Sand has betrayed NASA!

For "BertLs"

"- Ah, I see. Are you aware of the perspectival effects, and the inaccuracies because of the low resolution?"
Yes, I know it.
"- Are you calling me a "bodyguard of NASA"?"
It means you are a paid agent CIA or NASA.

"-conspiromaniac, your conclusion is bullocks. Pure bullocks. Why? This is why: a giant astronaut
- So far, no comments on the giant astronaut? I measured him up the exact same way conspiromaniac measured up the height of the dust.. cloud, thingie."

1) Growing of the astronaut not important for my work.
BerrLsy, baby, do you know people has different growing but a size of knapsack is alike?
2) BerrLsy, baby, do you think you measured growing? How many your IQ?

For "JayUtah"

"...against the darkness of political technology!

You're the only one speaking politically. The rest of us are attempting to be impartial and scientific. It is clear that your aim is to refute NASA at all costs, not to provide a defensible analysis of the video footage."
Mission of Apollo was political action on 90%. This all known long ago.

"The First piece!

You have once again used the data set that has been rejected as too coarse for your purpose."
Prove it! Calculate of the speedup of the free fall, please.

"The Red arrow points to upper edge of sand.

Irrelevant. You have no basis on which to conclude that some portion of dust in one frame is identical to another portion of dust in another frame. You're begging the question."
No comments. It is strong nonsense.

"...on the light dust (the green arrow) which hinging in midair.

Describe the basis by which you concluded that the dark patch identified by the green arrow is, in fact, suspended dust. Your case rests on that identification; and you have simply begged the question."
It?s not main in my calculation. You may consider this as Holy Ghost.

"I have taken the vertical size of astronaut?s knapsack...

As has been shown, your scale reference fails checks on accuracy. Your subsequent inferred measurements and computations are therefore incorrect."
This is loud and empty words. Prove this calculation!

"Let's consider with inaccuracy of the measurement of time ± 0.03 sec.

In fact you have no reliable time base. You were given one, but you ignored it.

Please explain why you have simply repeated the attempt in which we have already pointed out the flaws."
I ignore empty chatter. I answer the arguments it proved calculation.

"I have taken the vertical size of astronaut?s knapsack (beside 0,8 meters)

No. Your arrows delineate the PLSS portion only, without the OPS. Hamilton-Standard drawings indicate a height dimension of 26.44 inches (0.67 meter) for this component. At the resulting scale of 60 pixels per meter, BertLS's check value computes a height for the astronaut of 2 meters.

Further, your estimation of 40 pixels is considerably inset from the actual image of the PLSS in the relevant frame. And because the PLSS is tilted forward and to the side in this image, you must correct for that in your image-space measurement. If, for example, the actual measurement of unprojected height were 45 pixels, the scale would be 0.015 meter per pixel, which is considerably different than the figure you used."
Give me reference to this sheet of document.

For "tofu"

"for the third time, was my analysis on page 1 completely off-base??"
Can you do your work simply and understandable as I have done?


For "ginnie"
"You're right. I purposely misspelled the russian word for 'understanding'.
Well, either you're Russian or you know someone who understands Russian.

Wait a second, how did you other guys figure it out? I thought I was being quite clever!"
Other guys want to cause mistrust to me distrusting that I am Russian.
Let's I give my address to you and you send DVD disk of "Apollo" to me. I answer to you what it was in postal parcel. O'k?

"I downloaded Dwights higher res version of the video. Did conspiromaniac look at it? Doesn't look like earth gravity to me.
I kind of don't know what all the fuss is about. Why would anybody persist in using the crappier version for analysis?"

1) I fight with lie of NASA, but not with lie of "Dwight"
2) To download 5 mb it is problem for me. 22 mb it is terror for me.
But I will try it.


For "sts60"
"The Ladies and gentlemen! The Conspiromaniac continues holiday of the victory of the light of the knowledge against the darkness of political technology!

Not with such poor calculations and failure to sanity-check your results."
This is loud and empty words. Prove this calculation!

"Your numbers and diagrams indicate that the astronaut in the picture is over seven feet tall - over a foot taller than the Apollo height limit."
You mistaken. You take the spectacles, please.


"Try again. And use the better imagery, provided to you for free, next time."
Try again. I work with video of NASA! Do you understand me?

"You also might want to consider the fact that surface material is kicked up with a distribution in the vertical velocity component. You have invalidly assumed - well, you didn't even really think about it - that all the dust is kicked up with the same initial conditions; that's wrong.
Moreover, there is no evidence of billowing, as would occur in the presence of air."

Oh, my god! I will try again, only for you! I research speedup of the free fall!! Where is my terrible knife?!!!
I have tired from these trolls!

I'm a liar because I put TC display video up available for download? Try not to make those types of accusations without some evidence Second apology is expected. Based on that argument you are also a liar conspiro as you linked the same video, did you not?

So consipromaniac, what exactly do you know something about?

Let me elaborate on why this particular argument is flawed

Just because the source of the video is a NASA source doesn't make the video itself good enough to perform accurate measurements on. If we we tell you "Your measurements are not accurate, and they can't be because of 1) low resolution, 2) low framerate, 3) bad compression", responding to that with "But it's from NASA!" doesn't make the measurements any inch more accurate. They're just as inaccurate as before. Just because you work "with video of NASA!" doesn't mean your measurements (and conclusions) are accurate, and it also does not mean that you don't need to use a better quality version to make the measurements (and conclusions) more accurate.

as I said previously, LO can know the origin country of emails and can make sure that I am really from Lebanon and not Sponge and other incarnations, but thnx for your trust anyways.

Why bad to be a member of powerful and influential organization as CIA and NASA?
Well to get support influential organization to have prospect in institute and quarry.


Why are you devastated from height 2.4m of the astronaut? Do you not saw a basketball player? I not understand you.
Where are your arguments? You will assign questions only. I understand you agree with me but only are surprised by growing of the astronaut.

Why bad to be a member of powerful and influential organization as CIA and NASA?

You are accusing BertLS of being a disinformationist because you can't discuss his arguments rationally. Therefore you have to find some other reason to pretend his claims don't require attention. BertLS is not American. He is a student.

Why are you devastated from height 2.4m of the astronaut? Do you not saw a basketball player? I not understand you.

None of the Apollo astronauts was taller than 1.8 meters. That was the tallest an Apollo astronaut could be, by the requirements of the program. None of the space suits measures more than 2 meters in height. I have seen and handled them myself.

Clearly you do not understand how to use a photograph to measure something. Clearly you do not have good information. That is why none of us is convinced by your claim.

If you say that the backpack was 0.8 meter, and you measure it at 40 pixels, then by that same scale the astronaut himself, which is 120 pixels, would be 2.4 meters tall. We know by other means, explained above, that the astronaut cannot be that tall. Therefore we know that your scale estimate is wrong. I have found the error in your estimate: You measured only the PLSS in the photograph, but your 0.8 meter figure includes both the PLSS and the OPS. You failed either to obtain the proper measurement for the object you identify in the photograph, or to measure the proper distance in the photograph. You can correct your claim by correcting either one of those conditions.

You are making very elementary errors and you will not accept correction. You are not being very reasonable.

Where are your arguments? You will assign questions only.

You clearly don't understand or care what an argument is. People are showing you why you are wrong and giving good reasons for their demonstration. That is a refutation. If you cannot answer the refutation, then your argument fails.