|
Post by Jairo on Aug 7, 2009 18:42:39 GMT -4
Hi, I found this video on youtube about falling objects in Apollo videos: www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcEb4zBnY1IAs there are many situations, it will take time even to locate them. Have you already seen this before? It's a video from greenmagoos, so I suppose you might have debunked it already. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 7, 2009 21:54:46 GMT -4
I didn't review the whole vid, but I started cracking up when "She's A Good Girl" started playing.
|
|
|
Post by tkw251070 on Aug 8, 2009 12:37:50 GMT -4
Hi, It's a video from greenmagoos, so I suppose you might have debunked it already. Thanks. Greenmagoos whole modus operandi is to take footage from Apollo and then post it on YouTube as proof of the hoax. Usually with some sort of contrast or gamma adjustment. He never explains what he is inferring or the reason his video proves Apollo was a hoax. I guess he is claiming here that the astronaut is yanked up by wires. I have addressed Jim Collier's claim that dust from the lunar rover should go 60 feet in the air with Greenmagoos. His argument is that Bellcom worked on 'lesser gravity' for NASA, and he has secret documents that he will show everyone - when he is ready to show us those documents of course. He also claims people working for NASA on the 'sound stage' purposely left clues showing the lesser gravity. Apparently this was so those more intelligent amongst us could work out it was a hoax. He also produces an illustration showing a man jumping over a boulder on a planet where gravity is less than that on Earth. He claims this is proof that the lunar rover should have projected regolith 60 feet upwards. His reasoning, if an athlete can jump that far over a boulder then a small piece of dust should go that high easily. Don't even attempt to debate with him, waste of time.
|
|
|
Post by drewid on Aug 8, 2009 14:38:05 GMT -4
The other thing with GM is that the Illuminati are behind it all.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Aug 8, 2009 14:49:25 GMT -4
I saw the bit where the astronaut was being helped up and it did look weird but weird in an 'unearthly' sort of way, not a 'guy on wires' sort of way.
|
|
|
Post by tkw251070 on Aug 8, 2009 14:58:51 GMT -4
The other thing with GM is that the Illuminati are behind it all. Ah yes, he bangs on about the 33 degree freemasonry. Quite frankly, he makes Ralph Rene look like the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge. He is on another planet. He can also be very rude too, I'd steer clear of him.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 8, 2009 17:48:13 GMT -4
I saw the bit where the astronaut was being helped up and it did look weird but weird in an 'unearthly' sort of way, not a 'guy on wires' sort of way. Yeah, thats what I noticed too. It looks obvious that the fallen astronaut was having trouble figuring out where his center of mass was. Remember, weight is 6 times less on the moon, but inertia remains unchanged since inertia is a property related to mass rather than to weight.
|
|
|
Post by Jairo on Aug 8, 2009 22:32:43 GMT -4
People from my community found the falling objects odd. One even considered the video was edited. As long as I can see, the ones which fell too quick, didn't start to fall from rest.
|
|
|
Post by HeadLikeARock (was postbaguk) on Aug 9, 2009 7:40:42 GMT -4
People from my community found the falling objects odd. One even considered the video was edited. As long as I can see, the ones which fell too quick, didn't start to fall from rest. If it's the one I'm thinking about, the object started rolling down the side pouch before falling, so it had an initial downward velocity. I did an analysis of this on the Education Forum a couple of years ago.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Aug 9, 2009 8:15:02 GMT -4
People from my community found the falling objects odd. One even considered the video was edited. As long as I can see, the ones which fell too quick, didn't start to fall from rest. If it's the one I'm thinking about, the object started rolling down the side pouch before falling, so it had an initial downward velocity. I did an analysis of this on the Education Forum a couple of years ago. I noticed that after several pages of mathematical argument the guy there decided he didn't care what the math said he knew the whole thing was faked, so there! (I visualize him stamping his feet but there isn't an emoticon for that)
|
|
|
Post by HeadLikeARock (was postbaguk) on Aug 9, 2009 10:02:52 GMT -4
If it's the one I'm thinking about, the object started rolling down the side pouch before falling, so it had an initial downward velocity. I did an analysis of this on the Education Forum a couple of years ago. I noticed that after several pages of mathematical argument the guy there decided he didn't care what the math said he knew the whole thing was faked, so there! (I visualize him stamping his feet but there isn't an emoticon for that) Yeah, it all kind of backfired on him a bit. His "think tank" could only 'prove' that if filmed on Earth the film speed must have been halved, which didn't sit too comfortably with his own insistence that the bag fell in Earth gravity at normal speed "just by looking". When he realised the numbers didn't support him, all of a sudden the maths didn't matter, and he reverted back to just knowing that the film was faked.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Aug 13, 2009 5:15:56 GMT -4
Greenmagoos whole modus operandi is to take footage from Apollo and then post it on YouTube as proof of the hoax. Usually with some sort of contrast or gamma adjustment. He never explains what he is inferring or the reason his video proves Apollo was a hoax. Yeah. I just had a run-in with him myself. He showed a clip from one of the J-missions (he didn't say which one) that shows an astronaut leaning over the rover in front of the TV camera, which is focused well past him on a mast at the back of the rover. At one point we briefly glimpse the mast through what seems like it should be the opaque front right edge of the OPS. I knew I needed a good in-focus picture of the OPS, and I found one in just a few minutes. Sure enough, there was a tie-point right in that location made by leaving holes in the metal frame and the beta cloth cover. I pointed this out to him. He got extremely angry and just flatly denied it. I think he was embarrassed by how quickly and definitively I'd refuted him. He sure is careless in picking these things. If something still looks odd after, oh, 5 entire seconds of looking at it, then by golly it must be the smoking gun that blows the whole 40-year-old conspiracy wide open. I'm starting to agree with you. But I am fascinated by how HBs like him think. In particular, how they take technical data, or something said to them by someone who might actually know something, and turn it into something else that they think supports whatever argument they're making. It's like a forensic analysis of a game of "telephone". Only the players don't know what the (technical) language means but they do know what they want it to mean.
|
|
|
Post by HeadLikeARock (was postbaguk) on Aug 13, 2009 8:51:28 GMT -4
But I am fascinated by how HBs like him think. In particular, how they take technical data, or something said to them by someone who might actually know something, and turn it into something else that they think supports whatever argument they're making. It's like a forensic analysis of a game of "telephone". Only the players don't know what the (technical) language means but they do know what they want it to mean. I was looking at a video Jarrah White did a while ago, where he 'analysed' a photo from Apollo 17 that apparently shows a rock shadow at an impossible angle. He showed the image to an amateur astronomer at a star party and asked her why the shadow was at that angle. Her reply was that it may have been taken with a fisheye lens, or possibly in a crater. He then proceeded to prove both those arguments false, then claimed that the 'propagandists' had been proven false and that the only remaining explanation was that extra lighting had been used. Strawman illogicality at its worst.
|
|
|
Post by MarioCRO on Aug 13, 2009 10:56:17 GMT -4
greenmagoos also has a poor understanding of gravity and physics behind it. he claims that an object should fall down at the same speed it went up. this makes no sense because the speed of a falling object is determined by gravitational acceleration.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Aug 13, 2009 13:15:15 GMT -4
How about this - he has moments in his clip that are CLEARLY filmed in lower gravity.
2:18 - can't tell if it's Schmitt or Cernan, but someone gets into the "front leaning rest" position to examine a rock. He's holding himself up with his hand tool. I challenge anyone to do that move on earth, even without a PLSS on their back.
2:45 - the astronaut stands back up. Then they start kicking the rock around. If the rock was on earth, it would weigh over 200 lbs, I'm estimating. The astronaut on the right kicks it first, and on one of his kicks actually launches himself several inches into the air. The rock still has considerable mass. If it was a foam prop, this would not happen. The ONLY way for the motions to happen as shown is for a 200+ lb astronaut-in-suit to kick a 200+ lb rock in 1/6th G conditions.
And once again I'm impressed by how dynamic Cernan and Schmitt were on the moon. In some of the earlier missions the astronauts seem shy and nervous about moving around, but these two guys seem like they knew what the suits could take, and wanted to get some Serious Science done in a hurry. Their movements are much more bold, and even playful.
Dang, but I'd like to go there some day!
|
|