also consider his BALLISTIC PATH in a vaccum without 14.7 psi at earth sea level acting downwards.
Unless you are suggesting Langley carried out those simulations in a vacuum chamber.
Going outside and kicking hard packed snow and ice is a better demonstration of the ballistic path of grains of dust that weigh insignifact amounts on a planetary body with a sixth the gravity of earth and without air
greenmagoos 2 years ago
@greenmagoos Acording to you how exactly should the dust move given your f=ma formula. What exactly is wrong with the dust in the noon video's. How should it behave?
If you want to test with snow, then you have to test it in vacuum since snow gets dampened by the air.
obaeyens