Did NASA Use 1/6 Gravity Simulators to Fake Apolllo ?

[Duane Daman]

Duane...I sent the "Hubble" image to David Percy for comments. He replied

to be careful dealing with it, as it may be a sting operation, and should not be

relied on till further investigation. He said he had studied it, and it appears

to be that NASA took a genuine Hubble (flat) photo and applied a 3-D GRAPHICS

PROGRAM to it to see what it would look like in 3 dimensions from moon surface

level...so it is not a genuine photo, but a result of a graphics program interpretation.

So be careful in making claims about it till more is known. He thinks the striations

may have been added, and are not genuine, but a NASA addition.

Jack

Thanks Jack ... I had no idea that nasa has been messing around with the Hubble photographs .

I don't understand why nasa would add grooves to the Massif if they aren't really there .. Why would they intentionally add something to a photograph that doesn't jive with their Apollo photos ? ... I'm also still intriqued as to why NASA chose not to use an Apollo photo showing the South Massif in the adjoining image at the NASA Hubble article ...I find that rather odd considering the South Massif is Apollo 17's most noticeable and most controversial landmark.

Hopefully David will be able to find out more information about this photograph .

Edited August 13, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Dave Greer]

I will provide estimates after you do ... I need to know what you think they are before I can attempt to refute them ... Sorry for using the wrong units ... Thanks for correcting them ..

But before we go any further , let's clear up some of the confusion here ... First of all , I don't remember saying that I thought this footage in question was filmed in a vacuum chamber .... It's possible that it was , since nasa had a huge one built which it could have easily been filmed in , but let's stick to the hypothesis that this is either the real lunar surface or a lunar studio in Earth's atmosphere .... That's why I would need estimates for both a vacuum and an atmosphere .... If we are trying to determine what type of gravity this was filmed in , then we will need to estimate both ... Agreed ?

Well, it's my contention that it was filmed in a vacuum. On top of that, I don't know how you're going to make allowance for the effect of drag in an atmosphere. I'll continue with the assumption that it is in a vacuum to begin with, and compare scenarios (earth g, lunar g). If you want to factor in atmospheric drag it's going to complicate things more difficult for you. Are you familiar with the drag equation? What is your estimate for the coefficient of drag for a small plastic bag? Let me know how you intend to factor this in.

We can discuss the one clip if that would make it easier for you ..." Moon Hoax- One Six G - Night Vision Re-cut/dux video " ...The mission number is Apollo 17 EVA 3 Station 8 .

167:27:58 Schmitt: Damn.

167:28:00 Parker: You got another one dropped there, Gene. Jack got it.

167:28:04 Cernan: Another one?

167:28:06 Parker: Jack's getting it.

167:28:07 Cernan: Okay. (Pause)

OK, we'll go with that clip.

Another thing we need to clear up is your accusation that Percy sped up the film .... To my knowledge Percy did not alter the speed in any of the Apollo films unless he clearly stated beforehand that he did so , to make a particular point .... What makes you think Percy altered the Apollo 17 sequence ? ... What calculation have you made to suggest this?

I made no accusation that Percy sped the film up. I said it "appears to have been sped up" - whether it actually was, or whether it was Percy, I don't at this point. Again, I'd need to know the mission and timestamp. We can look at this clip at a later point if you like, but I think we should stick to the agreed one for the time being for simplicities sake.

I realize that I have thrown a lot of evidence your way but why have you chosen to ignore the Hubble photos which clearly show that the South Massif has horozontal grooves in it and the Apollo Hasslebald photos don't ? .... I think even you will have to admit that the Hubble pictures are not a match for the Apollo photos , allegedy taken at the same location .... And if you're honest about this fact , I do believe that you owe both Jack White and David Percy apologies , as it has always been their position that the Apollo photos were faked and you have been claiming all along that they were really taken on the moon .... but as we can see from the Hubble images , this is not the case .

I looked at the position of the larger features, and compared them to some smaller craters. Their relative position appear to match. If you're referring specifically to the striations on the South Massif, I don't know why they are apparent in the orbital photo. Something to do with shadow angles? How the photo is processed? I really don't know. I could probably find out with more time, but we have other fish to fry at the moment.

Another subject I see you have chosen to avoid is the other video I posted here of Percy's Apollo 12 " broken camera " evidence .... He has clearly shown that this was not true and that the camera was fuctioning , showing lens flare ( your favorite thing in the Apollo photos ) and a picture which changed as the camera slipped on it's stand .... So nasa's story of the A12 camera " breaking" because Bean pointed it at the Sun , is obviously not true

I must have missed that one, I've just checked it out now.

I'm assuming Percy is inferring that because some kind of image registers on the TV camera, it therefore can't be broken? That's what he seems to be saying. I'd answer that by saying it's so badly damaged it isn't useful, as the pictures clearly indicate. Try as they might, they couldn't get a useful image to register, despite moving the camera around and adjusting all the settings. If you look at the TV footage as a whole, it was working OK for a while, then when it was removed from the LM, we see some footage of the lunar surface (including some lens flare), then the picture is scrambled when it's inadvertently pointed directly at the sun.

It's quite simple: either you believe that the camera was working properly to begin with, then was severely damaged to be point of being of no further use to the mission, or you believe that the camera was working fine up until they removed it from the LM to set up on the surface, when after a few seconds they decided to pretend that the camera wasn't working, for whatever reason. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

.... Percy also showed how the same type of camera equipment used for Apollo 15 didn't "break " when it was pointed directly at the sun .... So here again is an example of Percy providing analysis which I don't believe has ever been refuted .

Always happy to help! The TV camera used on Apollo 12 and the one used on Apollo 15 are of a completely different design. The new camera design was commissioned because of the failures on Apollo 12.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_TV_camera

I'm not sure where you got the idea that the 2 cameras were of the same design, but clearly they aren't, so can we consider that particular part of the argument refuted?

If you would like to try to refute any of this evidence I just mentioned , please do so before we continue with the gravity equations ... If not , then I will accept that as your concession .

I think we started with the gravity equations then got side-tracked, so how about we continue with analysing the videos?

Oh, and I didn't mean to imply that the actual math equation you used was an invention on your part , but only that you were using it to post more disinformation .... Sorry for the confusion about that .

How Wiki describes disinformation:

Disinformation is the deliberate dissemination of false information. It may include the distribution of forged documents, manuscripts, and photographs, or propagation of malicious rumours and fabricated intelligence. In the context of espionage or military intelligence, it is the deliberate spreading of false information to mislead an enemy as to one's position or course of action. It also includes the distortion of true information in such a way as to render it useless.

I don't know why you would consider me posting a correct, and verifiable equation, (which is the one you need for analysing motion under constant acceleration), to be disinformation? I even told you how to use that equation to analyse the Apollo footage. What I actually supplied you with was information, not disinformation. I'm sure you have the balls to apologise and withdraw your original unfounded accusation.

Post your estimates of height and initial velocity at your convience ... I know you will need time to consult with your friends .

Fortunately I'm entirely capable of doing this myself, although I don't have a problem with collaborative efforts. It can often help to bounce ideas around, or brainstorm. That's exactly what these forums do anyway, share ideas and information. I may ask someone to render the relevant clip from the DVD set and send it to me, using the Youtube video will introduce large errors: especially since there appears to be a rather huge problem with the timer that Greenmagoos added to it! You might want him to check it out. The decimal part of the time never gets higher than .2-something. I want to be as accurate as I can with the figures, so will analyse the video with some software that can step through a frame at a time when I get chance.

As a ball park figure, I'd guesstimate the height at approx 1.25m+/-0.2 m, and the time of the drop at (approx) 1 second (+/- 0.2 seconds). (These figures are very rough and will need refining). It's difficult from the video to ascertain exactly, but it seems as if the bouncing motion introduces an initial downward velocity to the vertical component, difficult to guess so I'll leave that as a variable (u in the s=ut+0.5at^2 equation).

So, do you concur with my rough guesstimates? Do you have more accurate figures?

[Duane Daman]

Well, it's my contention that it was filmed in a vacuum. On top of that, I don't know how you're going to make allowance for the effect of drag in an atmosphere. I'll continue with the assumption that it is in a vacuum to begin with, and compare scenarios (earth g, lunar g). If you want to factor in atmospheric drag it's going to complicate things more difficult for you. Are you familiar with the drag equation? What is your estimate for the coefficient of drag for a small plastic bag? Let me know how you intend to factor this in.

I believe that we will need the estimates for the drag factor also .... You can assume that it was filmed in a vacuum but that doen't mean that it was .... No , I'm not familar with the drag equation , so unlike you I am seeking help with this .

I made no accusation that Percy sped the film up. I said it "appears to have been sped up" - whether it actually was, or whether it was Percy, I don't at this point. Again, I'd need to know the mission and timestamp. We can look at this clip at a later point if you like, but I think we should stick to the agreed one for the time being for simplicities sake.

"APPEARS TO BE SPED UP" ?? - How are you coming to that conclusion ?? Because the bag is obviously dropping faster than it should be ?? ..I don't know the timestamp for the bag drop and I already told you that Percy didn't speed up this film and wouldn't do so , unless he stated beforehand that he had and why .

I looked at the position of the larger features, and compared them to some smaller craters. Their relative position appear to match. If you're referring specifically to the striations on the South Massif, I don't know why they are apparent in the orbital photo. Something to do with shadow angles? How the photo is processed? I really don't know. I could probably find out with more time, but we have other fish to fry at the moment..

Well you may have other fish to fry but I think it's important to find out why nasa's Hubble photos don't match their other Apollo photos ... and if the striations or ( grooves ) were put in the image for some particular reason ... It's very strange that nasa would be capturing and then possibly photoshopping Hubble images of the alleged Apollo 17 landing site that don't jive with their previous Apollo 17 photos allegedly taken on the moon .

It's quite simple: either you believe that the camera was working properly to begin with, then was severely damaged to be point of being of no further use to the mission, or you believe that the camera was working fine up until they removed it from the LM to set up on the surface, when after a few seconds they decided to pretend that the camera wasn't working, for whatever reason. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one...

Yes it is quite simple ... They obviously did have something to hide ... They also had the 16 MM DAC which could have been used to capture some of the 2nd EVA ... It's a fact the the Apollo 11 and 14 TV footage is a disgrace and that Apollo 12 convienantly " broke their camera " ... Maybe they didn't have their moonset SFX ( WIRES and SOUNDSTAGES ) up to scratch ?

Always happy to help! The TV camera used on Apollo 12 and the one used on Apollo 15 are of a completely different design. The new camera design was commissioned because of the failures on Apollo 12.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_TV_camera

I'm not sure where you got the idea that the 2 cameras were of the same design, but clearly they aren't, so can we consider that particular part of the argument refuted?...

They may not have been of the same exact design but you can hear quite clearly in the video transmission that mission control is demanding that the TV camera be pointed AWAY FROM THE SUN , but as we could all see , the spotlight on the Apollo 15 and 17 moonset did NOT "break" the camera .

I think we started with the gravity equations then got side-tracked, so how about we continue with analysing the videos??...

What's the problem ? ... Don't tell me this is too much for you.... Greenmagoos and I both have seen these antics of yours before many times ... Haven't you managed to throw together a "tiny URL" yet , showing the different direction of the Apollo 15 flag , before the LM ascent ??... Something that Percy

spotted on the Apollo 11 soundstage also ... Those stagehands sure were busy moving the flags around to assure the best positions for the TV coverage .

Disinformation is the deliberate dissemination of false information .....It also includes the distortion of true information in such a way as to render it useless.

And this is exactly what you do ... So I should apologise for what ?

Fortunately I'm entirely capable of doing this myself, although I don't have a problem with collaborative efforts. It can often help to bounce ideas around, or brainstorm. That's exactly what these forums do anyway, share ideas and information. I may ask someone to render the relevant clip from the DVD set and send it to me, using the Youtube video will introduce large errors: especially since there appears to be a rather huge problem with the timer that Greenmagoos added to it! You might want him to check it out. The decimal part of the time never gets higher than .2-something. I want to be as accurate as I can with the figures, so will analyse the video with some software that can step through a frame at a time when I get chance.

As a ball park figure, I'd guesstimate the height at approx 1.25m+/-0.2 m, and the time of the drop at (approx) 1 second (+/- 0.2 seconds). (These figures are very rough and will need refining). It's difficult from the video to ascertain exactly, but it seems as if the bouncing motion introduces an initial downward velocity to the vertical component, difficult to guess so I'll leave that as a variable (u in the s=ut+0.5at^2 equation).

So, do you concur with my rough guesstimates? Do you have more accurate figures? .

First off , all the timecode is - SECS +- FRAMES PER SEC- ie. - 20 FRAMES PER SEC ... I can provide still snapshots if required .... How did you reach that estimate ? ... What is the height of Jack Schmitt in his space suit ?

Edited August 14, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Duane Daman]

bump

[Dave Greer]

I believe that we will need the estimates for the drag factor also .... You can assume that it was filmed in a vacuum but that doen't mean that it was .... No , I'm not familar with the drag equation , so unlike you I am seeking help with this .

Well, you can crunch the numbers making the assumption it was filmed in an atmosphere if you wish, I'll do the same making the assumption it was filmed in a vacuum. There's good evidence for this as the surface dust doesn't form clouds when kicked up. If you are attempting to disprove that this footage could possibly have been taken on the moon, then there is no need to factor in for drag - in fact it would be wrong to do so. Instead you should analyse the footage stating necessary assumptions and margins for error, then come to a conclusion as to whether the footage is commensurate with having been filmed on the moon.

If you insist on side-tracking yourself with the issue of drag, you can find some more information on the drag equation on NASAs website. If you don't trust NASA to have the correct equation, try using the Wiki article instead. As you can see, you need to know the area of the object, its drag coefficient, and you'll need to integrate this over the duration of the fall since the velocity is not constant. Good luck with all that.

"APPEARS TO BE SPED UP" ?? - How are you coming to that conclusion ?? Because the bag is obviously dropping faster than it should be ?? ..I don't know the timestamp for the bag drop and I already told you that Percy didn't speed up this film and wouldn't do so , unless he stated beforehand that he had and why .

I came to that conclusion subjectively, hence I used the phrase "appears to have been sped up". I may well be wrong, which is why I need to know the mission and timestamps to come to a firmer conclusion. Whether or not you believe Percy wouldn't speed up the film is irrelevant, I'd prefer to check my facts first.

Well you may have other fish to fry but I think it's important to find out why nasa's Hubble photos don't match their other Apollo photos ... and if the striations or ( grooves ) were put in the image for some particular reason ... It's very strange that nasa would be capturing and then possibly photoshopping Hubble images of the alleged Apollo 17 landing site that don't jive with their previous Apollo 17 photos allegedly taken on the moon .

It appears Jack has already posted some more information on that image, possibly something to do with the way it was rendered in 3D?

Yes it is quite simple ... They obviously did have something to hide ... They also had the 16 MM DAC which could have been used to capture some of the 2nd EVA ... It's a fact the the Apollo 11 and 14 TV footage is a disgrace and that Apollo 12 convienantly " broke their camera " ... Maybe they didn't have their moonset SFX ( WIRES and SOUNDSTAGES ) up to scratch ?

You may think the footage was a disgrace but this was cutting edge technology at the time. One drawback of cutting edge technology is that it isn't as "tried and tested" as traditional technology, and can be more prone to failure. As explained, the TV technology improved with missions A15 through A17 due to improved camera design. Maybe they could have shot 16mm DAC footage during Apollo 12, maybe it wasn't designed to be removed form the LM and used on EVAs, I really don't know. You think they could have used it on an EVA, do you have any evidence to support your claim that the Apollo 12 DAC was suitable for use on an EVA, or that they had sufficient film for this purpose?

They may not have been of the same exact design but you can hear quite clearly in the video transmission that mission control is demanding that the TV camera be pointed AWAY FROM THE SUN , but as we could all see , the spotlight on the Apollo 15 and 17 moonset did NOT "break" the camera .

Because it was a different design that was less likely to suffer damage from being pointed at the sun. As explained. So mission control were a little jittery, and the astronaut had a little fun at their expense. Thought you with your famous sense of humour would appreciate a little lunar levity!

What's the problem ? ... Don't tell me this is too much for you.... Greenmagoos and I both have seen these antics of yours before many times ... Haven't you managed to throw together a "tiny URL" yet , showing the different direction of the Apollo 15 flag , before the LM ascent ??... Something that Percy spotted on the Apollo 11 soundstage also ... Those stagehands sure were busy moving the flags around to assure the best positions for the TV coverage .

All this bluster is relevant to the discussion how exactly?

As soon as it's all too much I shall let you know, but I've already told you I don't have as much time to spend on Apollo so it may take a little longer than like for me to reply, you'll just have to acquire some patience.

Disinformation is the deliberate dissemination of false information .....It also includes the distortion of true information in such a way as to render it useless.

And this is exactly what you do ... So I should apologise for what ?

For accusing me of spreading disinformation when clearly I didn't! The equation of motion being a case in point. If you want to analyse the motion of objects in Apollo footage, then you're going to need it. You're going to have to state what assumptions you use, and what your margins for error are. Like I said, that is NOT disinformation, it's information. If it's too technical for you or you don't understand it, just say so. You may not be very mathematically minded, in which case the equation makes no sense to you. That doesn't make the equation or instructions on how to apply it in order to verify your stated position disinformation, it just means your not skilled in maths. The fact that you thought the units for velocity were ms2 is an indication of this, and an indication that you're out of your depth with the number crunching aspect. Nothing at all to be embarrassed about, many people aren't mathematically minded, of forget a lot of what they learned in school. It explains why you're trying to get me to do your work for you though!

First off , all the timecode is - SECS +- FRAMES PER SEC- ie. - 20 FRAMES PER SEC ... I can provide still snapshots if required .... How did you reach that estimate ? ... What is the height of Jack Schmitt in his space suit ?

Well that explains that anomaly then, though makes it more difficult to get accurate figures for the time of the drop. I reached the estimate for time using an online stopwatch - hence it's only a guesstimate with a large margin for error.

Height of Jack Schmitt in his space suit I estimated at approximately 2 metres. The object falls from a side pocket lower down, and his legs are slightly bent, and he is leaning slightly to his right. I factored this in with my (subjective) measurement of the height the object fell. Once I have access to the higher quality footage I can make more accurate measurements.

Of course, since you already came to the conclusion that this footage was obviously shot in earth gravity, you must already have done these calulcations. Or is it your subjective opinion that it's in earth g? Nothing wrong with an opinion, I just want to know what you're basing that on.

If you haven't yet done these calculations, what are your estimates of height, and the time of the fall? Or even the initial velocity? If you're not prepared to come up with your own guesstimates, there's little point in continuing the charade.

[Evan Burton]

I'll just add a couple of comment here.

Another subject I see you have chosen to avoid is the other video I posted here of Percy's Apollo 12 " broken camera " evidence .... He has clearly shown that this was not true and that the camera was fuctioning , showing lens flare ( your favorite thing in the Apollo photos ) and a picture which changed as the camera slipped on it's stand .... So nasa's story of the A12 camera " breaking" because Bean pointed it at the Sun , is obviously not true.

I'd direct you to the material Dave provided about how the SEC works. You might also look up "vidicon tube" - not quite the same, but an average person will be understand what happened.

Later cameras were improved, one of the features being an equivalent to an Automatic Gain Control (AGC). Pete Conrad mentions it in the Apollo 12 section of the ALSJ where they are discussing the camera:

"...[Conrad - (To Jones) "You've got a thing in here (in an early draft of these comments) about (the camera being) 'an improvement from 11 but not the good camera used on 15, 16, and 17.' As far as I know, the only thing they did to their camera was to add circuitry that shut the vidicon off when the gain got to some point. So, if they pointed it in the Sun, it was going to turn itself off, until it got the hell back out again and then it would turn itself back on. Otherwise, it was the same camera, I thought."]..."

Well you may have other fish to fry but I think it's important to find out why nasa's Hubble photos don't match their other Apollo photos ... and if the striations or ( grooves ) were put in the image for some particular reason ... It's very strange that nasa would be capturing and then possibly photoshopping Hubble images of the alleged Apollo 17 landing site that don't jive with their previous Apollo 17 photos allegedly taken on the moon .

You haven't proved any such thing. You simply repeated what Jack said about what David Percy told him. Images can look different for all sorts of reasons - but be absolutely accurate and correct. You should demonstrate how images are incorrect or have been altered (whichever you are asserting). I say there is no alteration. We end up with "I say... / You say..." Prove what you say is correct.

[Craig Lamson]

I'll just add a couple of comment here.

Another subject I see you have chosen to avoid is the other video I posted here of Percy's Apollo 12 " broken camera " evidence .... He has clearly shown that this was not true and that the camera was fuctioning , showing lens flare ( your favorite thing in the Apollo photos ) and a picture which changed as the camera slipped on it's stand .... So nasa's story of the A12 camera " breaking" because Bean pointed it at the Sun , is obviously not true.

I'd direct you to the material Dave provided about how the SEC works. You might also look up "vidicon tube" - not quite the same, but an average person will be understand what happened.

Later cameras were improved, one of the features being an equivalent to an Automatic Gain Control (AGC). Pete Conrad mentions it in the Apollo 12 section of the ALSJ where they are discussing the camera:

"...[Conrad - (To Jones) "You've got a thing in here (in an early draft of these comments) about (the camera being) 'an improvement from 11 but not the good camera used on 15, 16, and 17.' As far as I know, the only thing they did to their camera was to add circuitry that shut the vidicon off when the gain got to some point. So, if they pointed it in the Sun, it was going to turn itself off, until it got the hell back out again and then it would turn itself back on. Otherwise, it was the same camera, I thought."]..."

Well you may have other fish to fry but I think it's important to find out why nasa's Hubble photos don't match their other Apollo photos ... and if the striations or ( grooves ) were put in the image for some particular reason ... It's very strange that nasa would be capturing and then possibly photoshopping Hubble images of the alleged Apollo 17 landing site that don't jive with their previous Apollo 17 photos allegedly taken on the moon .

You haven't proved any such thing. You simply repeated what Jack said about what David Percy told him. Images can look different for all sorts of reasons - but be absolutely accurate and correct. You should demonstrate how images are incorrect or have been altered (whichever you are asserting). I say there is no alteration. We end up with "I say... / You say..." Prove what you say is correct.

I'm quite busy right now so I'll make this brief. The Hubble A17 landing zone image is a "birds eye" view. The image in question is an oblique view. It was created by overlaying and warping the "birds eye view" over a 3d model to produce the "oblique view" To Jack, Duane< Percy and the fellow who wrote the article Duane is so taken by, Google is your friend. Did Duane post "misinformation" or "disinformation"?

http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/html/opo0529h.html

[Duane Daman]

I'm quite busy right now so I'll make this brief. The Hubble A17 landing zone image is a "birds eye" view. The image in question is an oblique view. It was created by overlaying and warping the "birds eye view" over a 3d model to produce the "oblique view" To Jack, Duane< Percy and the fellow who wrote the article Duane is so taken by, Google is your friend. Did Duane post "misinformation" or "disinformation"?

I'm quite busy right now too Craig but thanks for this "information" .

" This image was constructed by overlaying the Hubble Advanced Camera for Surveys image of the Apollo 17 landing region within the Taurus-Littrow valley, taken on Dec. 16, 2005, with a digital-terrain model acquired by the Apollo program to provide a perspective view looking from west to east up the valley. "

In posting that article ( which I never saw ) you just proved that nasa did in fact alter the image of the alleged Apollo 17 landing site , and in doing so also proved David Percy right .... Thank you .

It would seem that nasa has a bad habit of screwing with all of their photos .... They even took it upon themselves to deliberately alter the color of the Mars photos so we would all think it really was a "red planet " , when in fact , it looks just like our planet .... Imagine that ?

I wil get back to you later Dave ... I don't have the time at this moment to post a proper reply .

[Dave Greer]

I don't have more accurate figures yet, but I'll go with the guesstimates for the time being just to keep the debate moving along. The figures can be refined later if required.

The video footage I've used is http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=66pmBn7En4U, timestamp 1:12.

Looking athe the footage several times, the bag starts rolling forward before it falls off the edge of the sample pouch to the right of the astronaut. This means it will have an initial velocity, both in the horizontal and vertical directions.

This analysis will be in 2 stages. Firstly, I'll assume the video was filmed on earth. Secondly, I'll assume the video was filmed on the moon. In each case, the assumption is made that this is filmed in a vacuum. I'll only consider motion in the vertical direction, with downwards being defined as positive.

Let's define the initial downward vertical component of the velocity of the bag as 'u'.

I'll assume the height of the fall s = 1.25 +- 0.2 m.

From the video, I estimate that the bag starts to fall at 2:06 (i.e 2 seconds, 6th frame), and stops falling at 3:02 (3 seconds, 2 frames). Total frames = 20. Since there are 24 25 frames per second, this equates to 20/24 20/25 seconds = 0.833 0.8 seconds.

Hence, t = 0.833 0.8 sec

=============================

Scenario I - filmed on Earth?

=============================

Using the equation of motion,

s = ut + ¹/₂at²

We have measured s and t, and know that a = 9.8 ms^-2

Rearranging to solve for u:-

s - ¹/₂at² = ut

u = (s - ¹/₂at²)/t

Plugging in the figures gives

u = (1.25 - (9.8x0.8330.8^2)/2)/0.8330.8

= -2.58 -2.67 +/- 0.8 ms^-1

Since we have defined the positive direction to be downwards, this means that in order for this video to have been filmed on earth, the bag must have had an initial velocity in the range of approx 1.8 to 3.4 ms^-1 1.87 to 3.47 ms^-1in an upwards direction. From the video this clearly isn't the case.

Conclusion - the video can not have been filmed in a vacuum on Earth

=============================

Scenario II - filmed on Moon?

=============================

Acceleration due to gravity on the moon is 1.62 ms^-2

Hence,

u = (1.25 - (1.62x0.8330.8^2)/2)/0.8330.8

= 0.83 0.91 (+/- 0.5) ms^-1

So the bag must have had an inital downwards velocity in the range of approx 0.3 to 1.3 ms^-1 0.41 to 1.41 ms^-1. The bag started rolling in between frame 1:19 and 1:23 and started falling at 2:06, a total of 7-11 frames (approx 0.25 - 0.5 seconds), so it's not unreasonable to expect an initial downward velocity in this range.

Conclusion - the fall of the bag in this video is not anomalous with the video being shot on the moon

________________________________________________________________________________

______

EDIT - changed calculations to allow for 25 frames per second rather than 24. Original figures struck through.

Edited October 15, 2007 by Dave Greer

[Evan Burton]

...and the crowd goes wild.....

Edited August 16, 2007 by Evan Burton

[Duane Daman]

...and the crowd goes wild.....

Yeah the crowd went wild when nasa pretended to land men on the moon too .

Speaking of pretending to land on the moon , have you seen Apollo astro-not Alan Bean's amazing art work yet ? ... Even ole' Al knows it was all a farce ... Interesting how he chooses to paint nothing from his memory but only strange interpretations of the faked Apollo photography instead ...

Here's his pal Conrad , with the stagelight reflected in his visor ( oops )

And here is Al's drawing of that stagelight reflection , but now it looks more like a giant spider !!! ... So do you think that reflection was really a stagelight on the moonset , or maybe really a giant alien spider on the moon ?!!?

Edited August 16, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Duane Daman]

I don't have more accurate figures yet, but I'll go with the guesstimates for the time being just to keep the debate moving along. The figures can be refined later if required.

The video footage I've used is http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=66pmBn7En4U, timestamp 1:12.

Looking athe the footage several times, the bag starts rolling forward before it falls off the edge of the sample pouch to the right of the astronaut. This means it will have an initial velocity, both in the horizontal and vertical directions.

This analysis will be in 2 stages. Firstly, I'll assume the video was filmed on earth. Secondly, I'll assume the video was filmed on the moon. In each case, the assumption is made that this is filmed in a vacuum. I'll only consider motion in the vertical direction, with downwards being defined as positive.

Let's define the initial downward vertical component of the velocity of the bag as 'u'.

I'll assume the height of the fall s = 1.25 +- 0.2 m.

From the video, I estimate that the bag starts to fall at 2:06 (i.e 2 seconds, 6th frame), and stops falling at 3:02 (3 seconds, 2 frames). Total frames = 20. Since there are 24 frames per second, this equates to 20/24 seconds = 0.833 seconds.

Hence, t = 0.833 sec

=============================

Scenario I - filmed on Earth?

=============================

Using the equation of motion,

s = ut + ¹/₂at²

We have measured s and t, and know that a = 9.8 ms^-2

Rearranging to solve for u:-

s - ¹/₂at² = ut

u = (s - ¹/₂at²)/t

Plugging in the figures gives

u = (1.25 - (9.8x0.833^2)/2)/0.833

= -2.58 +/- 0.8 ms^-1

Since we have defined the positive direction to be downwards, this means that in order for this video to have been filmed on earth, the bag must have had an initial velocity in the range of approx 1.8 to 3.4 ms^-1in an upwards direction. From the video this clearly isn't the case.

Conclusion - the video can not have been filmed in a vacuum on Earth

=============================

Scenario II - filmed on Moon?

=============================

Acceleration due to gravity on the moon is 1.62 ms^-2

Hence,

u = (1.25 - (1.62x0.833^2)/2)/0.833

= 0.83 (+/- 0.5) ms^-1

So the bag must have had an inital downwards velocity in the range of approx 0.3 to 1.3 ms^-1. The bag started rolling in between frame 1:19 and 1:23 and started falling at 2:06, a total of 7-11 frames (approx 0.25 - 0.5 seconds), so it's not unreasonable to expect an initial downward velocity in this range.

Conclusion - the fall of the bag in this video is not anomalous with the video being shot on the moon

Thanks for your figures and estimates Dave ... Now we have something to go by in refuting your claims .

I will post the rebuttal as soon as we have the numbers together .

[Duane Daman]

Dave ... Sorry for the delay in getting back to you with those rebuttal equations , but I promise you , they are coming .... and when they do , I'm afraid you won't be very happy with the results .

I have a few people who are qualified in high math and physics working on this for me , and greenmagoos is at present making videos for the three bag drops, hammer and feather with timecodes, plus stills.

So if you would like to go ahead crunch your numbers for the other bag drops , that would be great .

I'm not sure when my second opinion will be ready on the physics equations , or when green will be finished with his video evidence ... Plus , I have a very busy weekend coming up and won't be able to post ... but hopefully we will have our rebuttal to your bogus claims ready by the first of next week .

Have a great weekend !

Edited August 17, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Dave Greer]

Dave ... Sorry for the delay in getting back to you with those rebuttal equations , but I promise you , they are coming .... and when they do , I'm afraid you won't be very happy with the results .

I have a few people who are qualified in high math and physics working on this for me , and greenmagoos is at present making videos for the three bag drops, hammer and feather with timecodes, plus stills.

So if you would like to go ahead crunch your numbers for the other bag drops , that would be great .

I'm not sure when my second opinion will be ready on the physics equations , or when green will be finished with his video evidence ... Plus , I have a very busy weekend coming up and won't be able to post ... but hopefully we will have our rebuttal to your bogus claims ready by the first of next week .

Have a great weekend !

I'll try and have a look at the other bag drops when I get the chance (well, I'll probably do one but can't guarantee all of them in the immediate future - my PC is packed away as I'm plastering and decorating at the moment).

Bert the 16 year old Dutch whizz-kid made a decent effort at the hammer and feather drop last year for Jarrah White. I'll review that and see if it needs any tweaking and post that with his permission (not wasting time re-inventing the wheel!)

You have a great weekend too - mine will start off with a pint of extra cold Guinness tonight around 8pm

[Duane Daman]

Dave ... Sorry for the delay in getting back to you with those rebuttal equations , but I promise you , they are coming .... and when they do , I'm afraid you won't be very happy with the results .

I have a few people who are qualified in high math and physics working on this for me , and greenmagoos is at present making videos for the three bag drops, hammer and feather with timecodes, plus stills.

So if you would like to go ahead crunch your numbers for the other bag drops , that would be great .

I'm not sure when my second opinion will be ready on the physics equations , or when green will be finished with his video evidence ... Plus , I have a very busy weekend coming up and won't be able to post ... but hopefully we will have our rebuttal to your bogus claims ready by the first of next week .

Have a great weekend !

I'll try and have a look at the other bag drops when I get the chance (well, I'll probably do one but can't guarantee all of them in the immediate future - my PC is packed away as I'm plastering and decorating at the moment).

Bert the 16 year old Dutch whizz-kid made a decent effort at the hammer and feather drop last year for Jarrah White. I'll review that and see if it needs any tweaking and post that with his permission (not wasting time re-inventing the wheel!)

You have a great weekend too - mine will start off with a pint of extra cold Guinness tonight around 8pm

I'm looking forward to your next set of bogus equations very much Dave , as I have always found physics and math equations so interesting ...

I have a feeling by the time this particular debate is over with , you are gonna need several pints of extra cold Guinness !

Edited August 18, 2007 by Duane Daman