AstroClownBuster has made a new version of his video which exposes Shane Killian's hoax about the dirt fall acceleration.
Shanedk measuring the dirt fall time from the NASA video got a result of 12.96cm. AstroClownBuster shows how this 12.96cm applied onto the astronaut, makes him only a one meter tall dwarf!
Shanedk_foot.wmv.
watch?v=yUt9TWgDz9U
Here is the older version (xyzLLLzyx is the former name of AstroClownBuster): Big Navy FINAL (xyzLLLzyx's video.
Don't expand this to the whole Myhtbusters episode and all moonlandigs topics discussion. As long as you discuss about the jumping the Mythbusters recrated, it's okay. I'm limiting the discussion here to this jumping topic, as there already is a huge amount of comments. There's that Mythbusters episode videos where you can talk all the video.
One more thing. I've made a video recently which examines wire supports/slow-motion theory.
The video looks at the bigger picture, which is something you all hoax fanatics hate to do. You just pick selected few examples which you think fit Moon hoax theory. How convenient...
Now, watch my video. It shows clearly how much that bs you believe so hard and people who advocate it are worth:
watch?v=JBICR4PTLfc
Be proud, Aurinkohirvi... Be proud to be a part of Moon hoax club...
I'm not part of a hoax club. This video is a reply to Shane Killian hoaxing and lying about this jump in his video. Shane Killian kept for years his calculations and measurements hidden, and when finally revealed them, his dirt fall measurement of 12,98cm (5.11 inch)could be applied only 8 times om the astronaut, making the astronaut only ONE METER (3.4ft) tall!
xyzLLLzyx's reply to Killian's hoax video:
watch?v=-J4HG2RMgPs
Now I maybe wrong, but Killian is the hoaxer, not me.
You used 200% frame rate in your video, but Jarrah White whom you showed in the end of your video suggests 150% acceleration to the video. (Funny enough, also I said in the end of my video 1,5 x acceleration would be closer than 2 x acceleration).
This video is plain stupid and that whole "math" is completely misplaced.
The dust simply falls down from the boots. Dust did not jump up. Nobody shoved the dust up with the same speed as jumping astronaut. Looking closely, I see only a little amount of dust kicked forward landing at the same time as the astronaut. That was the dust which was on his boots.
Vast majority of disturbed dust did not have the same speed as the astronaut and that's why this "wire supports analysis" is all wrong.
The faint "wave" that we can see going forward and stopping about same time as the John Young lands, is not dirt or dust flying and landing at all: it is dirt rolling on the ground!
This is the conclusion I have come to. Let me explain why I think so.
If it was flying dirt that rose as high as JY did, it should 1) have advanced half of its total forward distance when JY is at his jump's apex. However, the forward travelling dirt does not even exist when JY rises up and reaches his jump apex!
Instead, the forward travelling wave first appears where and when the thick dirt hits the ground!!
And the forward flying dirt and its shadow 2) should be visible in the high resolution still photograph AS16-113-18339HR (link provided in video description).
The shadows fall to the left as the light source is on the right. The thick dirt (which is just seen hitting the ground) has a shadow.
But the "forward flying dirt" nor its shadow that should have advanced half of its total forward distance by now, are seen nowhere! Because it only forms when the thick dirt hits ground!
Your second issue that the thick dirt is not dirt rising but falling from the boots, I can well understand: I considered that possibility, too! Watching several better quality videos of jumps up from sand, I've seen however that sand rises up.
But in the end, no matter if it falls from the boots or is kicked up by the boots, it still falls! And it should fall with the same acceleration as the astronaut falls. Others studied this same case before me, and everyone followed the same falling mass.
This is one of the most ridiculous statements I have heard from hoax believers. I'm trying very hard not to laugh or use hash words to describe your theory.
You are simply complicating something which is very simple.
Dust drops down continuously from Young's boots during his jump, and your attempt to compare it to sand is as lame as your understanding of physics.
Sand has completely different properties than fine lunar dust.
He is showing the forward advancing wave (which wasn't mentioned in my video). Shadow of invisible dust, as he believes
Look where his arrow starts to follow the wave! Right when and where the thick dirt falls on the ground, just as I just said! Now, he doesn't realize this but he actually SUPPORTS what I said: it's advancing on the ground and was set in motion by the falling thick dirt.
Your "advancing wave" stops exactly when John Young touches the surface and that's another fact which shows you are wrong.
What you interpret as higher acceleration of falling dust is nothing more than dust spreading in front of the astronaut and becoming practically invisible in low resolution of TV camera against the background of the same type of dust.
Shadow of the falling dust is visible because shadow is darker, while dust itself has the same color as background.
The dirt that rised about 30cm high did not spread out and become invicible. The high resolution photograph clearly shows it fell and hit the ground! The moonwalks supporting camp has repeatedly stated that there is evidence in the photograph that the dirt fell down!
And a dirt that spreads out, does not have well visible apex (upper border). It would thin out gradually. Yet everyone who has studied this case agrees it has an apex which you can see falling down.
Dirt became invisible to the camera after it spread out to form cloud of particles smaller than resolving power of the TV camera. Don't pretend you don't understand it. If you don't know what I'm talking about then get proper education.
What you see is combined effect of spreading dust moving outwards in front of John Young, dusty background of the same type and color and limited camera resolution.
You don't seem an honest person and I am not going to waste more time here.
Excuse me, are you davewatcher's another account? Because you're using exactly same argument.
Already told you. The dirt did not became invisible. Have you looked that high resolution photograph (link on the video description)? It shows clearly that the thick dirt is just hitting the ground!
So how can you and Dave possibly claim something against so clear evidence?? And even if there wan't the evidence of the photograph, thinning is gradual phenomena, not sudden!
The dirt that is disturbed is not similar colour as the surface. The distrurbed dirt is much darker. If you look the footage with negative colors (shown in part 2) you can see better how strong is the contrast between the disturbed dirt and the background.
Both black shadows and the darker than surface disturbed dirt are clearly visible. It's ridiculous to claim the falling dirt would disappear, when the high resolution photograph clearly shows it hitting the ground!
Shadow of the dust appears in front of him well before he starts to descend.
• Dust stops moving forward at the same time when Young touches the surface because it was not some rolling wave bust dust which was kicked up by his boots with the same speed as the astronaut.
• Most of the dust was dropping down from under his boots.
• Dust spreads out and becomes invisible to the TV camera at certain point, as explained by me before.
Oh really? Then why doesn't davewatcher start tracking the "shadow" when the astronaut is rising?
And why does he start tracking it from where the heavy dirt drops? The shadow should have travelled already half of its total distance when the astronaut is in his max altitude!
Those and the wave totally missing from the high resolution image say: I'm right, you are wrong. The wave did start only after the thick dirt fell on the ground.
TPS is right. I read your comments, including the one about "dirt rolling on the ground"... Do you seriously believe that bs? LOL!
Putting all other arguments aside, I think you realize that dirt rolling on the ground would not stop at the same time as John Young touching down. Rolling dirt would continue moving forward and gradually come to stop as seen in literally hundreds of examples throughout lunar EVA footage. It would not just stop dead in sync with Young!
Yes I do. It's dust/dirt moving on the ground. Do you seriously believe it's a shadow of invicible dust? LOL!
I have all the facts on my side. It is clearly starting to advance when and where the thichk dirt hits the ground. It is not visible in the high resolution photograph, but the thick dirt hitting the ground is. And what's funny, I'm supported with a moonwalks supporter's video, which is supposed to prove the wave/shadow would be a prroof against this video!
Yeah, sure. If it was flying dirt landing same time as the astronaut is, then it would be an evidence for them landing with same acceleration.
But this guy used the same arguments as Dave: that the thick dirt thins out and doesn't fall, you can't see it against the background and the wave is dust of invisible flying dust. So, either it's Dave or someone who was influenced by him.
3. The picture was taken from different angle than TV camera. I hope you noticed that.
Dust does not vanish. It's there. It simply becomes invisible to the TV camera as TPS explained already. We see that shadow because it's DARKER than background. Are you really that dumb that you don't get it or you defend your lies on purpose?
Your theories, including that "rolling dust" bs are wrong. Dust casting shadow lands on the surface in sync with Young. Same speed, same gravity.
Are you freaking kidding me? I've looked at this jump more than probably anyone else! That's a GOOD thing the photograph is taken from almost opposite direction from the TV-camera.
I'm using the photograph because it offers greater detail and good further evidence. When people claim they can't see the dirt or it doesn't fall, the photo shows it clearly. When people claim it's not rolling dust, the photo shows there's no flying dust shadow anywhere.
Yes, that's what I said, the shadows are darker than the surface, and so is the disturbed dirt. In fact, all the shadows are visible in the photograph, only the "invisible flying dust's" shadow is missing.
Saying part of the dust becomes invisible is fantasy and against all evidence. First, its "shadow" only appears where and when the thick dirt hits the ground. Second, it isn't visible in the photograph either, because the thick dirt is just falling down.
Looking at AS16-113-18339HR and AS16-113-18340HR, we see that those pictures were taken at the apex of Young's jumps. The pictures illustrate beautifully what I and others told you already. Most of the dust was just falling down from the soles of Young's boots, never reaching the same vertical velocity as the astronaut, therefore showing that your lame attemp at calculating acceleration of dust is wrong.
Excuse me, what am I lying? I've been telling over 2 years that this photo was taken when JY is in his jumps apex. I've never said anything different.
I also said there is dirt shadow on the photo. But track that shadow where it starts! It's shadow of that dirt which is falling down! It connects to the same place where the dust is falling!
Which proves that the forward advancing wave is set in motion by the falling dirt, and is not a shadow of invisible dust.
TV camera was located on the rover, at approx. 45° behind Young. Sun was shining from the left side on the picture and we SEE shadow of the dust on the ground where dust is already landing in front of John Young, and on the right side of the picture near spot where shadow of his boots and legs is located.
Shadow of that portion of dust which was kicked up with the same speed as the astronaut becomes visible when it gets closer to the surface and therefore more distinct.
I know. But let me repharase what Darth Vader said: "these are not the shadows you are looking for". If you read my comments, I've been saying all the time there is the shadow for the thick dirt that falls a bit front of John Young's boots.
Follow the shadow, and see it joining with the falling dirt! There's no shadow for the forward advancing wave though. Is this too dificult to figure out? Do I need to make a video about it?
Just remember to show where and when the flying dust's shadow starts from! Like Davewatcher did. Good for him. If there wasn't his video, you and bunch of other guys would claim "you see it wrong." Every now and then someone who tries to debunk you, actually ends doing you a service.
Fact that dust (or that rolling wave, whatever you call it) settles on the ground exactly when John Young touches down shows clearly that it had the same speed and acceleration, while like I said before, most of the dust just fell down from under his boots. The soles of the boots were not flat. They were profiled for better traction, as seen in famous foot print of Buzz Aldrin. That's why so much dust got picked up during Young's jump.
You are more ignorant than I thought. Actually, thank you for showing those two videos. I will show fragments of them in my future video which will illustrate very well your ignorance and how wrong your theory is.
If only the fact that remaining dust settles in sync with John Young was convenient for that bs you've been posting, you'd be screaming about it all the time! However, because it's not convenient, you invented some "rolling dust" bs, pretending you don't see how ridiculous it is.
You are either ignorant, deluded, lying on purpose, or maybe all three. I don't care. When time allows, I will make a video proving that hoax claims regarding Young's jump salute are wrong.
You think I'm another davewatcher's account? Based on what evidence? Because I use the same arguments? Employ some logic if you can do that. I do that because it's based on known facts of science.
I see now why you believe Moon landings were faked if conspiracy theories find way to your head so easily!
Get proper education. Nobody who understands science agrees with such idiotic theories. Haven't you noticed what kind of people believe it? It's a shame to be one of those people.
Facts of science, like dirt disappearing suddenly and not falling at all? What freak of science has captivated the dirt falling on the high resolution image then, why don't you answer that? Hmmm. Why Dave never answered that, even though I asked it a dozen times.
And what fact of science keeps this forward flying invisible shadow frozen first half of JY's jump, when it SHOULD have travelled half of its distabce already.
In order to defend what you believe so much, you create false arguments while the real explanation is very simple.
Arguments like yours may sound convincing only to people who want to believe in hoax just like you want to believe it no matter what.
I have enough experience in photography and film to know what I'm talking about, and it is no surprise that no real experts agree with Moon hoax theory claims.
Cont: fact that you even compare two completely different materials really does not give you much credibility.
AS16-113-18339 that you mentioned does not reveal any "dirt rolling on the ground", but exactly as expected, dust falling down and kicked forward in wide angle in front of Young.
Considering rather limited resolution of TV camera, it is no surprise dust is hard to see against the background of lunar surface after it disperses beyong certain point.
To summarize: you are wrong. You draw false conclusions and support them with ridiculous claims which are pseudo-scientific at best.
Are there any video professionals and scientists who see anything wrong with that scene? I don't think so. It's been watched by millions of people world wide, but somehow it is only a small group of people like you, who think they understand it better, which claims that scene shows evidence for hoax.
Click to show the video description (under the video, next to the view count) to see links related to this video: the NASA high resolution image, videos of how high you should jump on the Moon, and other videos about the Big Navy Salute jump.
Ok, looking at it from an objective stand point, though I believe the proof points to the Apollo missions did take place, assuming that you can simulate 1/6th Earth's gravity by speeding it up to double is incorrect. The difference is not 2 but 2,46 times. Secondly, your calculations based on theory alone predict 10cm for the Moon and 60cm for the Earth, yet using the evidence you come out to 30cm. Three times the distance of the Moon and half the distance of Earth. [to be continued]
So? What does it matter if I investigate the slow motion case with 2 or 2,46 times accelerated frame rates? NOTHING! What ever frame rate you use, the dirt always falls different acceleration rate (faster) than the astronaut!
As I said after the investigating with double frame rate:
"We have the same problem as for normal speed on the Moon: the astronaut falls too slow compared to the dirt."
The double frame speed was just an example, as it is a popular claim.
@Aurinkohirvi What I'm saying is, that you have to take one point of view and then apply the only two possible scenario's. Moon gravity without atmosphere and Earth gravity (possibly, though unlikely, in an artificial vacuum or in atmosphere). Also, the dirt isn't the only part that has to check out. Movement of the astronaut itself can't go beyond a certain speed with the limitation of human muscle and the space suit.
And I'm sorry if I mistook your example as a claim.
And if one uses 2,46 times accelerated frame rate, astronauts of course move quite too fast. But using wire support changes the game. You don't need to slow the footage so much, if the astronaut fall is slowed.
However, there is no way of telling if they used slow motion all the time, or the same slow motion rate.
@Aurinkohirvi But you did say it yourself, the dirt falls too slow or too quickly. If you take the dirt, make it fall at Moon G, then speed it up by 2,46 times. Then you have the 'normal' playback speed if this was indeed shot on Earth. Then I ask you, is it possible, does it look even slightly natural?
As a side note, though I don't know at which time it was invented, but variable frame rate hasn't been around that long. If possible, they had the same fr per EVA let alone per recording.
If the dirt doesn't seem to fall with the same acceleration rate as the astronaut with one speed, then it doesn't in any speed. Accelerating this footage 2,46 times frame rate would make JY seem like falling on Earth, but the dirt would, again, fall too fast compared to him. But you can make the dirt seem to fall like in Earth - which in turn would make JY seem to fall too slow.
I don't know. But in my opinion it is possible. I'm thinking wires could be the reasons why we don't see any jumps long or high enough you would expect from real moonwalks. Slowing the fall with wires would not look as good as real free falling.
Looking this case it seemed right away the dirt was falling too fast, but after I really investigated it, I was really surprised how CLEAR the results were. I could have been wildly inaccurate and the conclusion still wouldn't change!
I can tell you, I was 50-50 on the Apollo moonwalks being true before I started looking at this case. Now I'm 90-10 on the moonwalks being filmed on an Earth set, at least this scene. I cannot explain it by any other way except the scene is a set up. I just can't see WHAT possibly could create such a false apex for the dirt, and make it rise and fall symmetrically. There is no such thing!
@Aurinkohirvi I forgot which Apollo mission it was, but it has the highest jump done by an astronauts and he tilts back and falls back to the moon, on his PLSS. This is because the PLSS adds roughly 26kg of mass on the astronauts back, they just couldn't jump higher because they couldn't keep balance that way. (note that kg is the correct unit for mass and that mass is constant on all planets and moons, actual weight is expressed in a force of N, Newton).
Same mission as this, A16. That was the "Lunar Olympics" scene behind the lunar rover, so you could only see their chest and helmets. NASA claims Duke jumped 0,8 meters (2.7 ft). In the NASA That's not a Olympics level jump on the Moon, though. In the NASA's own Moon gravity simulations they jumped average 3,7 meters (12 ft) high, the astronaut gear on.
If you can jump average 12ft high with the astronaut gear, do you think the PLSS backpack is "heavy"? If you jump that high, the answe is: on the Moon that's no problem for Earth muscles.
Have you worn a heavy backpack? Notice what happens when you do? You lean forward. That's because your body always seeks for a balance. Notice how much the astronauts leave forward? Almost not at all, as the backpack isn't heavy for them. They are easily balanced with that backpack on.
You won't lose your balance when "airborn". Because everything falls with the same acceleration rate the backpack or what ever load you have with you, will not fall any faster than any other part of you. So in free fall you can't lose your balance. That becomes only an issue when you STAND or LAND DOWN..
However, in "Lunar Olympics" they started falling already when OFF THE GROUND. Which tells me they launched the jump with intention to land on their backs. A setup.
@Aurinkohirvi So they always have to lean forward, but how do you make a vertical jump? By standing straight up, bending your knees and extending them, however, due to the centre of gravity being behind you, you'll almost immediately fall backwards.
In retrospect, it's funny how I consider video's like this the proof that we went to the moon while others consider it the proof that it wasn't :P
But the center of gravity isn't behind you! That's a common error of thinking. As I said, your body seeks a balance. Did John Young fell backwards? No he didn't!
Notice how a kangaroo pulls her tail closer to her body when she pulls herself pefectly erect reaching upwards, and then hunches himself to another position extending the tail when she jumps? Her body seeks a balance! She can jump upwards standing in another postion, but doesn't even attempt in another. Same with men.
I don't know if they went to the Moon or not- But I know the astronaut and the dirt should fall same acceleration rate. If they don't, something isn't right. If you think I'm wrong, prove it instead speculating.
An Apollo moonwalks supporter called Shane Killian tried to prove the dirt and the astronaut fall the same acceleration rate. But using the same measuring scale on the dirt and the astronaut, his astronaut appeared to be only one meter tall. See:
@Aurinkohirvi Notice how Young, due to the small jump, is still leaning forward? That's my point from these past few comments once we jumped over to possible jumping heights. Also, what about a kangaroo? These have the tail in order to balance themselves out, humans are already balanced and a tail would throw them off balance. Like say, strapping 26kg of mass to your back. But you are right, mass alone isn't just the problem, the volume plays a big part too.
All astronauts lean very slightly forward. And when they do, the center of the mass is NOT their back side. That's where you (and people generally) go wrong when they think a backpack would shift the center of mass backwards. It does not. The body automatically compensates this by leaning forward, thus reaching the balance.
@Aurinkohirvi That's exactly what I'm saying. Because of the shit strapped on the back, the centre of gravity shifts and they have to lean forward. Due to the restrictions of the suit it's harder to jump and due to the force of habit one will straighten out more. The higher the jump the straighter one will be and thus quicker be 'pulled' backwards.
Have you tested it? Because if you have a heavy backpack, you do jump keeping the forward leaning posture. You won't straighten your back as you would do without a load. I know because I had this conversation a year ago and did test it.
But it's a no-issue. As we can see from the astronaut's posture, the backpack offers them only a little trouble keeping the balance on the Moon. And no trouble to JY in this Big Navy Salute jump either.
@Aurinkohirvi I couldn't quickly find all the details so I'm still working on the dimensions of the PLSS, currently skimming through NASA documentation.
@Aurinkohirvi That's why I included the part between the brackets no br.. ph.. (these things anyway). It's not the weight, it's the mass that's the problem. The extra mass strapped to their back shifts the centre of gravity and forces them to always lean forward. (next reply for the rest)
[continued] Remembering the margin for error, though you should caution someone for saying it, one could claim this is exactly between the two expected results. This means one thing, either the used calculations are wrong or your way of measuring is wrong. I vote for the latter. You should have taken a shot where you could see neither top nor bottom of the PLSS and measure that in pixels and take the height. Also, assuming that the dirt can't fall only 14cm [to be continued]
Instead of suggesting I measured wrong, measure them yourself! It isn't hard, I showed you how to do it.
if I measured wrong from the video image, how can I get the same result for John Young's jump height as NASA? Answer that!
30cm dirt fall measured from the video image, and 9cm dirt fall measured from the fall time (video frames) can't be made equal if you change my measurements a bit, or even a lot. You would need to change the measurements really HUGE.
And one more point about the measurements! You can verify them!
The same scale is used to measure the jump height and the dirt apex height. And the scale is received from the known height of the astronaut.You can compare all these to each others and see if I used the same scale. So it's verifiable.
Also, I use the image software tool for measuring. You can verify if the numbers given are correct, measuring shown areas from the video image.
@Aurinkohirvi I actually tried to get the video into a half decent video editing program before I saw your video, however I found that the ones I had heard about were either now paid, didn't work or were paid all along and somehow didn't do what I needed them to do (for instance Adobe and Vegas). I wasn't aware NASA claimed that Young jumped a certain height, could you please tell me where I can verify this? The last part is my biggest complaint, the dirt fall. It's quite a vague position.
"John bends his knees slightly, springs about a half meter off the ground, and salutes. He is off the ground about 1.45 seconds which, in the lunar gravity field, means that he launched himself at a velocity of about 1.17 m/s and reached a maximum height of 0.42 m."
@Aurinkohirvi I have to admit, this is the most proper response I've gotten thus far from anyone who thinks the Apollo missions, or part of it, were faked. Thank you.
Still, my biggest complaint stands, the dirt. Can you show that the dirt that was at the highest when you measure it, is actually the dirt falling down for the entire time? Or is it still airborne but no longer counted as the thick dirt or in fact already on the ground before the time frame is over?
Can I show the dirt was highest when I measured it? Sure.
I show the frame numbers. If you capture the frames from the footage and placing them side by side, you can see the apex is the highest in the frame number I gave. Easy to verify or debunk.
You can see easily even normal speed, that the thick dirt mass never rises quite as high as JY's boots. There's a growing gap between his boots and the dirt apex the higher he rises.
If you take the dirt highest apex frame, it should be as far from the jump launch frame and the dirt touchdown frame, if the dirt is really rising and falling. And looking from the video, the dirt seems to fall down at that very same touchdown frame.
Further proof is the high resolution photograph, which shows this thick dirt mass just hitting the ground when JY is still high in his jump. This is the same what we can see in the dirt touchdown frame.
Also, if the dir would not be falling, there wouldn't be this gap between JY's boots and the dirt apex. The dirt would appear to rise his boots' level and stay at his boots level during the whole jump.
Some people suggested the dirt would disappear from the sight, which would create a false apex to the dirt. But there is nothing what would cause this sudden disappearing at certain height, and even less nothing which would explain the illusion of a falling false apex.
[continued] while Young falls 60cm is completely baseless. Dirt can fall any height, from 1mm to a 100km and even more and less. Taking the higher then 60cm out of the equation for now, since Young kicked up the dirt in his jump, it's unlikely it get's thrown higher then him. Basically this means that, no matter what means was used to make Young jump, the dirt can get thrown up any positive height lower then Young's jump. [to be continued]
[continued] So, bottom line is. Get a better, more accurate, representation for the height. Earth's gravity is 6 times higher then the Moon's so from whichever stand point (either Young or the Dirt) going from Moon speed to Earth speed is a multiplication of 2,46 or 264% playback speed. The 'thick' dirt is a bad example as you said yourself, some get's thrown back and not up, making measurements incorrect due to perspective. And n your conclusion you missed the dirt as possible evil doer.
Perspective error as a reason is ballony. Look the high resolution photograph where the heavy dirt fall is seen just above the ground. It's just a bit forward from his boots. Now look where the other astronaut stands!
The other astronaut is much further away than where the dirt falls, yet he isn't over 3 times shorter than the other astronaut. So how can a 30cm dirt mass appear to be only 9cm high? Not explained by a perspective error!
On your reccomendation I did just that, I noticed that there's a small trench in front of Young when he makes his jump and at the second jump you can clearly see that he was standing on the edge of it. Judging how big it is is tricky and might produce inaccurate data but you can see that the trench in front of him, in a wide arc, is littered with disturbed dust as well as the little plateau he was standing on. And with perspective, I mean to encourage you to think on the form of the dirt cloud.
I'm not the 1st one to investigate this case. Other people have seen when the dirt hits the ground, including Apollo supporters. And there is the high resolution photograph which shows John Young in his jump apex, and the thick dirt under his left foot hitting the ground.
Many people admit the dirt appears to fall when I say so. They just think it's an illusion or something else. If you can't see it, I can't discuss with you.
We now have more hoax evidence, nicely presented. Other videos on you tube clearly show wires. And yet other videos that clearly show astronauts hanging too long (or being pulled), the result of human error of the wire man. What more evidence does one need? SPUTNIK maybe?
I say just let the skeptics remain skeptical, they most likely won't be convinced by any legitimate explanations that go against their views. The fact is that the flags planted on the moon can be seen by telescope so that's pretty definitive for me at least, which doesn't include the massive amounts of evidence that further supports the legitimacy of the lunar landings. Whatever, let them think what they want, it's only their time they're wasting until the rest of us decide to try to educate.
Since when have the flags been seen by telescopes? There's currently debate if the LRO photos show Apollo landing craft or not. And that's from orbital cameras.
Since when have the flags been seen by telescopes? There's currently debate if the LRO photos show Apollo landing craft or not. And that's from orbital cameras.
By the way, there are countless other examples of astronauts stirring up fine lunar dust with their toes as they walk. Many, many hours worth. Even as I watched the missions live I thought about how odd and other-worldly it looked given the low gravity, lack of air, and optical/lighting effects (e.g., no blue sky). Often you can see the dust only during certain parts of its trajectory depending on your viewing angle.
I'm having great difficulty editing messages with this new YT page format. Is there some way to go back to the old format? When I reply to a message I can't even see most of what I am typing.
Year reading the all messages is a regular pain now. Same here. YouTube user interface was always bad, now it went even worse. Amazing. Wouldn't believe this is one of the biggest sites in Internet, from its biggest company!
You fail to understand that I'm under no obligation to prove what the particles are actually doing. YOU made the claim that they're not moving "properly" so the burden of proof is entirely on YOU to back that up. And you can't. What we see is entirely consistent with lunar regolith, vacuum and 1/6g. And the camera and optical effects keeps you from proving otherwise.
In my opinion, if you say: " the dirt becomes invisible", you should have some theory how that can create this apex and its movements we see.
It is easy to say that "it nbecomes invisible". But explaining how it could create dirt mass appearing to rise and fall totally different speed and directions as the astronauts and the "invisible dirt" would move... that's where you realize it can't deliver.
I know it was davewatcher's theory you took. But dave never could explain how it would work.
I "should have some theory"? No. It's certainly been interesting to posit the optical illusions that have misled you to your conclusions, and I think I'm probably right, but I am under no obligation to explain anything. My whole point is that the video is simply too poor to support an extraordinary claim like "the Apollo program was faked". Furthermore, the Hasselblad stills disprove your claim that the dust fell too quickly. Far from having the required extraordinary evidence, you have none.
It's a very strange kind of optical illusion in that case, since the thick dirt is seen also in that photo you mention, just a couple of inches above the ground. It's also strange, creating a fake apex that has a symmetric rise and fall, with independent movement.
If you're happy with your optical illusion, then go ahead. I'm waiting a better answer.
Sometimes the information simply isn't there for a better answer. And that's why Occam's Razor is so important. For you to base an entire theory on a few seconds of blurry video is just plain irrational. You need a single theory that best explains ALL the evidence. And you don't get to make ad-hoc tweaks for every little observation.
Actually it is enough to show one evidence which proves the footage were not filmed on the Moon. Or one evidence that shows the Apollo rocks are not from the Moon, or one evidence that shows the space crafts did not land on the Moon. If one of them is proved, it means the Apollo story is a forgery.
Occam's Razor suggests the simplest solution is usually the correct one. But a good deception trusts on you to pick the simplest solution. Ever watched detective series, like Columbo or something?
Actually, I would say that discovering one faked photo would say that you've found one faked photo, not proven that the entire Apollo program was a hoax. There are people who say that Apollo actually landed, but some of the photos and video were faked. They're just as wrong as you are, but you have to concede their arguments are no worse than yours.
Oh, I've watched Colombo. Good entertaining show. But are you telling me that you base your views of the real world on a fictional TV show? When a writer wants a character to be fooled, he's fooled. Most real people in the real world don't work that way. But a few like you still manage to fool themselves. They cling to their favorite delusions despite all evidence to the contrary.
Davewatcher simply pointed out something I hadn't already noticed: that the dust continues to move forward in a fan shape, not landing until Young does. This, plus the dust captured in Duke's photos, proves that it's falling just as expected in 1/6 g and totally busts your theory.
The details of the illusion of the disappearing dark cloud is just icing on the cake. I think I understand why, but I don't have to explain it to bust your theory, which is already busted.
By the way, if you want to see just how small these dust particles are, see the recordings of the astronauts brushing it off the TV lens. I know of some sequences of this from A17, and they probably exist for 16 too. That these particles fall in nice ballistic trajectories is conclusive proof that we're seeing them move in vacuum. And I don't know of any vacuum chambers large enough to accommodate a few good sized mountains, do you?
Aurinkohirvi seems to have difficulty realizing that the dirt sloughing off of Young's boots already is close to the top of its parabolic arc (had the dirt somehow been fired up like projectiles from the lunar surface) the moment it leaves the boots. Enough said.
@GoneToPlaid If you mean that the momentum of the ascending astronaut is finished at his apex, I get it. But still, there is dirt flying above his ankles, which can be seen between his boots in the footage. What do you say about that?
I just found "davewatcher" and his videos pointing out that flying dust continues to cast a forward-moving shadow during Young's entire jump. I hadn't noticed that before, but he's quite right.
That, plus the flying dust captured in Duke's still photos taken after you claim it had all landed, proves that this jump happened in lunar gravity. There's simply no "anomaly" here!
Unless you're about to claim that each dust particle had its own support wire...
I have known it since the beginning. Except I think it probably is soil rolling on ground. Reason for this is that it advances forward in a wide arch, while the shadows fall to the left hand's side.
The thick dirt's shadow is in the left, not forward. Well seen in the high resolution image.
He also claimed that shadows make the dirt invisible, even if no shadow covers the dirt. And he doesn't admit seeing the falling dirt in the photo etc which is why I will do the addendum video.
You've known it from the beginning, but you didn't mention it? That was dishonest. What makes you think it was "soil rolling on the ground"? Where else do you see "rolling soil" on a flat lunar surface? These are very tiny dust particles with jagged edges that stick to everything. They don't "roll" or bounce like ping pong balls.
It's a wide arch because the dust is flying in a wide arch off the entire front of his boot. And it flies for the same time he does, is that just a coincidence?
I do mention it, look at the video search the comments.
Why I think it's rolling on the ground? Look where the shadow of Young is, look where the high flying shadows are! They are far to the left hand's side.
This front isn't going up and down like the shadow of Young and the thick dirt. It starts where the kicked dirt lands and reaches as a front all the way to the small rise near the flag.
I think the soil that fly and is kicked forward should roll forward and disturb new soil.
We are talking about fine dust. How can fine dust retain that kind of momentum after hitting the ground? Answer: It can't! It didn't have to, because it hadn't hit the ground yet.
Related question: how can fine dust retain that kind of momentum even before it hits the ground? Answer: only by moving in a vacuum.
It's hardly just fine dust. That's obvious for anyone looking the fooratge. It's thick, you can't see through it. It's dirt. In the photo the material near the ground is much thicker than that which is still up.
You know the Moon gravity is much weaker than Earth's. The landing dirt won't be stopped nearly as fast as on Earth.
Sure, if it's fine dust, it won't fly much forward in an atmosphere. Agreed you there!
You should know that even fine dust can be thick enough to stop light. The TV shows only the thickest sections.
But whether those parts were clumped doesn't really matter. What matters is that some thin, high dust is fortuitously visible in the still shots where it contrasts against the LM shadow in the background.
The stills clearly show that it's fine dust - meaning it's in a vacuum - and that it fell no faster than Young himself. Your claim is completely busted.
How in the world does "fine dust" prove anything about vacuum? Dust is always material sticking together. It's not single molecules flying around.
And how fine dust you can see in that high resolution photo anyway? Yes there is dust hanging there, but I've seen finer dust in real life. It isn't THAT good photo.
I don't know why I bothered to reply that comment.
Dust particles don't have to be single molecules to be small enough to be significantly affected by air drag. The presence of dust at the level of Young's boot proves the scene was shot in a vacuum. In air it couldn't have risen so high.
An Apollo 70mm still is vastly better than a still from even the later Apollo TV systems. Also, that dust is highlighted by being in front of the LM shadow. There may be other dust we can't see as easily because of a lack of background contrast.
If it reflects light, it can be seen (this theory is strangely enough opposed by davewatcher who thinks that dust in sunlight becomes invisible!).
What are you driving at here? Your point was that it has to be vacuum because it's fine dust. I agree there is fine dust too, but don't get your point how that would have to mean a vacuum. Unless if it was the "fine dust can't rise high in atmosphere" claim.
Sorry, but no. Even if it reflects light, it still can't be seen without contrast against the background.
My point is very simple. There's no credible mechanism to launch dust upward faster than the boot that launched it. We see the dust in Duke's photo at about the same level as the boot so all the dust particles and the boot must have experienced the same forces. Ergo, there's no air drag, gravity was the same for both, and this was shot on the moon.
About the backround: sure, sure. If you have white background can't see a white sheet of paper easy. But when davewatcher said the dust disappears because it's invisible in sun light, there were big problems with his theory:
1) the background was undisturbed Moon ground, nothing changed there.
2) The dirt under JY was in no shadow in the first place! And while the dirt "seemed" descending, the astronaut's shadow was not yet descending.
The undisturbed lunar surface is covered with the very same thin dust that's being thrown around here. All the better to make it disappear due to lack of contrast.
The simple fact is that you are handwaving. You claim to reliably measure, from poor quality TV, both the peak height and flight time of individual particles of dust much too small to see individually, in clouds of many particles with different velocities, against a background of identical material. And that's just nonsense.
Your handwaving about the behavior of DUST (note: not dirt - please use the correct terminology) is simply wrong. Small particles of lunar regolith have sharp, jagged edges because they were created in hypervelocity impacts and have never experienced water or air erosion. When they hit something, they generally stop or even cling to it. They certainly fddon't keep going.
But this is irrelevant. The presence of high thin dust in the stills completely busts your claims. We're done.
It has everything to do with it! There's no mechanism for launching dust faster than Young himself. That dust must have had the same velocity he did, and it rose and fell with him. That proves both a vacuum (otherwise air drag would have retarded it) and no wire rig on Young (otherwise it would have fallen by then).
And it means your view from the TV, with its much lower resolution and poor contrast, must be an illusion. The dust you say fell quickly was simply lost in the background.
ApolloWasReal: "There's no mechanism for launching dust faster than Young himself."
Put sand on your boot and jump up. See does it stay on the top of your boot or if it gets kicked higher. Jumping from a powdery soil where you leave deep footprints will have the top and front of your boots lifting soil higher than your boots shall. It's visible in the video footage and visible in photos I previously googled. Inventing things has nothing but poor propaganda value.
And I'm not saying it's just the dirt on your boots that could rise higher than you (although that might makes most of it). Also the sand you kick with the bottom of your feet experiences different accelerations that could get it higher than your boots. After all, it takes a lot more force to get a grown man off the ground than some dirt! Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out if two objects experience equal force, the lighter mass object will get higher. But obviously you disagree.
Apply the same force to two objects and the lighter mass will indeed accelerate more. But you are NOT applying the same force when you accelerate two dissimilar objects together! F=ma, remember?
Assume dust on a rigid boot. As his legs go straight, they transmit momentum from his upper body to his feet, which accelerate boot and dust to the same upward velocity. Once off the ground, they're subject to the same gravity. There's no more net force between them, so they follow the same trajectory.
Yeah, the force is different since the mass is different. But the kick is the same kick. And we do NOT see all the dirt rising in same disc all reaching the same altitude. Does that not tell you something?
No, we don't see all the dust rising at the same rate. Some of it rises more slowly than his boots, but none rises faster.
This is exactly what you'd expect if some dust was on top of his boots with more clinging to the sides. The stuff on top would rise with his boots while much of the stuff on the sides would fall off after being only partially accelerated, the associated forces plus gravity having broken the static friction that was holding it there.
Is this little snippet of video the best you can do? Out of dozens of hours of video from six missions 40 years ago, you point to these few seconds as "proof" they were all somehow hoaxed on a huge sound stage with invisible support cables and slow motion cameras that otherwise produced perfect illusions of being on the moon?
And you can't get even one of the people involved to step forward and explain just how and why it was all done?
Yes, we're all human so we all share the same limits to human perception. But you're not obligated to share the hoaxhead's inability to acknowledge those perceptual limits, to realize that seeing shouldn't always be believing.
Such as when looking at a poor quality TV image at the behavior of materials with vastly different properties than those you're familiar with in an utterly alien and unfamiliar environment.
Only fools completely trust their perception in cases like this.
Keep it civil. Low toleration on insults. You may have been accustomed discussing in Apollo supporter forums where insulting the opposition is the norm, but here you won't do it.
Actually, I'm accustomed to forums where insults are the norm from the hoax believers because that's all they have. Especially this one (youtube).
I generally let them slide and focus on the facts and logic, but once in a while I let one slide out in the other direction when it's too good an opportunity to pass up.
But this wasn't one of them. I meant it: only fools completely trust their perception in cases like this. Science is all about detecting and correcting experimental error.
Nope, it doesn't get kicked higher. Think about it; how could it? As he started his jump, his boots were on the ground until his legs went straight. Then his boots kicked some dust forward at various low velocities that fell quickly, but they also carried some up. Then his legs oscillate a little, probably from internal suit pressure and the cords on the joints, knocking the dust off so we see it separately in Duke's photos.
No Aurinkohirvi, the dust is very fine. The very fine nature of the dust is exactly why you can't easily see through it since the dust forms a cloud composed of very fine particles, similar to heavy fog here on earth.
Well, if the material is fine and elastic, you could preassure it rather compact. I guess a storm could pack dust rather dense. But I see through dust clouds every time I take the carpets outside.
But did your comment have something to do with the case?
Yes, you can finely compact the dust. In fact, this is exactly why a conventionally designed core sample tube encountered very stiff resistance when being hammered into the lunar soil once the tube reached a depth of about a foot. Micrometeorite impacts keep the top foot churned up, but at the same time those impacts tightly packed everything further down.
Coincidence? Should the dirt even fly the same time as Young does? Yes, if they rise only the same heigth. But in the video footage you can see dirt rising higher than his ankles.. could rise much higher than that. It should drop later than him.
The forward flying soil, or shadow (which ever it is) was however not what I was tracking in this video. I was tracking the dirt that rises under Young's feet and is seen falling down in the photograph. It too should fall according to the lunar gravity.
And why did I track the dirt that rises and falls under Young? Because it's best visible, yes. And also because it was done before me by other people.
Is there other things to be investigated in this jump? Sure. The forward progressing dirt/shadow. What the high resolution image shows. And why does Young jump only so miniscule heighth with his big navy salute. Among other things.
We're not talking how high I can jump, but hiw high a man should jump on the Moon.
In the NASA tests Moon gravity simulations, the astronauts were able to jump as high as 14 feet, and 12 feet average. Having the Apollo astronaut equipments on, too. Young jumps 1,5 foot. That's a miniscule jump on the Moon.
Are you really unable to distinguish between "can" and "must"? The astronauts were very wary of falls that could puncture a suit or damage a PLSS. Why should Young do something so reckless just for a picture?
Your numbers are bogus. A person can ideally jump 6x higher in 1/6 g only with everything else constant. On the moon, the suit and PLSS doubled your mass and shifted your cg. Inflated joints were hard to bend. And in ground tests they did not have to fear a fatal fall.
Oh, I'll tenatively presume the numbers came from NASA (I've learned not to trust hoaxheads to get even the simplest facts correct). But they were collected under conditions inapplicable to the moon.
On the moon you're wearing a suit, PLSS and OPS that double your mass. There are no safety lines. The suit is inflated and stiff. A bad fall could damage it and maybe cost your life. Aside from your partner you're a long way from help. And jumps aren't on the official plan.
It would seem that some dust flew about as high as Young's ankles.
How do I know this? Not from the TV but from Duke's pictures taken at the top of Young's jumps. The dust is right next to his boots, well off the ground.
This is absolute proof that the dust had not yet hit the ground when you claim it had. It merely became invisible to the TV camera due to resolution, lighting, contrast and perspective.
Young and the dust grains all experienced 1/6 g. The case is closed.
Dust is still up there, as I've said oh, so many times. The heavy dirt is seen hitting the ground, just when I said it does.
But you can't close the case yet. The problem of the "too fast sand" still remains. The thick dirt did rise about 30cm, considerably higher than the 10cm. You can't dismiss that! I can't dismiss that, and that's what this video is all about.
These are clouds of independent dust particles, far too small to see individually, each with its own velocity vector. You're seeing them with a low res, low speed TV camera as they move against a harshly lit background of the very same stuff.
The simple fact is that you cannot claim you've observed a given particle experiencing > 1/6 g. You can't say that a particle hit the ground instead of simply diffusing and disappearing against the background.
Ballony! The thick dust is well seen. Its apex is well seen. It clearly falls down as seen in the photo. There's only some Apollo supporters who cannot see it. But then there are Apollo supporters who can, debate of it, and make even thrir own videos about it.
Face it: "I can't see" or "iyt's an illusion" are not defences you can use here. When people look at the footage, they see the real color of the deniers.
Sorry, but "it's an illusion" is not only a perfectly good defense but also true.
I reiterate: you're looking at clouds of very tiny particles, much too small to see individually, moving against a background of the very same material. You have carefully selected several seconds from dozens of hours of video.
Occam's razor applies. Which is the simpler explanation: that the laws of physics were selectively violated during just these few seconds, or that your eyes played a trick?
Please explain how dust can rise "much higher" than Young. His boots would have to leave the ground much faster than his boots left the ground. That's a "contradiction".
Every indication from TV and still photos is that the dust left the ground at upward velocities ranging from near zero to about the same as Young. Much of it had about half his velocity, reached 1/4 of his height, and landed when he peaked. But some went all the way up and down with him. It's in the photo!
Yep, it's in the photo, the dirt under him falling when he is in his apex. Good, we agree on this!
The kicked dirt flies various heights. It doesn't all fly just the same height as the astronaut's shoes, nor does it has to stop right there. Depends what kind of momentum that part of the dirt gets. No contradiction there.
From the NASA footage frames 241 - 247 some of the dirt is higher than his boots. (and when you see the footage many forward, this dirt does drop faster than Young).
More moon hoax nonsense?
Rob260259 10 months ago
AstroClownBuster has made a new version of his video which exposes Shane Killian's hoax about the dirt fall acceleration.
Shanedk measuring the dirt fall time from the NASA video got a result of 12.96cm. AstroClownBuster shows how this 12.96cm applied onto the astronaut, makes him only a one meter tall dwarf!
Shanedk_foot.wmv.
watch?v=yUt9TWgDz9U
Here is the older version (xyzLLLzyx is the former name of AstroClownBuster): Big Navy FINAL (xyzLLLzyx's video.
watch?v=-J4HG2RMgPs
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
If the Mythbusters video proved anything they proved its possible to fake the moon landing on Earth.
daro2096 1 year ago
@daro2096
Maybe you could explain where exactly did MBs prove Moon landings could be faked on Earth?
You missed the whole thing where they prove several major claims of Moon hoax conspiracy theorists wrong.
Try watching MBs program again, but next time actually pay attention to what they say.
BlisterHiker 1 year ago
@BlisterHiker
Don't expand this to the whole Myhtbusters episode and all moonlandigs topics discussion. As long as you discuss about the jumping the Mythbusters recrated, it's okay. I'm limiting the discussion here to this jumping topic, as there already is a huge amount of comments. There's that Mythbusters episode videos where you can talk all the video.
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
One more thing. I've made a video recently which examines wire supports/slow-motion theory.
The video looks at the bigger picture, which is something you all hoax fanatics hate to do. You just pick selected few examples which you think fit Moon hoax theory. How convenient...
Now, watch my video. It shows clearly how much that bs you believe so hard and people who advocate it are worth:
watch?v=JBICR4PTLfc
Be proud, Aurinkohirvi... Be proud to be a part of Moon hoax club...
BlisterHiker 1 year ago
@BlisterHiker
I'm not part of a hoax club. This video is a reply to Shane Killian hoaxing and lying about this jump in his video. Shane Killian kept for years his calculations and measurements hidden, and when finally revealed them, his dirt fall measurement of 12,98cm (5.11 inch)could be applied only 8 times om the astronaut, making the astronaut only ONE METER (3.4ft) tall!
xyzLLLzyx's reply to Killian's hoax video:
watch?v=-J4HG2RMgPs
Now I maybe wrong, but Killian is the hoaxer, not me.
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
BlisterHiker, have you tried 150% frame rate?
You used 200% frame rate in your video, but Jarrah White whom you showed in the end of your video suggests 150% acceleration to the video. (Funny enough, also I said in the end of my video 1,5 x acceleration would be closer than 2 x acceleration).
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
This video is plain stupid and that whole "math" is completely misplaced.
The dust simply falls down from the boots. Dust did not jump up. Nobody shoved the dust up with the same speed as jumping astronaut. Looking closely, I see only a little amount of dust kicked forward landing at the same time as the astronaut. That was the dust which was on his boots.
Vast majority of disturbed dust did not have the same speed as the astronaut and that's why this "wire supports analysis" is all wrong.
ThePrimarySecondary 1 year ago
@ThePrimarySecondary
The faint "wave" that we can see going forward and stopping about same time as the John Young lands, is not dirt or dust flying and landing at all: it is dirt rolling on the ground!
This is the conclusion I have come to. Let me explain why I think so.
Continues
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
If it was flying dirt that rose as high as JY did, it should 1) have advanced half of its total forward distance when JY is at his jump's apex. However, the forward travelling dirt does not even exist when JY rises up and reaches his jump apex!
Instead, the forward travelling wave first appears where and when the thick dirt hits the ground!!
Continues
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
And the forward flying dirt and its shadow 2) should be visible in the high resolution still photograph AS16-113-18339HR (link provided in video description).
The shadows fall to the left as the light source is on the right. The thick dirt (which is just seen hitting the ground) has a shadow.
But the "forward flying dirt" nor its shadow that should have advanced half of its total forward distance by now, are seen nowhere! Because it only forms when the thick dirt hits ground!
Continues
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
Your second issue that the thick dirt is not dirt rising but falling from the boots, I can well understand: I considered that possibility, too! Watching several better quality videos of jumps up from sand, I've seen however that sand rises up.
But in the end, no matter if it falls from the boots or is kicked up by the boots, it still falls! And it should fall with the same acceleration as the astronaut falls. Others studied this same case before me, and everyone followed the same falling mass.
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
"it is dirt rolling on the ground"
@Aurinkohirvi
This is one of the most ridiculous statements I have heard from hoax believers. I'm trying very hard not to laugh or use hash words to describe your theory.
You are simply complicating something which is very simple.
Dust drops down continuously from Young's boots during his jump, and your attempt to compare it to sand is as lame as your understanding of physics.
Sand has completely different properties than fine lunar dust.
Tbc.
ThePrimarySecondary 1 year ago
@ThePrimarySecondary
Dirt rolling on the ground ridiculous?
Watch this video.
watch?v=ArJ7iYJBmWY
He is showing the forward advancing wave (which wasn't mentioned in my video). Shadow of invisible dust, as he believes
Look where his arrow starts to follow the wave! Right when and where the thick dirt falls on the ground, just as I just said! Now, he doesn't realize this but he actually SUPPORTS what I said: it's advancing on the ground and was set in motion by the falling thick dirt.
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
@Aurinkohirvi
Your "advancing wave" stops exactly when John Young touches the surface and that's another fact which shows you are wrong.
What you interpret as higher acceleration of falling dust is nothing more than dust spreading in front of the astronaut and becoming practically invisible in low resolution of TV camera against the background of the same type of dust.
Shadow of the falling dust is visible because shadow is darker, while dust itself has the same color as background.
ThePrimarySecondary 1 year ago
@ThePrimarySecondary
The dirt that rised about 30cm high did not spread out and become invicible. The high resolution photograph clearly shows it fell and hit the ground! The moonwalks supporting camp has repeatedly stated that there is evidence in the photograph that the dirt fell down!
And a dirt that spreads out, does not have well visible apex (upper border). It would thin out gradually. Yet everyone who has studied this case agrees it has an apex which you can see falling down.
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
@Aurinkohirvi
Dirt became invisible to the camera after it spread out to form cloud of particles smaller than resolving power of the TV camera. Don't pretend you don't understand it. If you don't know what I'm talking about then get proper education.
What you see is combined effect of spreading dust moving outwards in front of John Young, dusty background of the same type and color and limited camera resolution.
You don't seem an honest person and I am not going to waste more time here.
ThePrimarySecondary 1 year ago
@ThePrimarySecondary
Excuse me, are you davewatcher's another account? Because you're using exactly same argument.
Already told you. The dirt did not became invisible. Have you looked that high resolution photograph (link on the video description)? It shows clearly that the thick dirt is just hitting the ground!
So how can you and Dave possibly claim something against so clear evidence?? And even if there wan't the evidence of the photograph, thinning is gradual phenomena, not sudden!
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
@ThePrimarySecondary
The forward advancing wave still is started by the falling heavy dirt, no matter if it stops about the same time as the astronaut lands.
1) You can't see the wave when the astronaut is rising up, in the video footage.
2) The wave starts when and where the dirt falls down, as proved by davewatcher's video also.
3) There's no wave nor its shadow in the high resolution photograph (taken right when the thick dirt hits the ground) because it didn't exist yet.
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
The dirt that is disturbed is not similar colour as the surface. The distrurbed dirt is much darker. If you look the footage with negative colors (shown in part 2) you can see better how strong is the contrast between the disturbed dirt and the background.
Both black shadows and the darker than surface disturbed dirt are clearly visible. It's ridiculous to claim the falling dirt would disappear, when the high resolution photograph clearly shows it hitting the ground!
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
• You are lying, Aurinkohirvi.
Shadow of the dust appears in front of him well before he starts to descend.
• Dust stops moving forward at the same time when Young touches the surface because it was not some rolling wave bust dust which was kicked up by his boots with the same speed as the astronaut.
• Most of the dust was dropping down from under his boots.
• Dust spreads out and becomes invisible to the TV camera at certain point, as explained by me before.
Tbc.
ThePrimarySecondary 1 year ago
@ThePrimarySecondary
Oh really? Then why doesn't davewatcher start tracking the "shadow" when the astronaut is rising?
And why does he start tracking it from where the heavy dirt drops? The shadow should have travelled already half of its total distance when the astronaut is in his max altitude!
Those and the wave totally missing from the high resolution image say: I'm right, you are wrong. The wave did start only after the thick dirt fell on the ground.
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
@Aurinkohirvi
TPS is right. I read your comments, including the one about "dirt rolling on the ground"... Do you seriously believe that bs? LOL!
Putting all other arguments aside, I think you realize that dirt rolling on the ground would not stop at the same time as John Young touching down. Rolling dirt would continue moving forward and gradually come to stop as seen in literally hundreds of examples throughout lunar EVA footage. It would not just stop dead in sync with Young!
>
BlisterHiker 1 year ago
@BlisterHiker
Yes I do. It's dust/dirt moving on the ground. Do you seriously believe it's a shadow of invicible dust? LOL!
I have all the facts on my side. It is clearly starting to advance when and where the thichk dirt hits the ground. It is not visible in the high resolution photograph, but the thick dirt hitting the ground is. And what's funny, I'm supported with a moonwalks supporter's video, which is supposed to prove the wave/shadow would be a prroof against this video!
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
@Aurinkohirvi >
Btw, you should not accuse him of being davewatcher's account just because he used the same arguments.
All people who understand lunar environment, basic physics and photography, will tell you the same things that davewatcher and others told you.
You should scratch your head and think finally. Forgive me for saying that, but your anti-NASA campaign really makes you look dumb.
BlisterHiker 1 year ago
@BlisterHiker
Yeah, sure. If it was flying dirt landing same time as the astronaut is, then it would be an evidence for them landing with same acceleration.
But this guy used the same arguments as Dave: that the thick dirt thins out and doesn't fall, you can't see it against the background and the wave is dust of invisible flying dust. So, either it's Dave or someone who was influenced by him.
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
@Aurinkohirvi
Even more conspiracy theories from you... Dave or someone influenced by TPS... LOL!
Why do you always use 70mm photography to defend your theory when we are talking about TV footage?
Do you understand the difference between the two?
1. Photographs have at least 10x better vertical resolution and carry more than 100x information than TV frame!
2. Photographs were taken with much faster shutter speed which captures moving particles better (less blur)
>
BlisterHiker 1 year ago
@Aurinkohirvi >
3. The picture was taken from different angle than TV camera. I hope you noticed that.
Dust does not vanish. It's there. It simply becomes invisible to the TV camera as TPS explained already. We see that shadow because it's DARKER than background. Are you really that dumb that you don't get it or you defend your lies on purpose?
Your theories, including that "rolling dust" bs are wrong. Dust casting shadow lands on the surface in sync with Young. Same speed, same gravity.
BlisterHiker 1 year ago
@BlisterHiker
Are you freaking kidding me? I've looked at this jump more than probably anyone else! That's a GOOD thing the photograph is taken from almost opposite direction from the TV-camera.
I'm using the photograph because it offers greater detail and good further evidence. When people claim they can't see the dirt or it doesn't fall, the photo shows it clearly. When people claim it's not rolling dust, the photo shows there's no flying dust shadow anywhere.
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
@BlisterHiker
Yes, that's what I said, the shadows are darker than the surface, and so is the disturbed dirt. In fact, all the shadows are visible in the photograph, only the "invisible flying dust's" shadow is missing.
Saying part of the dust becomes invisible is fantasy and against all evidence. First, its "shadow" only appears where and when the thick dirt hits the ground. Second, it isn't visible in the photograph either, because the thick dirt is just falling down.
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
"invisible flying dust's" shadow is missing
- you are lying again, Aurinkohirvi.
Looking at AS16-113-18339HR and AS16-113-18340HR, we see that those pictures were taken at the apex of Young's jumps. The pictures illustrate beautifully what I and others told you already. Most of the dust was just falling down from the soles of Young's boots, never reaching the same vertical velocity as the astronaut, therefore showing that your lame attemp at calculating acceleration of dust is wrong.
>
BlisterHiker 1 year ago
@BlisterHiker
Excuse me, what am I lying? I've been telling over 2 years that this photo was taken when JY is in his jumps apex. I've never said anything different.
I also said there is dirt shadow on the photo. But track that shadow where it starts! It's shadow of that dirt which is falling down! It connects to the same place where the dust is falling!
Which proves that the forward advancing wave is set in motion by the falling dirt, and is not a shadow of invisible dust.
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
@Aurinkohirvi >
TV camera was located on the rover, at approx. 45° behind Young. Sun was shining from the left side on the picture and we SEE shadow of the dust on the ground where dust is already landing in front of John Young, and on the right side of the picture near spot where shadow of his boots and legs is located.
Shadow of that portion of dust which was kicked up with the same speed as the astronaut becomes visible when it gets closer to the surface and therefore more distinct.
>
BlisterHiker 1 year ago
@BlisterHiker
I know. But let me repharase what Darth Vader said: "these are not the shadows you are looking for". If you read my comments, I've been saying all the time there is the shadow for the thick dirt that falls a bit front of John Young's boots.
Follow the shadow, and see it joining with the falling dirt! There's no shadow for the forward advancing wave though. Is this too dificult to figure out? Do I need to make a video about it?
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
@Aurinkohirvi
And "wave" stops exactly when John Young touches the surface! How convenient... No wonder only bunch of Moon hoax fanatics believe such theory.
Get better understanding of involved phenomena. Get a life as well.
I will make a video about it some day.
BlisterHiker 1 year ago
@BlisterHiker
Just remember to show where and when the flying dust's shadow starts from! Like Davewatcher did. Good for him. If there wasn't his video, you and bunch of other guys would claim "you see it wrong." Every now and then someone who tries to debunk you, actually ends doing you a service.
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
"If there wasn't his video, you and bunch of other guys would claim "you see it wrong."
- and what proof do you have for that, Aurinkohirvi?
I saw it long time ago and was about to make a video about it, but then I have noticed Dave had done it already.
You just make one stupid claim after the other, but of course it does not stop you from making even more ridiculous claims against Moon missions!
Do something useful with your life instead of posting pseudo-scientific bs on YT.
BlisterHiker 1 year ago
@Aurinkohirvi >
Fact that dust (or that rolling wave, whatever you call it) settles on the ground exactly when John Young touches down shows clearly that it had the same speed and acceleration, while like I said before, most of the dust just fell down from under his boots. The soles of the boots were not flat. They were profiled for better traction, as seen in famous foot print of Buzz Aldrin. That's why so much dust got picked up during Young's jump.
>
BlisterHiker 1 year ago
@BlisterHiker
Look at these two videos and tell me again the sand only falls from the soles of his boots!
"AVP Might As Well Jump workout"
watch?v=oWdYkrTR5B8
"Sand Workout to Increase your Vertical Jump "
watch?v=vsHa38BSXHo
And if it was just falling from his boots, then there wouldn't be forward flying invisible dust, either! But there still would be dirt falling down!
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
"tell me again the sand only falls from the soles of his boots!"
- this is enough proof for me that you are simply lying human trash, Aurinkohirvi.
Forgive me the harsh words, but you fully deserve it.
1. I was talking about Moon dust, not sand on a beach. Those two materials have quite different properties.
2. I NEVER said that dust "only falls from the soles of his boots".
I said MOST of the dust fell down from his boots. MOST does not mean all.
>
BlisterHiker 1 year ago
@Aurinkohirvi >
You are more ignorant than I thought. Actually, thank you for showing those two videos. I will show fragments of them in my future video which will illustrate very well your ignorance and how wrong your theory is.
You offer stinking-bad science, nothing more.
BlisterHiker 1 year ago
@Aurinkohirvi >
If only the fact that remaining dust settles in sync with John Young was convenient for that bs you've been posting, you'd be screaming about it all the time! However, because it's not convenient, you invented some "rolling dust" bs, pretending you don't see how ridiculous it is.
You are either ignorant, deluded, lying on purpose, or maybe all three. I don't care. When time allows, I will make a video proving that hoax claims regarding Young's jump salute are wrong.
BlisterHiker 1 year ago
@Aurinkohirvi
You think I'm another davewatcher's account? Based on what evidence? Because I use the same arguments? Employ some logic if you can do that. I do that because it's based on known facts of science.
I see now why you believe Moon landings were faked if conspiracy theories find way to your head so easily!
Get proper education. Nobody who understands science agrees with such idiotic theories. Haven't you noticed what kind of people believe it? It's a shame to be one of those people.
ThePrimarySecondary 1 year ago
@ThePrimarySecondary
Facts of science, like dirt disappearing suddenly and not falling at all? What freak of science has captivated the dirt falling on the high resolution image then, why don't you answer that? Hmmm. Why Dave never answered that, even though I asked it a dozen times.
And what fact of science keeps this forward flying invisible shadow frozen first half of JY's jump, when it SHOULD have travelled half of its distabce already.
Let's see them answers science offers.
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
@Aurinkohirvi
Cont.
In order to defend what you believe so much, you create false arguments while the real explanation is very simple.
Arguments like yours may sound convincing only to people who want to believe in hoax just like you want to believe it no matter what.
I have enough experience in photography and film to know what I'm talking about, and it is no surprise that no real experts agree with Moon hoax theory claims.
I think you should realize that fact.
Thank you for discussion.
ThePrimarySecondary 1 year ago
@Aurinkohirvi
Cont: fact that you even compare two completely different materials really does not give you much credibility.
AS16-113-18339 that you mentioned does not reveal any "dirt rolling on the ground", but exactly as expected, dust falling down and kicked forward in wide angle in front of Young.
Considering rather limited resolution of TV camera, it is no surprise dust is hard to see against the background of lunar surface after it disperses beyong certain point.
Tbc.
ThePrimarySecondary 1 year ago
@ThePrimarySecondary
Read what I said. This photo is taken when the heavy dirt just falls on the ground! The forward advancing dirt/dust/shadow wasn't there yet!
But it should be, if it existed before the heavy dirt fell.
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
@Aurinkohirvi
To summarize: you are wrong. You draw false conclusions and support them with ridiculous claims which are pseudo-scientific at best.
Are there any video professionals and scientists who see anything wrong with that scene? I don't think so. It's been watched by millions of people world wide, but somehow it is only a small group of people like you, who think they understand it better, which claims that scene shows evidence for hoax.
You deserve no respect.
ThePrimarySecondary 1 year ago
I am searching for evidence that Man was on the Moon.
With a Hubble Telescope (or something else) it should be
possible to detect the landing sites with the remaining crap.
High resolution telescopes are able to detect stars Megalightjears away
but not the remains of the Apollo missions on the Moon ?
The Moon is only a couple of miles out...
DieterMe 1 year ago
Click to show the video description (under the video, next to the view count) to see links related to this video: the NASA high resolution image, videos of how high you should jump on the Moon, and other videos about the Big Navy Salute jump.
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
Ok, looking at it from an objective stand point, though I believe the proof points to the Apollo missions did take place, assuming that you can simulate 1/6th Earth's gravity by speeding it up to double is incorrect. The difference is not 2 but 2,46 times. Secondly, your calculations based on theory alone predict 10cm for the Moon and 60cm for the Earth, yet using the evidence you come out to 30cm. Three times the distance of the Moon and half the distance of Earth. [to be continued]
tiaxanderson 1 year ago
@tiaxanderson
So? What does it matter if I investigate the slow motion case with 2 or 2,46 times accelerated frame rates? NOTHING! What ever frame rate you use, the dirt always falls different acceleration rate (faster) than the astronaut!
As I said after the investigating with double frame rate:
"We have the same problem as for normal speed on the Moon: the astronaut falls too slow compared to the dirt."
The double frame speed was just an example, as it is a popular claim.
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
@Aurinkohirvi What I'm saying is, that you have to take one point of view and then apply the only two possible scenario's. Moon gravity without atmosphere and Earth gravity (possibly, though unlikely, in an artificial vacuum or in atmosphere). Also, the dirt isn't the only part that has to check out. Movement of the astronaut itself can't go beyond a certain speed with the limitation of human muscle and the space suit.
And I'm sorry if I mistook your example as a claim.
tiaxanderson 1 year ago
@tiaxanderson
Completely agreed about the astronaut movements.
And if one uses 2,46 times accelerated frame rate, astronauts of course move quite too fast. But using wire support changes the game. You don't need to slow the footage so much, if the astronaut fall is slowed.
However, there is no way of telling if they used slow motion all the time, or the same slow motion rate.
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
@Aurinkohirvi But you did say it yourself, the dirt falls too slow or too quickly. If you take the dirt, make it fall at Moon G, then speed it up by 2,46 times. Then you have the 'normal' playback speed if this was indeed shot on Earth. Then I ask you, is it possible, does it look even slightly natural?
As a side note, though I don't know at which time it was invented, but variable frame rate hasn't been around that long. If possible, they had the same fr per EVA let alone per recording.
tiaxanderson 1 year ago
@tiaxanderson
If the dirt doesn't seem to fall with the same acceleration rate as the astronaut with one speed, then it doesn't in any speed. Accelerating this footage 2,46 times frame rate would make JY seem like falling on Earth, but the dirt would, again, fall too fast compared to him. But you can make the dirt seem to fall like in Earth - which in turn would make JY seem to fall too slow.
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
@Aurinkohirvi OK so now I'm asking you, is wires the only explanation possible for this?
tiaxanderson 1 year ago
@tiaxanderson
I don't know. But in my opinion it is possible. I'm thinking wires could be the reasons why we don't see any jumps long or high enough you would expect from real moonwalks. Slowing the fall with wires would not look as good as real free falling.
Looking this case it seemed right away the dirt was falling too fast, but after I really investigated it, I was really surprised how CLEAR the results were. I could have been wildly inaccurate and the conclusion still wouldn't change!
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
I can tell you, I was 50-50 on the Apollo moonwalks being true before I started looking at this case. Now I'm 90-10 on the moonwalks being filmed on an Earth set, at least this scene. I cannot explain it by any other way except the scene is a set up. I just can't see WHAT possibly could create such a false apex for the dirt, and make it rise and fall symmetrically. There is no such thing!
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
@Aurinkohirvi I forgot which Apollo mission it was, but it has the highest jump done by an astronauts and he tilts back and falls back to the moon, on his PLSS. This is because the PLSS adds roughly 26kg of mass on the astronauts back, they just couldn't jump higher because they couldn't keep balance that way. (note that kg is the correct unit for mass and that mass is constant on all planets and moons, actual weight is expressed in a force of N, Newton).
tiaxanderson 1 year ago
@tiaxanderson
Same mission as this, A16. That was the "Lunar Olympics" scene behind the lunar rover, so you could only see their chest and helmets. NASA claims Duke jumped 0,8 meters (2.7 ft). In the NASA That's not a Olympics level jump on the Moon, though. In the NASA's own Moon gravity simulations they jumped average 3,7 meters (12 ft) high, the astronaut gear on.
About the balance see the next message.
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
If you can jump average 12ft high with the astronaut gear, do you think the PLSS backpack is "heavy"? If you jump that high, the answe is: on the Moon that's no problem for Earth muscles.
Have you worn a heavy backpack? Notice what happens when you do? You lean forward. That's because your body always seeks for a balance. Notice how much the astronauts leave forward? Almost not at all, as the backpack isn't heavy for them. They are easily balanced with that backpack on.
(continues)
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
You won't lose your balance when "airborn". Because everything falls with the same acceleration rate the backpack or what ever load you have with you, will not fall any faster than any other part of you. So in free fall you can't lose your balance. That becomes only an issue when you STAND or LAND DOWN..
However, in "Lunar Olympics" they started falling already when OFF THE GROUND. Which tells me they launched the jump with intention to land on their backs. A setup.
See YT-video:
v=16D0hmLt-S0
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
@Aurinkohirvi So they always have to lean forward, but how do you make a vertical jump? By standing straight up, bending your knees and extending them, however, due to the centre of gravity being behind you, you'll almost immediately fall backwards.
In retrospect, it's funny how I consider video's like this the proof that we went to the moon while others consider it the proof that it wasn't :P
tiaxanderson 1 year ago
@tiaxanderson
But the center of gravity isn't behind you! That's a common error of thinking. As I said, your body seeks a balance. Did John Young fell backwards? No he didn't!
Notice how a kangaroo pulls her tail closer to her body when she pulls herself pefectly erect reaching upwards, and then hunches himself to another position extending the tail when she jumps? Her body seeks a balance! She can jump upwards standing in another postion, but doesn't even attempt in another. Same with men.
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
@tiaxanderson
I don't know if they went to the Moon or not- But I know the astronaut and the dirt should fall same acceleration rate. If they don't, something isn't right. If you think I'm wrong, prove it instead speculating.
An Apollo moonwalks supporter called Shane Killian tried to prove the dirt and the astronaut fall the same acceleration rate. But using the same measuring scale on the dirt and the astronaut, his astronaut appeared to be only one meter tall. See:
watch?v=-J4HG2RMgPs
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
@Aurinkohirvi Notice how Young, due to the small jump, is still leaning forward? That's my point from these past few comments once we jumped over to possible jumping heights. Also, what about a kangaroo? These have the tail in order to balance themselves out, humans are already balanced and a tail would throw them off balance. Like say, strapping 26kg of mass to your back. But you are right, mass alone isn't just the problem, the volume plays a big part too.
tiaxanderson 1 year ago
@tiaxanderson
All astronauts lean very slightly forward. And when they do, the center of the mass is NOT their back side. That's where you (and people generally) go wrong when they think a backpack would shift the center of mass backwards. It does not. The body automatically compensates this by leaning forward, thus reaching the balance.
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
@Aurinkohirvi That's exactly what I'm saying. Because of the shit strapped on the back, the centre of gravity shifts and they have to lean forward. Due to the restrictions of the suit it's harder to jump and due to the force of habit one will straighten out more. The higher the jump the straighter one will be and thus quicker be 'pulled' backwards.
tiaxanderson 1 year ago
@tiaxanderson
Have you tested it? Because if you have a heavy backpack, you do jump keeping the forward leaning posture. You won't straighten your back as you would do without a load. I know because I had this conversation a year ago and did test it.
But it's a no-issue. As we can see from the astronaut's posture, the backpack offers them only a little trouble keeping the balance on the Moon. And no trouble to JY in this Big Navy Salute jump either.
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
@Aurinkohirvi I couldn't quickly find all the details so I'm still working on the dimensions of the PLSS, currently skimming through NASA documentation.
tiaxanderson 1 year ago
@Aurinkohirvi That's why I included the part between the brackets no br.. ph.. (these things anyway). It's not the weight, it's the mass that's the problem. The extra mass strapped to their back shifts the centre of gravity and forces them to always lean forward. (next reply for the rest)
tiaxanderson 1 year ago
[continued] Remembering the margin for error, though you should caution someone for saying it, one could claim this is exactly between the two expected results. This means one thing, either the used calculations are wrong or your way of measuring is wrong. I vote for the latter. You should have taken a shot where you could see neither top nor bottom of the PLSS and measure that in pixels and take the height. Also, assuming that the dirt can't fall only 14cm [to be continued]
tiaxanderson 1 year ago
@tiaxanderson
Instead of suggesting I measured wrong, measure them yourself! It isn't hard, I showed you how to do it.
if I measured wrong from the video image, how can I get the same result for John Young's jump height as NASA? Answer that!
30cm dirt fall measured from the video image, and 9cm dirt fall measured from the fall time (video frames) can't be made equal if you change my measurements a bit, or even a lot. You would need to change the measurements really HUGE.
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
@Aurinkohirvi
And one more point about the measurements! You can verify them!
The same scale is used to measure the jump height and the dirt apex height. And the scale is received from the known height of the astronaut.You can compare all these to each others and see if I used the same scale. So it's verifiable.
Also, I use the image software tool for measuring. You can verify if the numbers given are correct, measuring shown areas from the video image.
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
@Aurinkohirvi I actually tried to get the video into a half decent video editing program before I saw your video, however I found that the ones I had heard about were either now paid, didn't work or were paid all along and somehow didn't do what I needed them to do (for instance Adobe and Vegas). I wasn't aware NASA claimed that Young jumped a certain height, could you please tell me where I can verify this? The last part is my biggest complaint, the dirt fall. It's quite a vague position.
tiaxanderson 1 year ago
@tiaxanderson
For example Apollo Lunar Surface Journal site.
3w(dot)hq(dot)nasa(dot)gov/ alsj/ a16/ a16(dot)alsepoff(dot)html#1202502
You can find this:
"John bends his knees slightly, springs about a half meter off the ground, and salutes. He is off the ground about 1.45 seconds which, in the lunar gravity field, means that he launched himself at a velocity of about 1.17 m/s and reached a maximum height of 0.42 m."
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
@Aurinkohirvi I have to admit, this is the most proper response I've gotten thus far from anyone who thinks the Apollo missions, or part of it, were faked. Thank you.
Still, my biggest complaint stands, the dirt. Can you show that the dirt that was at the highest when you measure it, is actually the dirt falling down for the entire time? Or is it still airborne but no longer counted as the thick dirt or in fact already on the ground before the time frame is over?
tiaxanderson 1 year ago
@tiaxanderson
Can I show the dirt was highest when I measured it? Sure.
I show the frame numbers. If you capture the frames from the footage and placing them side by side, you can see the apex is the highest in the frame number I gave. Easy to verify or debunk.
You can see easily even normal speed, that the thick dirt mass never rises quite as high as JY's boots. There's a growing gap between his boots and the dirt apex the higher he rises.
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
Can I prove the dirt fell down? Absolutely!
If you take the dirt highest apex frame, it should be as far from the jump launch frame and the dirt touchdown frame, if the dirt is really rising and falling. And looking from the video, the dirt seems to fall down at that very same touchdown frame.
Further proof is the high resolution photograph, which shows this thick dirt mass just hitting the ground when JY is still high in his jump. This is the same what we can see in the dirt touchdown frame.
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
@Aurinkohirvi
Also, if the dir would not be falling, there wouldn't be this gap between JY's boots and the dirt apex. The dirt would appear to rise his boots' level and stay at his boots level during the whole jump.
Some people suggested the dirt would disappear from the sight, which would create a false apex to the dirt. But there is nothing what would cause this sudden disappearing at certain height, and even less nothing which would explain the illusion of a falling false apex.
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
[continued] while Young falls 60cm is completely baseless. Dirt can fall any height, from 1mm to a 100km and even more and less. Taking the higher then 60cm out of the equation for now, since Young kicked up the dirt in his jump, it's unlikely it get's thrown higher then him. Basically this means that, no matter what means was used to make Young jump, the dirt can get thrown up any positive height lower then Young's jump. [to be continued]
tiaxanderson 1 year ago
@tiaxanderson
I don't assume the dirt fall height, nor John Young's jump height. They are measured from the video image.
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
@Aurinkohirvi And I'm saying that could be part of the problem.
tiaxanderson 1 year ago
[continued] So, bottom line is. Get a better, more accurate, representation for the height. Earth's gravity is 6 times higher then the Moon's so from whichever stand point (either Young or the Dirt) going from Moon speed to Earth speed is a multiplication of 2,46 or 264% playback speed. The 'thick' dirt is a bad example as you said yourself, some get's thrown back and not up, making measurements incorrect due to perspective. And n your conclusion you missed the dirt as possible evil doer.
tiaxanderson 1 year ago
@tiaxanderson
Perspective error as a reason is ballony. Look the high resolution photograph where the heavy dirt fall is seen just above the ground. It's just a bit forward from his boots. Now look where the other astronaut stands!
The other astronaut is much further away than where the dirt falls, yet he isn't over 3 times shorter than the other astronaut. So how can a 30cm dirt mass appear to be only 9cm high? Not explained by a perspective error!
Think a bit before you suggest!
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
On your reccomendation I did just that, I noticed that there's a small trench in front of Young when he makes his jump and at the second jump you can clearly see that he was standing on the edge of it. Judging how big it is is tricky and might produce inaccurate data but you can see that the trench in front of him, in a wide arc, is littered with disturbed dust as well as the little plateau he was standing on. And with perspective, I mean to encourage you to think on the form of the dirt cloud.
tiaxanderson 1 year ago
Is she trying to prove it was a hoax or real?
spnrulz01 1 year ago
you measured the highest point to which the dust rose, but the video quality is pretty bad and you cant see when the dust at the apex lands.
Timmay123456789 1 year ago
@Timmay123456789
I'm not the 1st one to investigate this case. Other people have seen when the dirt hits the ground, including Apollo supporters. And there is the high resolution photograph which shows John Young in his jump apex, and the thick dirt under his left foot hitting the ground.
Many people admit the dirt appears to fall when I say so. They just think it's an illusion or something else. If you can't see it, I can't discuss with you.
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
We now have more hoax evidence, nicely presented. Other videos on you tube clearly show wires. And yet other videos that clearly show astronauts hanging too long (or being pulled), the result of human error of the wire man. What more evidence does one need? SPUTNIK maybe?
Ironoff 1 year ago
@Ironoff
more hoax evidence?
what
r u dumb or what?
there is n o evidence
StraydogO2 1 year ago
I say just let the skeptics remain skeptical, they most likely won't be convinced by any legitimate explanations that go against their views. The fact is that the flags planted on the moon can be seen by telescope so that's pretty definitive for me at least, which doesn't include the massive amounts of evidence that further supports the legitimacy of the lunar landings. Whatever, let them think what they want, it's only their time they're wasting until the rest of us decide to try to educate.
RussianAssassin21 1 year ago
@RussianAssassin21
Since when have the flags been seen by telescopes? There's currently debate if the LRO photos show Apollo landing craft or not. And that's from orbital cameras.
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
@RussianAssassin21
Since when have the flags been seen by telescopes? There's currently debate if the LRO photos show Apollo landing craft or not. And that's from orbital cameras.
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
By the way, there are countless other examples of astronauts stirring up fine lunar dust with their toes as they walk. Many, many hours worth. Even as I watched the missions live I thought about how odd and other-worldly it looked given the low gravity, lack of air, and optical/lighting effects (e.g., no blue sky). Often you can see the dust only during certain parts of its trajectory depending on your viewing angle.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
I'm having great difficulty editing messages with this new YT page format. Is there some way to go back to the old format? When I reply to a message I can't even see most of what I am typing.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
Year reading the all messages is a regular pain now. Same here. YouTube user interface was always bad, now it went even worse. Amazing. Wouldn't believe this is one of the biggest sites in Internet, from its biggest company!
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
You fail to understand that I'm under no obligation to prove what the particles are actually doing. YOU made the claim that they're not moving "properly" so the burden of proof is entirely on YOU to back that up. And you can't. What we see is entirely consistent with lunar regolith, vacuum and 1/6g. And the camera and optical effects keeps you from proving otherwise.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
In my opinion, if you say: " the dirt becomes invisible", you should have some theory how that can create this apex and its movements we see.
It is easy to say that "it nbecomes invisible". But explaining how it could create dirt mass appearing to rise and fall totally different speed and directions as the astronauts and the "invisible dirt" would move... that's where you realize it can't deliver.
I know it was davewatcher's theory you took. But dave never could explain how it would work.
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
I "should have some theory"? No. It's certainly been interesting to posit the optical illusions that have misled you to your conclusions, and I think I'm probably right, but I am under no obligation to explain anything. My whole point is that the video is simply too poor to support an extraordinary claim like "the Apollo program was faked". Furthermore, the Hasselblad stills disprove your claim that the dust fell too quickly. Far from having the required extraordinary evidence, you have none.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
It's a very strange kind of optical illusion in that case, since the thick dirt is seen also in that photo you mention, just a couple of inches above the ground. It's also strange, creating a fake apex that has a symmetric rise and fall, with independent movement.
If you're happy with your optical illusion, then go ahead. I'm waiting a better answer.
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
Sometimes the information simply isn't there for a better answer. And that's why Occam's Razor is so important. For you to base an entire theory on a few seconds of blurry video is just plain irrational. You need a single theory that best explains ALL the evidence. And you don't get to make ad-hoc tweaks for every little observation.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
Actually it is enough to show one evidence which proves the footage were not filmed on the Moon. Or one evidence that shows the Apollo rocks are not from the Moon, or one evidence that shows the space crafts did not land on the Moon. If one of them is proved, it means the Apollo story is a forgery.
Occam's Razor suggests the simplest solution is usually the correct one. But a good deception trusts on you to pick the simplest solution. Ever watched detective series, like Columbo or something?
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
Actually, I would say that discovering one faked photo would say that you've found one faked photo, not proven that the entire Apollo program was a hoax. There are people who say that Apollo actually landed, but some of the photos and video were faked. They're just as wrong as you are, but you have to concede their arguments are no worse than yours.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
Oh, I've watched Colombo. Good entertaining show. But are you telling me that you base your views of the real world on a fictional TV show? When a writer wants a character to be fooled, he's fooled. Most real people in the real world don't work that way. But a few like you still manage to fool themselves. They cling to their favorite delusions despite all evidence to the contrary.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
Davewatcher simply pointed out something I hadn't already noticed: that the dust continues to move forward in a fan shape, not landing until Young does. This, plus the dust captured in Duke's photos, proves that it's falling just as expected in 1/6 g and totally busts your theory.
The details of the illusion of the disappearing dark cloud is just icing on the cake. I think I understand why, but I don't have to explain it to bust your theory, which is already busted.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
By the way, if you want to see just how small these dust particles are, see the recordings of the astronauts brushing it off the TV lens. I know of some sequences of this from A17, and they probably exist for 16 too. That these particles fall in nice ballistic trajectories is conclusive proof that we're seeing them move in vacuum. And I don't know of any vacuum chambers large enough to accommodate a few good sized mountains, do you?
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
Aurinkohirvi seems to have difficulty realizing that the dirt sloughing off of Young's boots already is close to the top of its parabolic arc (had the dirt somehow been fired up like projectiles from the lunar surface) the moment it leaves the boots. Enough said.
GoneToPlaid 1 year ago
@GoneToPlaid If you mean that the momentum of the ascending astronaut is finished at his apex, I get it. But still, there is dirt flying above his ankles, which can be seen between his boots in the footage. What do you say about that?
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
I just found "davewatcher" and his videos pointing out that flying dust continues to cast a forward-moving shadow during Young's entire jump. I hadn't noticed that before, but he's quite right.
That, plus the flying dust captured in Duke's still photos taken after you claim it had all landed, proves that this jump happened in lunar gravity. There's simply no "anomaly" here!
Unless you're about to claim that each dust particle had its own support wire...
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
I have known it since the beginning. Except I think it probably is soil rolling on ground. Reason for this is that it advances forward in a wide arch, while the shadows fall to the left hand's side.
The thick dirt's shadow is in the left, not forward. Well seen in the high resolution image.
He also claimed that shadows make the dirt invisible, even if no shadow covers the dirt. And he doesn't admit seeing the falling dirt in the photo etc which is why I will do the addendum video.
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
You've known it from the beginning, but you didn't mention it? That was dishonest. What makes you think it was "soil rolling on the ground"? Where else do you see "rolling soil" on a flat lunar surface? These are very tiny dust particles with jagged edges that stick to everything. They don't "roll" or bounce like ping pong balls.
It's a wide arch because the dust is flying in a wide arch off the entire front of his boot. And it flies for the same time he does, is that just a coincidence?
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
I do mention it, look at the video search the comments.
Why I think it's rolling on the ground? Look where the shadow of Young is, look where the high flying shadows are! They are far to the left hand's side.
This front isn't going up and down like the shadow of Young and the thick dirt. It starts where the kicked dirt lands and reaches as a front all the way to the small rise near the flag.
I think the soil that fly and is kicked forward should roll forward and disturb new soil.
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
We are talking about fine dust. How can fine dust retain that kind of momentum after hitting the ground? Answer: It can't! It didn't have to, because it hadn't hit the ground yet.
Related question: how can fine dust retain that kind of momentum even before it hits the ground? Answer: only by moving in a vacuum.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
It's hardly just fine dust. That's obvious for anyone looking the fooratge. It's thick, you can't see through it. It's dirt. In the photo the material near the ground is much thicker than that which is still up.
You know the Moon gravity is much weaker than Earth's. The landing dirt won't be stopped nearly as fast as on Earth.
Sure, if it's fine dust, it won't fly much forward in an atmosphere. Agreed you there!
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
You should know that even fine dust can be thick enough to stop light. The TV shows only the thickest sections.
But whether those parts were clumped doesn't really matter. What matters is that some thin, high dust is fortuitously visible in the still shots where it contrasts against the LM shadow in the background.
The stills clearly show that it's fine dust - meaning it's in a vacuum - and that it fell no faster than Young himself. Your claim is completely busted.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
How in the world does "fine dust" prove anything about vacuum? Dust is always material sticking together. It's not single molecules flying around.
And how fine dust you can see in that high resolution photo anyway? Yes there is dust hanging there, but I've seen finer dust in real life. It isn't THAT good photo.
I don't know why I bothered to reply that comment.
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
Dust particles don't have to be single molecules to be small enough to be significantly affected by air drag. The presence of dust at the level of Young's boot proves the scene was shot in a vacuum. In air it couldn't have risen so high.
An Apollo 70mm still is vastly better than a still from even the later Apollo TV systems. Also, that dust is highlighted by being in front of the LM shadow. There may be other dust we can't see as easily because of a lack of background contrast.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
If it reflects light, it can be seen (this theory is strangely enough opposed by davewatcher who thinks that dust in sunlight becomes invisible!).
What are you driving at here? Your point was that it has to be vacuum because it's fine dust. I agree there is fine dust too, but don't get your point how that would have to mean a vacuum. Unless if it was the "fine dust can't rise high in atmosphere" claim.
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
Sorry, but no. Even if it reflects light, it still can't be seen without contrast against the background.
My point is very simple. There's no credible mechanism to launch dust upward faster than the boot that launched it. We see the dust in Duke's photo at about the same level as the boot so all the dust particles and the boot must have experienced the same forces. Ergo, there's no air drag, gravity was the same for both, and this was shot on the moon.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
About the backround: sure, sure. If you have white background can't see a white sheet of paper easy. But when davewatcher said the dust disappears because it's invisible in sun light, there were big problems with his theory:
1) the background was undisturbed Moon ground, nothing changed there.
2) The dirt under JY was in no shadow in the first place! And while the dirt "seemed" descending, the astronaut's shadow was not yet descending.
Just complete nonsense.
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
The undisturbed lunar surface is covered with the very same thin dust that's being thrown around here. All the better to make it disappear due to lack of contrast.
The simple fact is that you are handwaving. You claim to reliably measure, from poor quality TV, both the peak height and flight time of individual particles of dust much too small to see individually, in clouds of many particles with different velocities, against a background of identical material. And that's just nonsense.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
Your handwaving about the behavior of DUST (note: not dirt - please use the correct terminology) is simply wrong. Small particles of lunar regolith have sharp, jagged edges because they were created in hypervelocity impacts and have never experienced water or air erosion. When they hit something, they generally stop or even cling to it. They certainly fddon't keep going.
But this is irrelevant. The presence of high thin dust in the stills completely busts your claims. We're done.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
The dust in the air has nothing to do with the too fast falll rate shown in this video.
Sure, it has to do with this footage and it'a lright to discuss the matter in here.
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
It has everything to do with it! There's no mechanism for launching dust faster than Young himself. That dust must have had the same velocity he did, and it rose and fell with him. That proves both a vacuum (otherwise air drag would have retarded it) and no wire rig on Young (otherwise it would have fallen by then).
And it means your view from the TV, with its much lower resolution and poor contrast, must be an illusion. The dust you say fell quickly was simply lost in the background.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
ApolloWasReal: "There's no mechanism for launching dust faster than Young himself."
Put sand on your boot and jump up. See does it stay on the top of your boot or if it gets kicked higher. Jumping from a powdery soil where you leave deep footprints will have the top and front of your boots lifting soil higher than your boots shall. It's visible in the video footage and visible in photos I previously googled. Inventing things has nothing but poor propaganda value.
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
And I'm not saying it's just the dirt on your boots that could rise higher than you (although that might makes most of it). Also the sand you kick with the bottom of your feet experiences different accelerations that could get it higher than your boots. After all, it takes a lot more force to get a grown man off the ground than some dirt! Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out if two objects experience equal force, the lighter mass object will get higher. But obviously you disagree.
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
Apply the same force to two objects and the lighter mass will indeed accelerate more. But you are NOT applying the same force when you accelerate two dissimilar objects together! F=ma, remember?
Assume dust on a rigid boot. As his legs go straight, they transmit momentum from his upper body to his feet, which accelerate boot and dust to the same upward velocity. Once off the ground, they're subject to the same gravity. There's no more net force between them, so they follow the same trajectory.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
Yeah, the force is different since the mass is different. But the kick is the same kick. And we do NOT see all the dirt rising in same disc all reaching the same altitude. Does that not tell you something?
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
No, we don't see all the dust rising at the same rate. Some of it rises more slowly than his boots, but none rises faster.
This is exactly what you'd expect if some dust was on top of his boots with more clinging to the sides. The stuff on top would rise with his boots while much of the stuff on the sides would fall off after being only partially accelerated, the associated forces plus gravity having broken the static friction that was holding it there.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
Alright, we disagree then. I'm good with leaving it anybody to see it by themselves.
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
Is this little snippet of video the best you can do? Out of dozens of hours of video from six missions 40 years ago, you point to these few seconds as "proof" they were all somehow hoaxed on a huge sound stage with invisible support cables and slow motion cameras that otherwise produced perfect illusions of being on the moon?
And you can't get even one of the people involved to step forward and explain just how and why it was all done?
Get real.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
Answered many times, and answered you too already. I did this, because others had done this same footage investigation already before me.
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
Yes, we're all human so we all share the same limits to human perception. But you're not obligated to share the hoaxhead's inability to acknowledge those perceptual limits, to realize that seeing shouldn't always be believing.
Such as when looking at a poor quality TV image at the behavior of materials with vastly different properties than those you're familiar with in an utterly alien and unfamiliar environment.
Only fools completely trust their perception in cases like this.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
Keep it civil. Low toleration on insults. You may have been accustomed discussing in Apollo supporter forums where insulting the opposition is the norm, but here you won't do it.
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
Actually, I'm accustomed to forums where insults are the norm from the hoax believers because that's all they have. Especially this one (youtube).
I generally let them slide and focus on the facts and logic, but once in a while I let one slide out in the other direction when it's too good an opportunity to pass up.
But this wasn't one of them. I meant it: only fools completely trust their perception in cases like this. Science is all about detecting and correcting experimental error.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
Nope, it doesn't get kicked higher. Think about it; how could it? As he started his jump, his boots were on the ground until his legs went straight. Then his boots kicked some dust forward at various low velocities that fell quickly, but they also carried some up. Then his legs oscillate a little, probably from internal suit pressure and the cords on the joints, knocking the dust off so we see it separately in Duke's photos.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
Let's keep this a bit more coherent. I've answered this in other comments. Reply there.
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
No Aurinkohirvi, the dust is very fine. The very fine nature of the dust is exactly why you can't easily see through it since the dust forms a cloud composed of very fine particles, similar to heavy fog here on earth.
GoneToPlaid 1 year ago
@GoneToPlaid
Well, if the material is fine and elastic, you could preassure it rather compact. I guess a storm could pack dust rather dense. But I see through dust clouds every time I take the carpets outside.
But did your comment have something to do with the case?
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
Yes, you can finely compact the dust. In fact, this is exactly why a conventionally designed core sample tube encountered very stiff resistance when being hammered into the lunar soil once the tube reached a depth of about a foot. Micrometeorite impacts keep the top foot churned up, but at the same time those impacts tightly packed everything further down.
GoneToPlaid 1 year ago
Coincidence? Should the dirt even fly the same time as Young does? Yes, if they rise only the same heigth. But in the video footage you can see dirt rising higher than his ankles.. could rise much higher than that. It should drop later than him.
The forward flying soil, or shadow (which ever it is) was however not what I was tracking in this video. I was tracking the dirt that rises under Young's feet and is seen falling down in the photograph. It too should fall according to the lunar gravity.
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
And why did I track the dirt that rises and falls under Young? Because it's best visible, yes. And also because it was done before me by other people.
Is there other things to be investigated in this jump? Sure. The forward progressing dirt/shadow. What the high resolution image shows. And why does Young jump only so miniscule heighth with his big navy salute. Among other things.
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
You call that "miniscule height"? Let's see you jump higher yourself.
But you must put on about 80 kg of weights AND you may not flex your knees more than he did.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
We're not talking how high I can jump, but hiw high a man should jump on the Moon.
In the NASA tests Moon gravity simulations, the astronauts were able to jump as high as 14 feet, and 12 feet average. Having the Apollo astronaut equipments on, too. Young jumps 1,5 foot. That's a miniscule jump on the Moon.
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
Are you really unable to distinguish between "can" and "must"? The astronauts were very wary of falls that could puncture a suit or damage a PLSS. Why should Young do something so reckless just for a picture?
Your numbers are bogus. A person can ideally jump 6x higher in 1/6 g only with everything else constant. On the moon, the suit and PLSS doubled your mass and shifted your cg. Inflated joints were hard to bend. And in ground tests they did not have to fear a fatal fall.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
It's not my numbers. It's NASA's own Moon gravity test jumps.
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
Oh, I'll tenatively presume the numbers came from NASA (I've learned not to trust hoaxheads to get even the simplest facts correct). But they were collected under conditions inapplicable to the moon.
On the moon you're wearing a suit, PLSS and OPS that double your mass. There are no safety lines. The suit is inflated and stiff. A bad fall could damage it and maybe cost your life. Aside from your partner you're a long way from help. And jumps aren't on the official plan.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
It would seem that some dust flew about as high as Young's ankles.
How do I know this? Not from the TV but from Duke's pictures taken at the top of Young's jumps. The dust is right next to his boots, well off the ground.
This is absolute proof that the dust had not yet hit the ground when you claim it had. It merely became invisible to the TV camera due to resolution, lighting, contrast and perspective.
Young and the dust grains all experienced 1/6 g. The case is closed.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
Dust is still up there, as I've said oh, so many times. The heavy dirt is seen hitting the ground, just when I said it does.
But you can't close the case yet. The problem of the "too fast sand" still remains. The thick dirt did rise about 30cm, considerably higher than the 10cm. You can't dismiss that! I can't dismiss that, and that's what this video is all about.
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
Sorry, but I AM dismissing it!
These are clouds of independent dust particles, far too small to see individually, each with its own velocity vector. You're seeing them with a low res, low speed TV camera as they move against a harshly lit background of the very same stuff.
The simple fact is that you cannot claim you've observed a given particle experiencing > 1/6 g. You can't say that a particle hit the ground instead of simply diffusing and disappearing against the background.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
Ballony! The thick dust is well seen. Its apex is well seen. It clearly falls down as seen in the photo. There's only some Apollo supporters who cannot see it. But then there are Apollo supporters who can, debate of it, and make even thrir own videos about it.
Face it: "I can't see" or "iyt's an illusion" are not defences you can use here. When people look at the footage, they see the real color of the deniers.
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
Sorry, but "it's an illusion" is not only a perfectly good defense but also true.
I reiterate: you're looking at clouds of very tiny particles, much too small to see individually, moving against a background of the very same material. You have carefully selected several seconds from dozens of hours of video.
Occam's razor applies. Which is the simpler explanation: that the laws of physics were selectively violated during just these few seconds, or that your eyes played a trick?
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
Please explain how dust can rise "much higher" than Young. His boots would have to leave the ground much faster than his boots left the ground. That's a "contradiction".
Every indication from TV and still photos is that the dust left the ground at upward velocities ranging from near zero to about the same as Young. Much of it had about half his velocity, reached 1/4 of his height, and landed when he peaked. But some went all the way up and down with him. It's in the photo!
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
Yep, it's in the photo, the dirt under him falling when he is in his apex. Good, we agree on this!
The kicked dirt flies various heights. It doesn't all fly just the same height as the astronaut's shoes, nor does it has to stop right there. Depends what kind of momentum that part of the dirt gets. No contradiction there.
From the NASA footage frames 241 - 247 some of the dirt is higher than his boots. (and when you see the footage many forward, this dirt does drop faster than Young).
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago