this fukin dude is faker than the moon hoax people,dont waste your contomplation on this krap,.....check out through the wormhole series here on youtube,the "is there a creator?" episode is quite interesting,BTW it has nothing to do with JJJJJJEEEEEESSSSUUUUSSSS i think thats how the preachers say it
This kind of crap is exactly why you are not qualified to comment on this footage. You think you can simply adjust the playback speed and use your own 'judgement' as a basis for argument. This is purely subjective. As if that's not bad enough, you have no experience on the moon! If you had any understanding of physics you'd have simulated the movement of astronauts under moon gravity - it's not difficult. You'd have your answer without messing with playback speed!
Obviously HE is the one suggesting he's more than human because he claims to know science better than the whole world community of experts.
And NO, this is not about "doing the math" it's about understanding logic itself- because someone who believes that Pi is only about circles and geometry does NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT HE IS TRYING TO DENY.!!
How could this be more embarassing?
And NO, saying that 150% of 0.5 is 1 is not a mistake that anyone could possibly make who "does" math from time to time.
where are the set designers and builders who helped "build" the set? Wouldn't you expect them to have spoken out many years ago? You see, you ideas do not hold any water just because of the fact that so many people need to be involved in this that the chance that a person involved speaks out is incredibly large. It is easier to actually go to the moon than to fake the moon landing and keep everyone involved quiet.
@hobbitsarecool Sorry, but a moon set is not hard to construct. Especially with Apollo 11 when your footage looks like someone spilled coffee on it and then shredded and attempted to re-assemble the film. It would take so little work that three people could design the LEM descent set in two hours.
@AndreasZ05 Jarrah can handle the math and he has. He made an honest mistake, something common in us human beings. Unless you are suggesting that you are something less...
I agree that it's still too slow, however, many people have pointed out that a simple "invisible" wire used on movie sets all the time (attached to the pack) might have been used. I don't know.
If someone will take me to an ultra powerful telescope, and show me that flag on the moon with my own eyes, I'll never question if we landed.
Nonetheless, Shane Killian, as far as I've ever seen, does lie to the public, then turns around and yells "LIARS!" repeatedly, as if it helps his credibility.
Ok Jarrah, I understand that that was an honest mathematical mistake. But didn't you notice that your video was still too slow to be considered having been filmed in Earth gravity? Your sped-up astronaut is still falling slowly, whereas shanedk's is falling at Earth-normal speed. You were so busy trying to disprove shanedk's video that you totally screwed your own.
They were not wearing wires. The two clips that show the wires glinting in the sun are actually film glare. There is also a retractable antenna on their packs that is often mistaken for a wire mount. Having a wire supporting you is a poor substitute for actual low gravity. That said, I appreciate your politeness. Usually when I argue with people, it becomes an ALL CAPS competition.
@QuickdrawMcShaw As you may argue we mistake EVA Pack antennas for wires or wire mounts this is true. However, it is still not evidence that wires were NOT used. Much of the evidence supporting the Apollo claims are against the landings. Rightfully so, as we never landed on the moon. However, I do not wish to argue. If you watch Jarrah's videos are still not convinced, then my comments will not sway your beliefs. :) Have a good day!
these videos are so moronically thought through that I can only conclude that its a parody. If you're actually serious...then I think you really should get some mental help.
He just betrayed White Jarrah. Quite a huge dent to his reputation. Just out of the subject, I know why even when he commented on Ranma 1/2(the anime he maybe liked), they acted like trolls.
your missing the most important point of this jump.... you may be able to fake gravity on a person by suspending them from a wire but they forgot about the DUST that is lifted when he jumps... what goes up together must come down together.
could anyone please explain why the dust falls faster than the astronaut?
Anyways, there are other ways to make things look lighter on the Moon, and simulate gravity. One that was probably used is the ubiquitous harnesses. This jump could have been done with harnesses supporting the astronaut. An harness lift wouldn't feel the same as a normal jump slowed down during editing...
...And don't forget that each and every grain of dust raised would have its own harness set-up to make them fall consistently. Thousands of little itty-bitty harnesses, no doubt controlled by muppetteer Jim Henson under the close supervision of Stanley Kubrick. LOL. You Apollo denialists are brilliant!
At approx. 4:30, it is said that, if the videos were set to 50% of their original speed, to "cancel out" the speed change, you would have to set it to 200%, not 150%.
The opposite of half speed (50%) is double speed (200%).
As far as the 'Mythbusters" is concerned... If you are primarily funded by NASA themselves, of course you would be paid and told to do episodes to try to make hoax believers look foolish!
There never has been anything unbiased about the "Mythbusters"... Even their "RFID chip" episode some time back was shown to be nothing more than propaganda! Look it up for yourselves, by googling Mythbusters, RFID chip... You will see what paid shills those morons actually are!
try this...go watch the mythbusters episode dedicated to debunking the moon hoax. they spent time, money, actual effort, science, knowledge, and real special effects experience [not some kid speeding up video by 50%, which btw i have no idea how 1/6th gravity translates mathematically to exactly 1.5 speed??] Or it could just be that you, yet another theorist has actually broke something here that literally hundreds of thousands of people overlooked or tried to fake.....doubts.
"and real special effects experience [not some kid speeding up video by 50%, which btw i have no idea how 1/6th gravity translates mathematically to exactly 1.5 speed?"
How many times do say this? It was an oversight that I have since corrected. Hell I even added annotations stating as such.
yeah...oversights are extreammmly common for the conspiracy theorist....it shows how fuddled their minds are and prone to self deception. Don't let your ego get in the way of the truth. They DID go to the moon. How many of the other things in Shanedks video are you going to attempt to debunk? NONE is my guess...because he's so obviously accurate you'd just look silly. Easy way out is to pretend you don't have time...lol..thats what I would do.
"How many of the other things in Shanedks video are you going to attempt to debunk?" Lets see, off hand here's what I've covered. 1) Blast craters 2) Astronauts lit in shade 3) The C-rock 4) Radiation 5) How high astronauts can jump 6) The 30:28telecast 7) Ham operators 8) Jodrell Bank 7) Australia, Goldstone and Mydrid (don't tell me he forgot to tell you those are NASA stations) 8) Moon rocks I could go on forever. Killian just echos the same stale arguments that never held water.
8 things you listed there...of the ones I'm familiar with (most of them) they have been soundly and properly explained and dealt with. For just ONE more example - you know full well why the astronauts appear lit in the shade. SO what makes you reject something so OFTEN and EASILY demostrated with BASIC knowledge of photography? I mean for F**S sake - it takes a real moron to STILL persist inspite of having it FULLY explained to you. This is my final post. Have fun!
"you know full well why the astronauts appear lit in the shade."
Spare me your reflected light excuses. The lunar surface has an albedo of 0.07 - the same as asphalt. That's not very reflective. To illuminated someone in shade standing on such a dim surface - without the aid of fill lights - would require an enormous aperture setting. And doing so would greatly overexpose the sunlit landscape. You can't have the shaded astronauts and the sunlit surface correctly exposed at the same time.
Consider this: A full moon (e.g., fully sunlit from the Earth's perspective) is really bright. It throws a good amount of light onto Earth's nightside, despite the 0.07 albedo of Lunar regolith. Now consider a scenario where you are standing on the sunlit surface of the moon, the same moon that casts moonlight on Earth. That's pretty fucking bright, if you ask me. Probably bright enough to light someone up in shadow, huh?
@RaustBD The moon never get's brighter. It only appears brighter to us at night because the brightness of the Sun and Light Scattering in the atmosphere is no longer obscuring our view and visibility of the moon as much as it is in the daytime. The moon maintains a constant 7%-10% reflectivity, whether on MARE Regolith or not. It never gets any brighter. Hope that clarified.
@yesiamawizardjonny oh, no, that wasn't my point. my point was that the moon is bright. if the moon's surface was as unreflective as Jarrah said, it couldn't be that shiny.
"Moon gravity is 2.4 times earth. It should be sped up by 240% not whatever u said "
That is to match free-fall. If the object is suspended by wires it won't fall in free-fall speed.
Anyways, the 150% thing was an oversight that I have explained in the following video. Long story short, we worked out that the Apollo video was slowed down to 67% speed. And interestingly slowing down the Mythbusters' wire jump to that speed gives a near perfect match to the Apollo 16 vid.
I have argues with Shane about this video also. I said it was way too fast but that it doesn't matter. At any speed, you can clearly see that the sand falls faster than the feet. This is clear proof they used wires to hold them up.
If they did not use wires then the sand kicked up should fall at the same speed as the astronaut.
This is besides the point you clearly make in your video.
You guys need to get a life! Speeding up a clip proofs nothing! You guys are so sad, I have never come across a group of people who will resort to anything to try and substantiate your claims!!!
"Speeding something up by 150% (like you did) does NOT equal doubling the speed - to double the speed you would need to set it to 200%"
It was an oversight on my part by not taking into consideration how Vegas would recognize the velocity of a -50% speed file. I have since corrected my honest mistake and worked out the footage was actually slowed down to 67%.
o3mandotcom, I think that YOU forgot a smallest thing; there is no air on the moon, so there are no particules of air to prevent the dust from falling down. On Earth, particules of dust are "floating" because the air is mainting the particules of dust in the airs! That's why on the moon, the dust is falling "faster" than on Earth.
Look at that video, you won't be able to observe that on Earth: watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk
It doesn't have to be scientifically correct, but just believable. It's apparent that these pictures were shot in slow motion, but how slow it was shot was up to the director.
So YOU took matters into your own hands? Funny, cause you didn't understood the math behind. No, I'm not talking about this 50% x 150% = 100% stuff... (but that's funny also). As Shanedk pointed out correctly the conversion factor would be 2.5x or 250% (SQRT 6). That's plain physics and if you choose to do something else you simply don't convert but intentionally manipulate the clip so it pleases your eyes. It might be funny to play around but it has nothing to do with reality and physics.
You obviously don't care about physics but rather prefer to mislead all those confused CT minds. That's easy if there is no time reference in the video. Therefore, I ask all of you to watch?v=kojsfbN8ulc - the SEQ bay pendulum, where such a reference is present (pendulum). If you understand the physics behind, you might realise that you cannot choose a stupid conversion factor by yourself but have to use 2.5x or be gone, once and for all!
There's no link to this a16salute.mpg in the video journals page that I could find, but found it from the same site by gooling. NASA has removed the link?
1plus 8, you are quite correct, the dirt doesn't fall the same speed! There is a HUGE difference on the frames the dirt falls and the astronaut does.
I've been following the THICK dirt material, with different filters and methods, and I can quite safely say it can be seen with one frame error margin: the dirt I followed drops 4 frames, and the astronaut drops 10,5 frames (apex was halved). And both drop almost the same height!
Indeed. There is a massive amount of NOISE in the "Moon" footage. You can hide anything in there! It's near impossible to detect editing or wires that NASA would have missed from that noise. Even the antennas blink out all the time, and there's no reason to hide them. Quite different from 2001.
Now, why is there so much noise? Why is the quality so bad? Why didn't NASA allow direct link? Is NASA known to have done image manipulation? Want to answer, Shane?
When I was doing the salute jump analysis (which Youtube refused to publish, at least so far), it was incredible to notice even the FLAGPOLE is missing some 30cm (a foot) in many frames. And that flagpole is close. I mean, that's some awesome video noise!
I argued with Killian about the same clip. It is useless, though. He won't listen anything. He is in fact himself what he says about other people: a big, fat hoaxer.
At 5:00 you can see a glint in the two wires suspening the guy in the suit. Also, anatomical physics won't allow a jump that high with just a slight bend at the knees in any atmosphere. Does he have bionic ankles?
What really matters is the definite hovering of the astronot [whatever the speed] and the time difference in sand fall from the boots. Speed of film can always be manipulated at different frame speeds.
Even at speed * 1.5 it still looks like they're on the moon. That's a high jump in such a bulky suit. Oh, but they are being dangled from wires, aren't they. Perhaps if they brought back some cheese, there'd be no such thing as a hoax theorist.
At 5:00 you can see a glint in the two wires suspening the guy in the suit. Also, anatomical physics won't allow a jump that high with just a slight bend at the knees in any atmosphere. Does he have bionic ankles?
Not too good with those math word problems eh, Jarrah? 50% equals doubled eh? Brilliant, mate!!!
So if I go to my boss and ask my 200 dollar wage to be increased by 50%, and he agrees, I should be getting a cheque for 400 dollars next week, right?
Interesting....when you slow down the video by 50% you don't get Earth gravity.....very strange. I thought it was slowed down by 50% from normal?
I enjoyed the fact that you did not even mention that it was displayed several times why 2.4x was used instead of 50%. Percy says they've done the necessary work to establish that factor? How is it then that the gravity is wrong?
Shuttle128 likes to do his sums with his eyes closed.
Wonder if his wonder equations have worked out how the darker material that is lifted up with the jump - and which reaches almost as far as the soles of the a/naut's boots at apex - falls to ground so much faster than he does.
Only if the footage was shot normal speed on the Moon, which is wasn't. Why wasn't it? Watch the Moon footage, see thir arms or feet moving speed that human arms and feet move? No, you don't. There's nothing in Moon to prevent your feet and arms to move the same speed as on Earth. Yet everything on "Moon footage" is slow motion.
So the footage WAS slowed. So the correct speed ISN'T 2.4.
hm, i Downloaded the original Video, and payed attention of the jump and the "dust"...in your 150% speed version. they are falling @ about 2.45m/s^2 wich is about 150% faster then Lunar gravitatnal pull. ~1.6m/s^2... a far cry from Earths 9.6m/s^2
Its true i looks more earth like. by there movment. but there rate of falling is off by allot. Just thought you would like to know.
The most visible and compact clump of dust doesn't go as high the astronaut's boot does. Some dust does, but that dissipates until you can't see it due to the (lack of) clarity of the video.
You can't see when an individual particle hits the ground. The dust continues to spread out while moving, to such an extent that very quickly the individual particles or clumps are so small they don't even register on the film.
As pointed out by others, increasing film speed by 50% does NOT double it. You need to increase the speed by 100% to double it.
Strictly speaking, you should increase the speed by a factor of 2.4, since this is the correct ratio for comparing the effect of moon:earth 1/6th gravity ratio.
Sorry, but the other dude has his sums right: you and Percy have made a very basic blunder.
I notice you twisted my words completely at the end of the video! Actions of a truthseeker, or...?
It seems you made a mistake. If the video that was played on TV was at half speed. you would need to speed up your clip by 100% I.E. doubling the speed. to get it to what you belive it to be. not 50% wich is what you did. in math terms you are asserting (0.5)*2= 1.5
EXACTLY what i told him.... He's like an indoctrinated fundamentalist christian, but without the math skills! We're all waiting for his apology for his mistake. Let's not hold our breath!
David Percy's documentary "What Happened on the Moon" shows inconsistencies between still photos and TV coverage of the Apollo landings. Apollo 16 salute is discussed in
Yes and I'm sure if I saw each one of these inconsistencies I'd be able to debunk each one of the claims. Although I'm at work and I'm not going to watch an entire documentary right now.
You can clearly see the triangular flap as Young lands after his first jump. The reassn it's not as visible throughout the rest of the jump is he is leaning forward slightly, so the PLSS obscures it from the TV camera which is mounted on the rover.
It's amazing how EVERY SINGLE THING about the jump is the same, except maybe that flap. The continuity in this fake is amazing, I've never seen anything like it in a hollywood movie. And if we literally had 10000 photographs to dig through for each hollywood movie production, I bet we could find tonnes of inconsistencies. And yet, the Moon Fakers can't find one single inconsistency from one shot to another except this one.
In my country this is caled 'BANGED TO RIGHTS' again WJ this is so compelling and the truth is there for all to see, he (shane) is a fool and a big mouthed one to.
While I can not tell exactly how long is the falling back time in Shane's video because I don't have a more precise time counter, but roughly his is more close to 0.3 second theoretical value.
According to my measurement on the screen, the jump height is 1/3.7 of the astronaut's height. He is about 5 feet 10 inch tall (1.8m), so the falling back time should be 0.31 second on earth, 0.77 second on moon. Your video clip (speed up 50%) shows the time close to 1 second, so he indeed falls too slowly if he was really on earth.
If you measure how high he jumped, then you can calculate how long it should take to fall back to ground. In moon gravity, it would take 2.4 times longer than in earth gravity. This is a better test because the jump height does NOT depend on how fast you roll the video.
"strikingly similar" means I should say "Oh wow it does look like they're on earth!"
I don't say that because it's not true, it looks nothing like they were on earth. Just look at some of those videos of people doing jumping tricks, the astronauts jump a foot off the ground yet it takes them longer to land (even when slowed down) than someone jumping down 10'?
"The point was, if sped up 25-50%(depending on the footage and mission) it will look strikingly similar to earth gravity. "
"Similar" does not mean "the same as".
Shane's video clearly proves that, if you take a piece of Apollo footage of a falling object, you have to speed it up by 2.4 times to get it to fall at the same rate as an object on Earth.
AND that's exactly the difference that physics tells us it should be.
I'd like to add that looking at the video, the astronaut is falling too slowly, it seems like it's taking longer to get back to the ground than it should. I'll actually do some investigating when I get home using final cut pro on the video sped up to match yours, then check the time stamps from where the astronaut stops upwards movement, and then see how long it takes to land.
LandingApollo that's exactly what I was thinking. Jarrah, do you realize that a 50% increase is not doubling. It's adding half, to double something you add 100%.
Simple math you might understand -
100 % of 1 is 1. 1 + 1 is 2, that's double
50% of 1 is .5. 1 + .5 is 1.5, that's an increase of 50%
If the moon landing footage was recorded and then slowed down by 50%, that makes a 60 second clip 30 seconds. If you then take this clip into a video editing suite it brings the speed up as 100% because it doesn't know that it's slowed down. If you increase that by 50%, you are increasing 50% of 30 seconds, which would give you 45 seconds. You need to increase it by 100% (making velocity 200%) to get back the original speed. This is seriously not hard to understand.
Ordinary film is 24fps. To slow the film so that it's twice the length you overcrank the camera to 48fps. That way, when it's fed through a projector at 24fps, it's in slow motion.
24fps is 50% of 48fps.
Now, to get it back to normal speed, you have to speed the film back up until it's 48fps. 150% WILL NOT DO THIS. You will get 24fps*150%=24fps*1.5=36fps. IT WON'T BE FAST ENOUGH.
I didn't remove your video response: you had the gall to post your spurious video thrice, twice on this one and once at my the second. And for this harassment, you are blocked from my channel.
I got the emails and screen captures to prove it: he responded to Part 1 with it, then part 2 and part 1 again. I will not tolerate this kind of harassment.
Can I take the honeysuckle footage of the dropped backpacks and prove they are falling in earth G because NASTY NASASCAM haven't ran it through those magical vcr machines.
Yes you could do, but it's a much more complex case to analyse because they hit the ladder on the way down.
John Young's jump on the other hand is easy to analyse. The questions to ask are : - does his fall rate, in the original footage correspond to lunar gravity? - when the film is sped up such that the fall rate is the same as Earth gravity (150% or 240% remains to be determined), do the arm movements look natural?
What a barrel of crap jarrah. 3.50 shows 2.4x, thats 240%, you used 150%. Fuck you are stupid.
snakehipsohoolihan 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this fukin dude is faker than the moon hoax people,dont waste your contomplation on this krap,.....check out through the wormhole series here on youtube,the "is there a creator?" episode is quite interesting,BTW it has nothing to do with JJJJJJEEEEEESSSSUUUUSSSS i think thats how the preachers say it
slimebender 4 weeks ago
velocity envelope time haha
yesiamawizardjonny 5 months ago
A kid thinks he's smarter than all the engineers at NASA......LMFAO
Tweekerhead 6 months ago
This kind of crap is exactly why you are not qualified to comment on this footage. You think you can simply adjust the playback speed and use your own 'judgement' as a basis for argument. This is purely subjective. As if that's not bad enough, you have no experience on the moon! If you had any understanding of physics you'd have simulated the movement of astronauts under moon gravity - it's not difficult. You'd have your answer without messing with playback speed!
Sadly, this is beyond you!
MoronAntidote 9 months ago
Hi Jarrah, keep up the good work. I think you are awesome and a bastion of truth in a world full of lies.
IshmaelKipling 9 months ago
Obviously HE is the one suggesting he's more than human because he claims to know science better than the whole world community of experts.
And NO, this is not about "doing the math" it's about understanding logic itself- because someone who believes that Pi is only about circles and geometry does NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT HE IS TRYING TO DENY.!!
How could this be more embarassing?
And NO, saying that 150% of 0.5 is 1 is not a mistake that anyone could possibly make who "does" math from time to time.
AndreasZ05 11 months ago
is there a more annoying person on youtube than killian?
dudeeful1 1 year ago
will yeay 150% of .5 is 1 the . becums a o an yu put the 1 befor the 5 an wammo 150% watz thees % mean ?
Hoaxslpper 1 year ago
Shit you don't even understand a simple concept of doubling 100% but you're trying to make someone else out to be the idiot?
Bocephus027 1 year ago
Comment removed
Bocephus027 1 year ago
Haha, that was awesome Jarrah ;-D You're sped up footage looks correct to me. It's clear this Shane fella is just a massive douche :-D
Mattbellmay 1 year ago 2
White: How could your hypothesis, that the moon landings were faked, be falsified?
What evidence would convince you otherwise?
AtheismandSkepticism 1 year ago
where are the set designers and builders who helped "build" the set? Wouldn't you expect them to have spoken out many years ago? You see, you ideas do not hold any water just because of the fact that so many people need to be involved in this that the chance that a person involved speaks out is incredibly large. It is easier to actually go to the moon than to fake the moon landing and keep everyone involved quiet.
hobbitsarecool 1 year ago
@hobbitsarecool Sorry, but a moon set is not hard to construct. Especially with Apollo 11 when your footage looks like someone spilled coffee on it and then shredded and attempted to re-assemble the film. It would take so little work that three people could design the LEM descent set in two hours.
yesiamawizardjonny 1 year ago
@yesiamawizardjonny
In 1969 when special effects were pretty much non-existence? You seem to forget that it is a lot harder to do with technology from that time period.
hobbitsarecool 1 year ago
How DARE you going around teaching people about science when you can't even handle MATH from 7th grade.
UNBELIEVABLE!
Go be ashamed of yourself!
AndreasZ05 2 years ago
@AndreasZ05 Jarrah can handle the math and he has. He made an honest mistake, something common in us human beings. Unless you are suggesting that you are something less...
yesiamawizardjonny 1 year ago
I agree that it's still too slow, however, many people have pointed out that a simple "invisible" wire used on movie sets all the time (attached to the pack) might have been used. I don't know.
If someone will take me to an ultra powerful telescope, and show me that flag on the moon with my own eyes, I'll never question if we landed.
Nonetheless, Shane Killian, as far as I've ever seen, does lie to the public, then turns around and yells "LIARS!" repeatedly, as if it helps his credibility.
creationliberty 2 years ago
Ok Jarrah, I understand that that was an honest mathematical mistake. But didn't you notice that your video was still too slow to be considered having been filmed in Earth gravity? Your sped-up astronaut is still falling slowly, whereas shanedk's is falling at Earth-normal speed. You were so busy trying to disprove shanedk's video that you totally screwed your own.
QuickdrawMcShaw 2 years ago
@QuickdrawMcShaw They were also wearing wires. It added the bounciness and height of the jump. Hope that clarifies! :)
yesiamawizardjonny 1 year ago
@yesiamawizardjonny
They were not wearing wires. The two clips that show the wires glinting in the sun are actually film glare. There is also a retractable antenna on their packs that is often mistaken for a wire mount. Having a wire supporting you is a poor substitute for actual low gravity. That said, I appreciate your politeness. Usually when I argue with people, it becomes an ALL CAPS competition.
QuickdrawMcShaw 1 year ago
@QuickdrawMcShaw As you may argue we mistake EVA Pack antennas for wires or wire mounts this is true. However, it is still not evidence that wires were NOT used. Much of the evidence supporting the Apollo claims are against the landings. Rightfully so, as we never landed on the moon. However, I do not wish to argue. If you watch Jarrah's videos are still not convinced, then my comments will not sway your beliefs. :) Have a good day!
yesiamawizardjonny 1 year ago
Did you say that it was a hoax?
Sh1tpoKi 2 years ago
150% of .5 =/= 1
Crazy ass conspiracy shit.
You change what you said
"CORRECTION: The Apollo 16 Jump salute video was actually slowed down to 67%, not 50%."
And when someone disproves you your like "Oh shit it was at 67%"
Ignorant mother fucker.
Rayje7 2 years ago
these videos are so moronically thought through that I can only conclude that its a parody. If you're actually serious...then I think you really should get some mental help.
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
that shane guy is a fucking moron, all his adolescent tantrums shows his true nature.
believr77 2 years ago
Shane is absolutely right. The hoax is a hoax and hoaxtards are silly idiots.
Rob260259 2 years ago
He just betrayed White Jarrah. Quite a huge dent to his reputation. Just out of the subject, I know why even when he commented on Ranma 1/2(the anime he maybe liked), they acted like trolls.
Sh1tpoKi 2 years ago
@believr77 Exactly.
yesiamawizardjonny 1 year ago
2:09
your missing the most important point of this jump.... you may be able to fake gravity on a person by suspending them from a wire but they forgot about the DUST that is lifted when he jumps... what goes up together must come down together.
could anyone please explain why the dust falls faster than the astronaut?
minteko 2 years ago
Anyways, there are other ways to make things look lighter on the Moon, and simulate gravity. One that was probably used is the ubiquitous harnesses. This jump could have been done with harnesses supporting the astronaut. An harness lift wouldn't feel the same as a normal jump slowed down during editing...
Simboiss 2 years ago
...And don't forget that each and every grain of dust raised would have its own harness set-up to make them fall consistently. Thousands of little itty-bitty harnesses, no doubt controlled by muppetteer Jim Henson under the close supervision of Stanley Kubrick. LOL. You Apollo denialists are brilliant!
alien8ted 2 years ago
At approx. 4:30, it is said that, if the videos were set to 50% of their original speed, to "cancel out" the speed change, you would have to set it to 200%, not 150%.
The opposite of half speed (50%) is double speed (200%).
Simboiss 2 years ago
As far as the 'Mythbusters" is concerned... If you are primarily funded by NASA themselves, of course you would be paid and told to do episodes to try to make hoax believers look foolish!
There never has been anything unbiased about the "Mythbusters"... Even their "RFID chip" episode some time back was shown to be nothing more than propaganda! Look it up for yourselves, by googling Mythbusters, RFID chip... You will see what paid shills those morons actually are!
northerntruthseeker 2 years ago 2
@northerntruthseeker Yeah that and if they exposed NASA's hoax they would mysteriously dissapear like other whistle-blowers.
yesiamawizardjonny 1 year ago
try this...go watch the mythbusters episode dedicated to debunking the moon hoax. they spent time, money, actual effort, science, knowledge, and real special effects experience [not some kid speeding up video by 50%, which btw i have no idea how 1/6th gravity translates mathematically to exactly 1.5 speed??] Or it could just be that you, yet another theorist has actually broke something here that literally hundreds of thousands of people overlooked or tried to fake.....doubts.
destin325 2 years ago
"and real special effects experience [not some kid speeding up video by 50%, which btw i have no idea how 1/6th gravity translates mathematically to exactly 1.5 speed?"
How many times do say this? It was an oversight that I have since corrected. Hell I even added annotations stating as such.
And as far as the Mythbusters goes, see here.
watch?v=23BIb_PMJ4M
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
yeah...oversights are extreammmly common for the conspiracy theorist....it shows how fuddled their minds are and prone to self deception. Don't let your ego get in the way of the truth. They DID go to the moon. How many of the other things in Shanedks video are you going to attempt to debunk? NONE is my guess...because he's so obviously accurate you'd just look silly. Easy way out is to pretend you don't have time...lol..thats what I would do.
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
8 things you listed there...of the ones I'm familiar with (most of them) they have been soundly and properly explained and dealt with. For just ONE more example - you know full well why the astronauts appear lit in the shade. SO what makes you reject something so OFTEN and EASILY demostrated with BASIC knowledge of photography? I mean for F**S sake - it takes a real moron to STILL persist inspite of having it FULLY explained to you. This is my final post. Have fun!
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
"you know full well why the astronauts appear lit in the shade."
Spare me your reflected light excuses. The lunar surface has an albedo of 0.07 - the same as asphalt. That's not very reflective. To illuminated someone in shade standing on such a dim surface - without the aid of fill lights - would require an enormous aperture setting. And doing so would greatly overexpose the sunlit landscape. You can't have the shaded astronauts and the sunlit surface correctly exposed at the same time.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
Consider this: A full moon (e.g., fully sunlit from the Earth's perspective) is really bright. It throws a good amount of light onto Earth's nightside, despite the 0.07 albedo of Lunar regolith. Now consider a scenario where you are standing on the sunlit surface of the moon, the same moon that casts moonlight on Earth. That's pretty fucking bright, if you ask me. Probably bright enough to light someone up in shadow, huh?
QuickdrawMcShaw 2 years ago
you do realize how bright the moon is at night, don't you?
RaustBD 1 year ago
@RaustBD The moon never get's brighter. It only appears brighter to us at night because the brightness of the Sun and Light Scattering in the atmosphere is no longer obscuring our view and visibility of the moon as much as it is in the daytime. The moon maintains a constant 7%-10% reflectivity, whether on MARE Regolith or not. It never gets any brighter. Hope that clarified.
yesiamawizardjonny 1 year ago
@yesiamawizardjonny oh, no, that wasn't my point. my point was that the moon is bright. if the moon's surface was as unreflective as Jarrah said, it couldn't be that shiny.
RaustBD 1 year ago
@WhiteJarrah Jarrah what you should do is jump around on your own camera using wires and then slow it down. That would shut the propagandists up.
yesiamawizardjonny 1 year ago
@WhiteJarrah
So you think 7% reflected light is insignificant do you? That's plenty of light you moron.
Do you think by quoting it as 0.07 (sounds bad eh?) you're going to convince people of your lies?
Fuck off you delusional bollock brain. You're not going to convince anyone around here.
MoronAntidote 9 months ago
You need to state your educational credentials before anything.
And, handwaving is not usually accepted in research.
heloizyjhenifer 2 years ago
@destin325 Jarrah was 29 at the time this was released. Not really a kid lol.
Mythbusters could have done better. I like GTP's work or AB2's work much more.
yesiamawizardjonny 5 months ago
Wires...? Sure.
Slowed down...ofcourse.
This is too ridiculous to discuss about.
Where are the worlds' scientists acknowledging the moonhoax?
Come on, get over it. Men landed on the moon.
Rob260259 2 years ago
We landed this guy is bored with his life.
radagem 2 years ago
Moon gravity is 2.4 times earth. It should be sped up by 240% not whatever u said
filosofyphreak 2 years ago
"Moon gravity is 2.4 times earth. It should be sped up by 240% not whatever u said "
That is to match free-fall. If the object is suspended by wires it won't fall in free-fall speed.
Anyways, the 150% thing was an oversight that I have explained in the following video. Long story short, we worked out that the Apollo video was slowed down to 67% speed. And interestingly slowing down the Mythbusters' wire jump to that speed gives a near perfect match to the Apollo 16 vid.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
I have argues with Shane about this video also. I said it was way too fast but that it doesn't matter. At any speed, you can clearly see that the sand falls faster than the feet. This is clear proof they used wires to hold them up.
If they did not use wires then the sand kicked up should fall at the same speed as the astronaut.
This is besides the point you clearly make in your video.
timrocket2008 2 years ago
argued*
timrocket2008 2 years ago
So...............
If it was faked, then why was it faked?
It's sexy to have a contrarian idea to crutch your identity upon, isn't it?
brengun42 3 years ago
It was Faked to end the cold war. A cold war bluff.
timrocket2008 2 years ago
You admit the mistake, and instead of owning up to it, you modify the conspiracy theory to 67%
Wow.
brengun42 3 years ago
You guys need to get a life! Speeding up a clip proofs nothing! You guys are so sad, I have never come across a group of people who will resort to anything to try and substantiate your claims!!!
lyniseuk 3 years ago
the astro-not spacesuit has no signs of pressurization.
animefan2k9 3 years ago
Way to Go WhiteJarrah!!
You are THE MAN!!!!!
Shanek is a brainwashed goon told what to think.
Prohoridzo 3 years ago
Speeding something up by 2,4x means by 240%
Speeding something up by 150% (like you did) does NOT equal doubling the speed - to double the speed you would need to set it to 200%
Learn simple math before you spend hours making videos.
tabaal 3 years ago
"Speeding something up by 150% (like you did) does NOT equal doubling the speed - to double the speed you would need to set it to 200%"
It was an oversight on my part by not taking into consideration how Vegas would recognize the velocity of a -50% speed file. I have since corrected my honest mistake and worked out the footage was actually slowed down to 67%.
watch ? v = MW31fOWzY-E
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"I wonder what they'd say..." Nothing since shanedk's explanation of the speed is logical and right.
Spathever 3 years ago
Look at the dust. NASA forgot te smallest of things. If gravity were 1/6 that of earth in the video then the dust would fall slowly.
o3mandotcom 3 years ago
o3mandotcom, I think that YOU forgot a smallest thing; there is no air on the moon, so there are no particules of air to prevent the dust from falling down. On Earth, particules of dust are "floating" because the air is mainting the particules of dust in the airs! That's why on the moon, the dust is falling "faster" than on Earth.
Look at that video, you won't be able to observe that on Earth: watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk
GrifOli 3 years ago
"If gravity were 1/6 that of earth in the video then the dust would fall slowly."
You've forgotten about air resistance, which the moon has none of.
SpreadingtheMuse 3 years ago
Shane Killian is a true dimwit!
zerosum2012 3 years ago
yes jarrah made a slight mistake(we are all human) still his points are spot on, 8plus1 is correct killian sped it up way to fast.
harooni22 3 years ago
Bloody hell. Got my video of Salute jump done and uploaded, but Youtube says: "This video has been removed due to terms of use violation".
I only used the public domain NASA clip and not even any audio. All work was stills from the clip and my written text.
Amazing. Is it now a violation to publish something that shows NASA hoaxed us?
A week wasted. Any hints where I could publish it? Some other site.
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
OK. The isseu was resolved and the clip is online.
Apollo wire evidence 1
URL: uq9cZbHSnhs
As you see Shane, you shouldn't calculate the correct speed from the astronaut, when he falls different speed than the dirt.
You're welcome to bring your professional physicists to disagree with the calculations and conclusions of my video.
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
It doesn't have to be scientifically correct, but just believable. It's apparent that these pictures were shot in slow motion, but how slow it was shot was up to the director.
heituzi 3 years ago
You agree 50% is too little, then.
davewatcher 3 years ago
The clip should be speeded up 6 times to mimic earth g not 50%.
davewatcher 3 years ago
So YOU took matters into your own hands? Funny, cause you didn't understood the math behind. No, I'm not talking about this 50% x 150% = 100% stuff... (but that's funny also). As Shanedk pointed out correctly the conversion factor would be 2.5x or 250% (SQRT 6). That's plain physics and if you choose to do something else you simply don't convert but intentionally manipulate the clip so it pleases your eyes. It might be funny to play around but it has nothing to do with reality and physics.
amontaiyagala 3 years ago
You obviously don't care about physics but rather prefer to mislead all those confused CT minds. That's easy if there is no time reference in the video. Therefore, I ask all of you to watch?v=kojsfbN8ulc - the SEQ bay pendulum, where such a reference is present (pendulum). If you understand the physics behind, you might realise that you cannot choose a stupid conversion factor by yourself but have to use 2.5x or be gone, once and for all!
amontaiyagala 3 years ago
After 3 days... Do you intend to respond in any way ? Beacuse if you don't it just makes no sense to comment here...
amontaiyagala 3 years ago
This ALSJ seems to be the exact same NASA site where I got the videos. They're all Real Media or Quicktime videos here. No MPG-files.
3w[.]hq[.]nasa[.]gov[/]alsj[/]
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
There's no link to this a16salute.mpg in the video journals page that I could find, but found it from the same site by gooling. NASA has removed the link?
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
Oh, dammit! Thanks for the info! I've been downloading from NASA's Apollo archives.
Yeah they are crap...
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
Oh, man! The new sources mean I need to do everything anew... (sigh).
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
1plus 8, you are quite correct, the dirt doesn't fall the same speed! There is a HUGE difference on the frames the dirt falls and the astronaut does.
I've been following the THICK dirt material, with different filters and methods, and I can quite safely say it can be seen with one frame error margin: the dirt I followed drops 4 frames, and the astronaut drops 10,5 frames (apex was halved). And both drop almost the same height!
So it's a CLEAR difference.
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
The "error margin" being one of those copy frames. In a very inconvenient moment. Dammit!
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
I've been doing two days a video of the John Young big navy salute jump clip. The first one with kicked dirt.
Has anyone else noticed that even in the 15fps video file a16v.1202523.rm there are a lot of copy frames, identical with the previous?
Even more irritating, sometimes the copy frame is the 2nd, 3rd or 4th frame!
As if the quality wasn't low enough, we have this too!
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
Or is it the program I'm using to decode the .rm-file (Real Media) that causes the copied frames?
I have to decode the file anyway, because VirtualDub cannot handle Real Media files.
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
This .mpg-file has same copy-frames the .rm-file had! So it wasn't the decoding's fault.
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
Well, we all do mistakes. Even the Popes.
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
1plus8 said: "yes he missed it (and he admited it i think which is very rare comming from this liar) "
Ho! Shane has a back bone? Good for him!
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
Did Shane tell me? What, you think we're buddies? Heh!
No, and I quitted visiting his channel.
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
Could I get people who believe NASA didn't hoax moon landings, answer these questions:
1) Do you think that something on the Moon prevents humans using their arms and legs with the speed as on Earth or orbit?
2) Do the astronauts in Apollo footage use their arms and legs same speed as on Earth and orbit?
3) Is NASA footage filmed normal speed?
Especially I hope to get Killian's answer.
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
Because I wonder why Killian uses 2.4 times acceleration, if he KNOWS the Moon footage isn't normal speed.
My own answers.
1) No.
2) No.
3) No.
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
You HAVE my answer and you know it, liar.
shanedk 3 years ago
That is NOT an answer. You've already been shown that resolution has NOTHING to do with it.
shanedk 3 years ago
Indeed. There is a massive amount of NOISE in the "Moon" footage. You can hide anything in there! It's near impossible to detect editing or wires that NASA would have missed from that noise. Even the antennas blink out all the time, and there's no reason to hide them. Quite different from 2001.
Now, why is there so much noise? Why is the quality so bad? Why didn't NASA allow direct link? Is NASA known to have done image manipulation? Want to answer, Shane?
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
ONE special effects guy from the era to agree with you. ONE.
ONE effects guy, ONE physicist. Why do NONE of them agree?
Look at Peter Pan when it's shown on TV. Disney couldn't even hide the cables enough to be invisible at NTSC resolution!!!
shanedk 3 years ago
About the noise in moonwalk footage.
When I was doing the salute jump analysis (which Youtube refused to publish, at least so far), it was incredible to notice even the FLAGPOLE is missing some 30cm (a foot) in many frames. And that flagpole is close. I mean, that's some awesome video noise!
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
I argued with Killian about the same clip. It is useless, though. He won't listen anything. He is in fact himself what he says about other people: a big, fat hoaxer.
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
At 5:00 you can see a glint in the two wires suspening the guy in the suit. Also, anatomical physics won't allow a jump that high with just a slight bend at the knees in any atmosphere. Does he have bionic ankles?
soundboy72 4 years ago
This Killian is really BIGOT-OSITY--
He is so prejudiced rude narrow minded inconsiderate and just plain dopey, with a PHONEY accent. Is he a WASP?
EGMAG 4 years ago
What really matters is the definite hovering of the astronot [whatever the speed] and the time difference in sand fall from the boots. Speed of film can always be manipulated at different frame speeds.
EGMAG 4 years ago
Even at speed * 1.5 it still looks like they're on the moon. That's a high jump in such a bulky suit. Oh, but they are being dangled from wires, aren't they. Perhaps if they brought back some cheese, there'd be no such thing as a hoax theorist.
davewatcher 4 years ago
At 5:00 you can see a glint in the two wires suspening the guy in the suit. Also, anatomical physics won't allow a jump that high with just a slight bend at the knees in any atmosphere. Does he have bionic ankles?
soundboy72 4 years ago
Sad attention seeker.
davewatcher 4 years ago
awesome.
harnsly 4 years ago
Wouldn't it be nice to live in a world where 1.5*.5=1?
Shuttle128 4 years ago
Not too good with those math word problems eh, Jarrah? 50% equals doubled eh? Brilliant, mate!!!
So if I go to my boss and ask my 200 dollar wage to be increased by 50%, and he agrees, I should be getting a cheque for 400 dollars next week, right?
SirMildredPierce 4 years ago
Interesting....when you slow down the video by 50% you don't get Earth gravity.....very strange. I thought it was slowed down by 50% from normal?
I enjoyed the fact that you did not even mention that it was displayed several times why 2.4x was used instead of 50%. Percy says they've done the necessary work to establish that factor? How is it then that the gravity is wrong?
Shuttle128 4 years ago
Shuttle128 likes to do his sums with his eyes closed.
Wonder if his wonder equations have worked out how the darker material that is lifted up with the jump - and which reaches almost as far as the soles of the a/naut's boots at apex - falls to ground so much faster than he does.
michaelstmark 4 years ago
The correct factor to use is 2.4
Period.
(Being pedantic it's 2.45 to 3 sig fig's.)
HeadLikeARock 4 years ago
Only if the footage was shot normal speed on the Moon, which is wasn't. Why wasn't it? Watch the Moon footage, see thir arms or feet moving speed that human arms and feet move? No, you don't. There's nothing in Moon to prevent your feet and arms to move the same speed as on Earth. Yet everything on "Moon footage" is slow motion.
So the footage WAS slowed. So the correct speed ISN'T 2.4.
Period.
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
What's that? From the guy who didn't bother to measure the rotation of the Earth even though his argument depended on it?
Shuttle128 4 years ago
hm, i Downloaded the original Video, and payed attention of the jump and the "dust"...in your 150% speed version. they are falling @ about 2.45m/s^2 wich is about 150% faster then Lunar gravitatnal pull. ~1.6m/s^2... a far cry from Earths 9.6m/s^2
Its true i looks more earth like. by there movment. but there rate of falling is off by allot. Just thought you would like to know.
Neoterrataru 4 years ago
Just shows the same thing.
I'll have to check out the clip in Sony Vegas so I can slow it down a lot more.
HeadLikeARock 4 years ago
america never went to the moon
dont they lie just about anything?(read 911);(vietnam);gulfwar;nasa;
keep up the good work
5 stars
marsL001 4 years ago
Kookaholics like this arent worth the trouble to refute.
SpreadingtheMuse 4 years ago
Have you got any figures for your estimates, and calculations based on them, with estimates of errors?
HeadLikeARock 4 years ago
The most visible and compact clump of dust doesn't go as high the astronaut's boot does. Some dust does, but that dissipates until you can't see it due to the (lack of) clarity of the video.
HeadLikeARock 4 years ago
It should do what it does - be scoured away, revealing the much more compacted regolith underneath the loose surface layer.
Check out the hi-res version of AS14-66-9261 on the ALSJ for example.
HeadLikeARock 4 years ago
You can't see when an individual particle hits the ground. The dust continues to spread out while moving, to such an extent that very quickly the individual particles or clumps are so small they don't even register on the film.
HeadLikeARock 4 years ago
As pointed out by others, increasing film speed by 50% does NOT double it. You need to increase the speed by 100% to double it.
Strictly speaking, you should increase the speed by a factor of 2.4, since this is the correct ratio for comparing the effect of moon:earth 1/6th gravity ratio.
Sorry, but the other dude has his sums right: you and Percy have made a very basic blunder.
I notice you twisted my words completely at the end of the video! Actions of a truthseeker, or...?
HeadLikeARock 4 years ago
It seems you made a mistake. If the video that was played on TV was at half speed. you would need to speed up your clip by 100% I.E. doubling the speed. to get it to what you belive it to be. not 50% wich is what you did. in math terms you are asserting (0.5)*2= 1.5
Neoterrataru 4 years ago
EXACTLY what i told him.... He's like an indoctrinated fundamentalist christian, but without the math skills! We're all waiting for his apology for his mistake. Let's not hold our breath!
lennyhipp 4 years ago
I thought astronauts hanged by wire that the weight was accompanied.
It decrease the gravity.
I have one more good idea way to use helium balloon.
tkrWkLNsQk 4 years ago 2
What if the astronots were hanging in wires? It would affect the falling times.
ApolloVIII 4 years ago
Then you'd see the wires in one of the photos.
zakabog 4 years ago
Using wires in most of the still photos
would have been unnecessary, I think.
ApolloVIII 4 years ago
Well what about the jump salute? Also, most of the photos were video taped while they were taken.
zakabog 4 years ago
David Percy's documentary "What Happened on the Moon" shows inconsistencies between still photos and TV coverage of the Apollo landings. Apollo 16 salute is discussed in
Part I. You can see it in Google Videos.
ApolloVIII 4 years ago
Yes and I'm sure if I saw each one of these inconsistencies I'd be able to debunk each one of the claims. Although I'm at work and I'm not going to watch an entire documentary right now.
zakabog 4 years ago
Look at the actual video on the ALSJ.
preview . tinyurl . com / 34eylx
You can clearly see the triangular flap as Young lands after his first jump. The reassn it's not as visible throughout the rest of the jump is he is leaning forward slightly, so the PLSS obscures it from the TV camera which is mounted on the rover.
HeadLikeARock 4 years ago
It's amazing how EVERY SINGLE THING about the jump is the same, except maybe that flap. The continuity in this fake is amazing, I've never seen anything like it in a hollywood movie. And if we literally had 10000 photographs to dig through for each hollywood movie production, I bet we could find tonnes of inconsistencies. And yet, the Moon Fakers can't find one single inconsistency from one shot to another except this one.
SirMildredPierce 4 years ago
You do right, Sir Mildred, to compare a Hollywood movie to the "moon landings". Both high budget fictional productions.
Nice Freudian slip, old son !
michaelstmark 4 years ago
In my country this is caled 'BANGED TO RIGHTS' again WJ this is so compelling and the truth is there for all to see, he (shane) is a fool and a big mouthed one to.
thanks for the video WJ.
eggnation 4 years ago
"so compelling ... the truth is there for all to see...shane is a fool"
Rrrriiiiggghhhhttttt
apollotls 4 years ago
One small problem there egghead... Jarrah DID NOT double the speed of his footage, he increased it by 50%!
DUH!
Increasing it to 150% makes it at 75% speed of the original.
.5 times 1.5 (150%) = .75 and NOT 1.0!!
lennyhipp 4 years ago
The uncertainty of the time counter is 0.2 second.
KonanDoul 4 years ago
While I can not tell exactly how long is the falling back time in Shane's video because I don't have a more precise time counter, but roughly his is more close to 0.3 second theoretical value.
KonanDoul 4 years ago
According to my measurement on the screen, the jump height is 1/3.7 of the astronaut's height. He is about 5 feet 10 inch tall (1.8m), so the falling back time should be 0.31 second on earth, 0.77 second on moon. Your video clip (speed up 50%) shows the time close to 1 second, so he indeed falls too slowly if he was really on earth.
KonanDoul 4 years ago
If you measure how high he jumped, then you can calculate how long it should take to fall back to ground. In moon gravity, it would take 2.4 times longer than in earth gravity. This is a better test because the jump height does NOT depend on how fast you roll the video.
KonanDoul 4 years ago
"strikingly similar" means I should say "Oh wow it does look like they're on earth!"
I don't say that because it's not true, it looks nothing like they were on earth. Just look at some of those videos of people doing jumping tricks, the astronauts jump a foot off the ground yet it takes them longer to land (even when slowed down) than someone jumping down 10'?
zakabog 4 years ago
"The point was, if sped up 25-50%(depending on the footage and mission) it will look strikingly similar to earth gravity. "
"Similar" does not mean "the same as".
Shane's video clearly proves that, if you take a piece of Apollo footage of a falling object, you have to speed it up by 2.4 times to get it to fall at the same rate as an object on Earth.
AND that's exactly the difference that physics tells us it should be.
apollotls 4 years ago
I'd like to add that looking at the video, the astronaut is falling too slowly, it seems like it's taking longer to get back to the ground than it should. I'll actually do some investigating when I get home using final cut pro on the video sped up to match yours, then check the time stamps from where the astronaut stops upwards movement, and then see how long it takes to land.
zakabog 4 years ago
LandingApollo that's exactly what I was thinking. Jarrah, do you realize that a 50% increase is not doubling. It's adding half, to double something you add 100%.
Simple math you might understand -
100 % of 1 is 1. 1 + 1 is 2, that's double
50% of 1 is .5. 1 + .5 is 1.5, that's an increase of 50%
zakabog 4 years ago
Sorry my math was backward and that is wrong, stand by!
LandingApollo 4 years ago
If the moon landing footage was recorded and then slowed down by 50%, that makes a 60 second clip 30 seconds. If you then take this clip into a video editing suite it brings the speed up as 100% because it doesn't know that it's slowed down. If you increase that by 50%, you are increasing 50% of 30 seconds, which would give you 45 seconds. You need to increase it by 100% (making velocity 200%) to get back the original speed. This is seriously not hard to understand.
LandingApollo 4 years ago
Let's try this a different way:
Ordinary film is 24fps. To slow the film so that it's twice the length you overcrank the camera to 48fps. That way, when it's fed through a projector at 24fps, it's in slow motion.
24fps is 50% of 48fps.
Now, to get it back to normal speed, you have to speed the film back up until it's 48fps. 150% WILL NOT DO THIS. You will get 24fps*150%=24fps*1.5=36fps. IT WON'T BE FAST ENOUGH.
shanedk 4 years ago
The proper amount to double the speed is 48fps/24fps=2=200%.
EVERY TIME.
Jarrah, what will it take for you to admit you're completely, utterly, pathetically, and stupidly WRONG???
shanedk 4 years ago
Definatley my favourite of the new year's MoonFaker Videos, well done once again Jarrah, Nice Work ;)
sowerby485 4 years ago
With Jarrah's logic :
Full speed is 100%
Half speed is 50%
Quarter speed is.... 0% ?
apollotls 4 years ago
hey jarrah why did you suddenly remove my video response? you didnt like what it had to say??
eryan550 4 years ago
I didn't remove your video response: you had the gall to post your spurious video thrice, twice on this one and once at my the second. And for this harassment, you are blocked from my channel.
Goodbye.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
Jarrah, that's IMPOSSIBLE. YouTube only allows a video to be made a response ONCE.
Tell us another one.
shanedk 4 years ago
I got the emails and screen captures to prove it: he responded to Part 1 with it, then part 2 and part 1 again. I will not tolerate this kind of harassment.
WhiteJarrah 4 years ago
ANYONE can try it and see it's impossible.
No, it's just an excuse. What will it EVER take to get you to admit you're wrong???
shanedk 4 years ago
i thought it was odd that jarrahwhite thinks 10 x 1.5 = 20 so i made a video about it.
check it out everyone: v=QRw6hwvCp0k
eryan550 4 years ago
I might be a little bit late but... Is that a hairdryer at the beginning you're holding Jarrah?
AzraelEngel2 4 years ago
On the normal speed clip, John Young enters the frame at 3:29, and touches the ground after his first jump at 3:38. That's a 9 second sequence.
In the speeded up version, he enters the frame at 4:53 and touches the ground at 4:59. That's a 6 second sequence.
Now then, 9 divided by 6 makes.... 2 !
apollotls 4 years ago
9/6=2??? Noooo, I think it's 1.5...
shanedk 4 years ago
Very good Jarrah.
Now you need to do the same thing as Shane and drop something from the same height to demonstrate that 150% corresponds to Earth gravity.
Thus you would prove 1plus8's point that it was sped up too much.
Go on. Just do it.
apollotls 4 years ago
Can I take the honeysuckle footage of the dropped backpacks and prove they are falling in earth G because NASTY NASASCAM haven't ran it through those magical vcr machines.
greenmagoos 4 years ago
Yes you could do, but it's a much more complex case to analyse because they hit the ladder on the way down.
John Young's jump on the other hand is easy to analyse. The questions to ask are : - does his fall rate, in the original footage correspond to lunar gravity? - when the film is sped up such that the fall rate is the same as Earth gravity (150% or 240% remains to be determined), do the arm movements look natural?
apollotls 4 years ago
Why does the lunar regolith kicked up by Young during the jump salute fall straight back down to the surface well before Young does?
greenmagoos 4 years ago 2
Because it doesn't go up as high. Duh.
shanedk 4 years ago
Why wouldn't it go up as high?
greenmagoos 4 years ago 2
Because he used most of the force of his jump on himself, to a far greater amount than he did on the regolith.
Again, duh.
shanedk 4 years ago
I didn't think Young had a choice when he decided how much force he imparted to dust being kicked up as he jumped shane?
greenmagoos 4 years ago
I have a question : how come the dust goes up in the first place?
apollotls 4 years ago
jarrah's account shows him logged on, but he's certainly quiet about the vid i made. do you know why he's being so quiet apollotls?
eryan550 4 years ago