Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Recommended Posts

but it's ok if they debunked me , as it's debunking you that is more important .

Ah yea...screw the truth. What is important is thinking the Hoaxer worldview wins.

How open minded of you Duane.

Another chance to actually learn something blown.

Ignorance is bliss eh?

If you ever posted anything besides projection , insults , lies , or lectures , then I might have taken you a bit more seriously ... As it is , all you prove is just how nasty you really are .

I have friends who read your posts here to me , and they keep telling me to walk away from this forum because of members like you .. In fact , a few of them have told me that they think you're insane ... I think they're right .

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I sent your reply to my think tank ... They never saw my post about me thinking the bag dropped in 1 g , so that was not even part of the equation for them ... but it's ok if they debunked me , as it's debunking you that is more important .

Fair enough. The point I was making was, you were using this video as proof they obviously filmed in 1g. I think we can both agree that it's either filmed on the moon, or filmed on earth and slowed down. (There are other indicators to show the latter isn't the case, we can look at them later if you wish).

I said that it looked like the bag dropped in 1 g because it fell too fast for it to have been in 1/6 g ... If you watch objects that are thrown on purpose in the Apollo videos , they move in slow motion ... Where as the bag dropping out of his pocket was not done on purpose , and it didn't fall in slow motion ... So if the astronots are moving in the slow motion of 1/6 g and the stuff they throw or drop ( like the hammer and feather ) move in the slow motion of 1/6g , then why didn't the bag drop out of his pocket in the slow motion of 1/6 g ?

That's where analysis of the data using maths comes in. For it to have been filmed on the moon, it must have had a slight initial downward velocity from the point when it dropped. That appears to be backed up on the video - look at it very carefully, and the bag appears to roll forward along the astronauts sidepouch before it drops.

That was the point I was making before all the math figures came into play .... but not knowing anything about this kind of math , it really is pointless for me to continue this ... and of course you knew that I knew nothing about this kind of math and that's why you chose to play this particular game .... Anything to make me look "ignorant" , right Dave ? .. Or maybe anything to get "one up" in the Apollo game would be more like it .

Duane, I'm not interested in making you look ignorant about maths. I was interested in analysing the footage. I did that and provided my conclusions: you automatically rejected that before you'd even had the results back form your own think tank. Their analysis says it was either filmed on earth and slowed down, or filmed on the moon. Hence, you can't use this footage as proof that it wasn't filmed on the moon. That was my motivation for going along with this. You can call it "one up" if you like, but that's because the maths bore out what I knew all along. Yes, the dice were loaded in my favour, but that's because I'm convinced the footage was filmed on the moon.

I got to hand to you though ... You are very good at this game and very quick with your 'rebuttals' ... Kind of makes me wonder who your think tank might be .

I'll take that as a compliment since I consist of a think-tank of one - yours truly! I have an analytical mind when it comes to science, I'm good at maths, I enjoy solving puzzles. I've taught myself a lot about photography, and how light and shadows interact, in the last few years.

A few years ago I didn't know why or if Percy was wrong about things like missing fiducials, shadows pointing in wrong direction, mountains appearing to move from one photo to the next. That made me uncomfortable, for one of two reasons: either Apollo was a sham, or I was having the wool pulled over my eyes by Percy. It was only by increasing my own knowledge of things I previously knew little or nothing about that I was able to decide between the two, from a position of knowledge. I really do urge you to do the same. That way you can come to a conclusion on Apollo photos from an objective stance, rather than a subjective one.

I've no interest in making you look stupid, or ignorant about anything. However, I'm convinced your batting for the wrong side, so if you put yourself up as some kind of defender or proposer of either Percy or White, then that makes the message you're putting across fair game as far as I'm concerned. I realise you can sometimes take this as some kind of personal attack on you, probably because you have a lot of emotional investment in the Apollo hoax. It isn't. It's the message you're putting across that I'll keep attacking.

"Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more; Or close the wall up with our English dead."

Happy debating! :)

Dave ...This has nothing to do with any kind of emotional investment ...I just haven't seen any proof that Apollo was anything but a monumental fraud on every level ... It's not just the phony looking photos which led me to believe Apollo was a hoax ... This has nothing to do with Percy or White ... The hoax evidence is not based on just the photos or on any one thing ... The evidence is cumulative and it is immense ... Too many things just don't add up about the Apollo missions , which proves that nasa is definately hiding something ... Plus , the Apollo astronots act like guilty criminals , not heros ... That alone should set off alarm bells , even for you .

Link to post
Share on other sites
but it's ok if they debunked me , as it's debunking you that is more important .

Ah yea...screw the truth. What is important is thinking the Hoaxer worldview wins.

How open minded of you Duane.

Another chance to actually learn something blown.

Ignorance is bliss eh?

If you ever posted anything besides projection , insults , lies , or lectures , then I might have taken you a bit more seriously ... As it is , all you prove is just how nasty you really are .

I have friends who read your posts here to me , and they keep telling me to walk away from this forum because of members like you .. In fact , a few of them have told me that they think you're insane ... I think they're right .

Duane...there are several members here who are not sane in the accepted

sense...but we are not allowed to say they are nutty because of forum rules.

So do not point out that these people are mentally challenged. Think up a

kinder term for them like "squirrelly" or "bonkers". Their derangement is obvious

to all anyway, so no use stooping to their gutter level. Anyone who spends

24 hrs a day defending govt lies has mush for brains; clearly they have no

real work to do. And after all, they ARE defending our govt, so it may be

unpatriotic to reveal the low level of their mental health.

Jack :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about that.

I'm gainfully employed, clean the house, do washing, mow the lawns, feed the dog, go to dinner with friends, watch movies and still have time to highlight your errors. It's not that difficult.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know about that.

I'm gainfully employed, clean the house, do washing, mow the lawns, feed the dog, go to dinner with friends, watch movies and still have time to PRETEND TO DEBUNK EVERY SINGLE WORD YOU POST HERE . It's not that difficult.

There ya go ... All fixed ! :huh:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back on topic then , it appears that once in a BLUE MOON the TRUTH will be posted on the Apollo hoax forum ... Not often , mind you , but sometimes .

Today I discovered that someone else agrees with me ... That the bag drop video in question could not possibly have been filmed on the Moon ...

Here's the video that is being so hotly debated :D showing the astro-actor accidently dropping his rock bag out of his back pocket .

Moon Hoax - Bag Drop A17 EVA 3 STN 8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK2Fy85VyRg

And here's one of the few posts ever worth reading on Jay Windley's forum of nasa disinformation and gullible geek silliness .

" Fast falling object from astronaut's back

« Thread Started on Today at 4:53pm »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I used to believe mankind landed moon in 1969 until today. I reviewed the so called 'live video'. I found three things very doubtful:

1) The video showed two astronauts leaping toward to the camara, an object falled from the back of the latter astronaut. It was almost a perfect free fall which took 10-11 frames in the video. The video was on 25fps, which means the falling took about 0.4-0.44s to finish. The falling height was about 1.2 meter based on astronaut height 1.8 meter with space suit. My secondary school physics knowledge tells me, it tooks 0.49s if it happens on the earth surface, 1.19s on lunar surface. I am highly possible to miss counting one frame, because the first falling frame must show tiny object fall length which I may not noticed it starts move. So if we count it as 12 frames, that means 0.48s, precise enough to prove this is a live show on earth surface. If the falling photoed as live record on moon at 25 fps, it needs to fill 29 frame images to finish. Another word, if it's recoded on moon then what we see must be 2.5x fast forward playing. NASA was trying to prove this was a moon story, why they played fast forward exactly 2.5x to physically prove this was a earth story?

2) After the stone like object falled, it rolled forward a bit without obvious bounces. It's too earth version. If the falling happened on moon at 1.2m height, it should have prominent bounce back height and counts, although there are ashes on the ground.

3) Furthermore, after 15 frames of the object hitting the ground, the astronaut realized the falling and started turning to around and watching that object. This is highly NOT possible happening on the moon surface. Why:

a) Compare to astronaut gross mass and light lunar gravity, the falling object weight too less to be notifed as weight loss by astronaut. Even this is the case, why astronaut took 12+15=27f / 25fps * 2.5x = 2.7 seconds to react. It took too long.

B) The astronaut can't see that either. The falling happened behind him, the shadow didn't getting into his sight. I assume the mask wasn't designed to refect something behind, because that will blur and disturb the forward eye sight.

c) He's probably not told. Command from earth would reach at least 4s later. Video showed the other astronaut obviously didn't know the falling at all. The third astronaut was flying on lunar orbit, he had only 33.3% chance to have communication. Based on the truth there was only one astronaut turned his neck to the exact/right side of the object falls, if he was notified by the third astronaut, it must be a long english sentence. He may be able to react within 1.5s-2.7s.

d) Without air to transfer the sound, the leaping astronaut within space suit was not sensitive enough to realize the viberation caused by a falling object from 1.2m on a low gravity lunar ash surface.

A more reasonable assumption is this video was recorded on earth, and the astronaut heard the sound of hitting near right heel, so he turned to that side which took 0.6s(15 frame images) to react. "

http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...read=1191012836

It looks like Windbag Windley has his work cut out for him with this guy ! ... His reply ... " Begging the question " ... Gee, now where have I heard that one before ? :huh:

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to post
Share on other sites

One poster raised an interesting point that I just took for granted as being correct in the analysis of the bag drop, that the frame rate is 25 fps. The frame rate of the colour TV camera was actually 20 fps. That would make a significant change to the calculations.

On top of that, he made the assumption that the bag had zero initial velocity. Since we can see the sidepouch the bag was in bouncing up and down as the astronaut hopped along the surface (in fact the pouch is clearly moving downwards just before the bag drops), then it's a safe assumption that the bag DID have an initial downwards velocity.

Looking at the equation of motion (remember, this is a FACT not disinformation!)

s=ut + 1/2at2

s = distance

u = initial velocity

a = acceleration

t = time

An initial velocity greater than zero will have the effect of reducing the time to drop a certain height.

Do you agree the sidepouch is bouncing up and down?

Do you agree that the bag drops when the sidepouch is bouncing downwards?

That's what the video clearly shows.

If so, the bag MUST have had an initial velocity, and his calculations are rendered invalid. Simple, logical analysis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with this ...

"Without air to transfer the sound, the leaping astronaut within space suit was not sensitive enough to realize the viberation caused by a falling object from 1.2m on a low gravity lunar ash surface.

A more reasonable assumption is this video was recorded on Earth, and the astronaut heard the sound of hitting near right heel, so he turned to that side which took 0.6s(15 frame images) to react. "

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with this ...

"Without air to transfer the sound, the leaping astronaut within space suit was not sensitive enough to realize the viberation caused by a falling object from 1.2m on a low gravity lunar ash surface.

A more reasonable assumption is this video was recorded on Earth, and the astronaut heard the sound of hitting near right heel, so he turned to that side which took 0.6s(15 frame images) to react. "

What about these questions?

Do you agree the sidepouch is bouncing up and down?

Do you agree that the bag drops when the sidepouch is bouncing downwards?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you agree the sidepouch is bouncing up and down?

Do you agree that the bag drops when the sidepouch is bouncing downwards?

Yes , the sidepouch is bouncing up and down .

No , the bag drops at time stamp :51 sec ... and the bag is not moving with enough downward force to have caused the bag to drop that quickly .

The bag drops as fast as an object would in 1g , not in 1/6 g .

Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you agree the sidepouch is bouncing up and down?

Do you agree that the bag drops when the sidepouch is bouncing downwards?

Yes , the sidepouch is bouncing up and down .

No , the bag drops at time stamp :51 sec ... and the bag is not moving with enough downward force to have caused the bag to drop that quickly .

The bag drops as fast as an object would in 1g , not in 1/6 g .

OK... and you've done the maths to prove this? Or will your think tank do the maths?

Or is it just subjective opinion?

Only asking because that's what it seems like at the moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My think tank already did the maths for the bag drop ... They have also done the maths for the hammer /feather drop if you would like to move on to that one .

It is my opinion that the bag dropped much too quickly to have been filmed in 1/6 ... It is also the opinion of many other people , including the fellow I quoted from the Apollo hoax forum .

The bag dropped as if it were falling in 1g ... Can I personally prove this with a math equation ? .. No ... but then according to my think tank , neither can you prove it fell in 1/6 g. .

Another thing I noticed in that video clip , is that the dust does not fall as if it were filmed in 1/6 either ... So the only thing left which behaves as if it's moving in 1/6 g would be the very highly trained astronots bouncing about on their fly systems .

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to post
Share on other sites
My think tank already did the maths for the bag drop ... They have also done the maths for the hammer /feather drop if you would like to move on to that one .

It is my opinion that the bag dropped much too quickly to have been filmed in 1/6 ... It is also the opinion of many other people , including the fellow I quoted from the Apollo hoax forum .

The bag dropped as if it were falling in 1g ... Can I personally prove this with a math equation ? .. No ... but then according to my think tank , neither can you prove it fell in 1/6 g. .

Another thing I noticed in that video clip , is that the dust does not fall as if it were filmed in 1/6 either ... So the only thing left which behaves as if it's moving in 1/6 g would be the very highly trained astronots bouncing about on their fly systems .

Hang on a minute - this is exactly the same clip that was analysed by both myself and your think tank!

Even your think tank agreed that the time of the drop was over 0.8 seconds, not the 0.4 seconds this person is claiming. It appears he's simply mis-counted the number of frames - and by a large margin I'm afraid. The image below shows two frames, the top one is taken AFTER the bag started dropping, the bottom one BEFORE the bag hit the floor. There are 15 frames in that snippet, so the actual number of frames from release to hitting the deck must be even HIGHER than 15. In the original analysis I measured 20 frames in total, as did your think tank!

bag_drop.jpg

You admit that you can't prove it fell in 1g using maths. But your own thinktank proved it could NOT have been filmed in 1g! They stated it must have been done by slowing the film speed down by half (incidentally, they also implied that it COULD have been filmed on the moon, since the figures don't disprove it).

Do you now believe your think tank were wrong in their calculations? And is the number of frames in the drop greater than 15, or 11? If it's greater than 15 then you MUST reject the calculations of the new poster on Apollohoax.net, since it's all based on 11 frames.

You're entitled to your opinion that this was filmed in 1G, but the maths simply do not add up for that scenario. They do, however, add up if the video was filmed on the moon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stephen Turner
, a few of them have told me that they think you're insane ... I think they're right .

Duane, this is a no-no. I have debated with Craig many times on this Forum, and have never felt moved to question his sanity.

Craig, and he will correct me if I am wrong, is an ultra right wing libetarian,and is not shy in letting People know this, this does not make him insane, just abrasive :o

Link to post
Share on other sites
, a few of them have told me that they think you're insane ... I think they're right .

Duane, this is a no-no. I have debated with Craig many times on this Forum, and have never felt moved to question his sanity.

Craig, and he will correct me if I am wrong, is an ultra right wing libetarian,and is not shy in letting People know this, this does not make him insane, just abrasive :o

50 grit to be sure. :0

I would suggest my political leaning to be your standard AMERICAN right wing conservative.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...