Bart's 5:1 Russian superiority claim

[LunarOrbit]

Ok... you, and maybe Turbonium.

[hubcapdave69]

Thanks for the link. The motion of the astronaut's lower body is exactly the same, of course- in that both of his feet leave the "lunar surface", entirely against the laws of physics. The action of the assisting astronaut does not provide an equal and opposite reaction

I've watched that clip many times now, and I don't see both his feet leave the ground.

[margamatix]

hubcapdave69 said:

I've watched that clip many times now, and I don't see both his feet leave the ground.

This looked like the natural movement of two people on the moon?

[sts60]

margamatix said:

sts60 said:

No. No one else here finds anything odd about it; only you. .

Oh, please!!!

Please what? Seriously. Do you deny you're the only one currently (say, in the past few months) participating in these threads who finds it odd? Even turbonium has not said he thinks there's something in the video other than an astronaut getting himself to his feet (with a little help from another astronaut, not an invisible wire). I meant exactly what I say.

[margamatix]

sts60 said:

Please what? Seriously. Do you deny you're the only one currently (say, in the past few months) participating in these threads who finds it odd?

I am currently the only active member of the Apollo.Hoax forum who believes that Apollo was a hoax.

That's why I don't have time to reply in detail to the other 200-or-so members of this forum on every single point they raise.

But numbers mean nothing. There was a time when the massive majority believed that the Earth was flat.


It wasn't then, it isn't now.

[JayUtah]

It is not an accusation. It is a question.

Then fill in the background first, before asking the question.

For example, I understand from another place that Jay has appeared on television from time to time to discuss Apollo.

That is true. But I have never been paid to do that, aside from actual expenses: hotel, travel, and meals. In fact, I have to take leave from my real job in order to do that.

So he clearly has a closer connection to the whole affair than I do.

That closer connection is simply that I have taken the time and expended the effort to become an expert on this particular topic. Others recognize that expertise and solicit it, but I do not profit from it.

Before we close out this particular issue, I would like an answer to my question. Bart Sibrel unquestionably profits from his pro-hoax activities. How does that affect your opinion of him? You seemed prepared to impeach my motives as pecuniary. Are you prepared similarly to impeach his?

[margamatix]

jayutah said:

I would like an answer to my question. Bart Sibrel unquestionably profits from his pro-hoax activities. How does that affect your opinion of him? You seemed prepared to impeach my motives as pecuniary. Are you prepared similarly to impeach his?

I seriously doubt that Bart Sibrel makes any money to speak of from his videos. Personally, I believe that his view, like mine, is genuinely held.

But I can't speak for him- why don't you ask him for yourself? He publishes his email address for all to see.

Your last comment is very snide. I stated many posts ago, after one genuine question, that I believed your motives to be untainted by financial motivation.

[Count Zero]

OK, I just finished watching DVD video of Station 8 on a 52" TV at 1.5 x normal speed.

- The segment in question is part of a continuous 37 minute "take" (which took ~25 minutes to play at 1.5x).

- During the take, Charlie Duke gets within 10 feet of the camera, both facing it and facing away.

- At no time is any wire or wire harness visible.

- Throughout this (and all of the other EVA video) the astronauts are getting around with a "lope" instead of a walk. At 1.5 speed this looks a little like a trot, but the legs don't bend as much as is normal in 1G.

- Like all moonwalkers, Young & Duke kick-up dust with nearly every step. Instead of billowing out, the fine dust falls back to the surface within a couple of feet, indicating they are in vacuum.

- At 1.5 speed, the astronaut's arm motions are very fast - faster than what I would consider natural. This is particularly obvious when Duke falls.

- The only significant thing I noticed when Young helps him up is that it is very difficult to see Duke's left arm. With his hand on Young's thigh, his nearly invisible left arm is significantly higher than his right arm, which is basically just hanging down. In the absence of a clearly visible left arm, my brain kept trying to tell me that both of his arms were hanging down, creating the rather startling effect when he gets up. Once I started tracking the left arm, it made sense.

- Charlies habit of rocking both of his feet off the ground is consistent with his recoveries during earlier falls, shown here and here. Note that during the fall in question, Charlie has a camera strapped to his chest, so he can't do the solo press-up recovery that he did on the other two falls. That's why he needs to put his hand on Young's leg.

[margamatix]

jayutah said:

If you are able to conclude this, then you are able to give me an estimate of the force applied by the prone astronaut (direction and magnitude) to the standing astronaut, an analysis of the inertial condition of the standing astronaut (since that applies to Newton's third law.

.

Errrr, no, I just looked at it with my eyes.

[JayUtah]

This looked like the natural movement of two people on the moon?

Begging the question.

There are several examples in the video record of astronauts righting themselves after having fallen, often viewed from much better angles and at closer range than your example. We can say that your example is fully consistent with those other examples. Of course we may expect you then to claim that all the other examples are similarly wire-assisted, but that's not the point. The other examples give a better view of the precise mechanics of the righting procedure.

In the lunar environment, rotation rates, in the Newtonian dynamic sense, do not change. Rotation is determined by moments and by moment of inertia. Those are determined independently of gravity. Gravitational acceleration of course differs in different gravity environments. Falling and righting involve a combination of linear accelerations and forces, chiefly caused by or generated in response to gravity, and rotation forces, which are caused by various moment events. Since one changes with respect to gravity and the other does not, there is no expected congruence between motion as gravity varies.

This is no mere handwaving. If an astronaut rises above the ground due to a combination of linear and angular forces, lesser gravity will allow more rotation in the time it takes for gravity to bring him to a rest state. This means that seemingly "impossible" rotations can occur. This is one of many dynamic conditions that apply to your argument.

[JayUtah]

I seriously doubt that Bart Sibrel makes any money to speak of from his videos.

That is not true. I can now reveal my source -- Bart Sibrel's ex-wife. I have it on her authority that his pro-hoax activities keep him in a degree of comfort he would "not otherwise be able to attain."

I have substantial and credible evidence that Sibrel enjoys financial reward from his hoax activity. Your speculation to the contrary is irrelevant.

But I can't speak for him- why don't you ask him for yourself?

Because it is not his opinion I need; it is yours.

I stated many posts ago, after one genuine question, that I believed your motives to be untainted by financial motivation.

That is not disputed. You accepted my answer, but that does not change the issue.

By asking the question at all, regardless of my answer, you implied that a connection existed between one's credibility or trustworthiness, and the degree to which one benefits financially from expressing a belief.

I am simply trying to discover whether you apply a fair standard to sources on both sides of the question. It is appropriate for you to question whether I may have ulterior motives or hidden interests. But if you're going to go down that road, you have to be able to go all the way.

Do you believe Bart Sibrel's financial interest in his expressed beliefs affects the objective trustworthiness of those beliefs?

[JayUtah]

Errrr, no, I just looked at it with my eyes.

Sorry, subjective opinion is not a proof according to physical law.

[hubcapdave69]

margamatix said:

hubcapdave69 said:

I've watched that clip many times now, and I don't see both his feet leave the ground.

This looked like the natural movement of two people on the moon?

Whether or not the movement looks "natural" is irrelevant. You've been saying both feet leave the gorund, and I don't see that.

But let's look at this another way: If we were to suppose for the sake of arguement that wires were attached to the astromaut who fell, then why did he fall in the first place? If there's a group of guys working this wire harness, I would imagine that their pulling on the harness would keep the astronaut upright at all times.

[JayUtah]

I am currently the only active member of the Apollo.Hoax forum who believes that Apollo was a hoax.

Not true, although it is true you are outnumbered.

That's why I don't have time to reply in detail to the other 200-or-so members...

Only a very small handful of the members are actually addressing you.

...of this forum on every single point they raise.

With a few exceptions these are the points you raise. There would be fewer avenues for objection to your arguments if you thought them out ahead of time before expressing them. It is not our fault that your arguments contain too many errors for you to respond to.

But numbers mean nothing. There was a time when the massive majority believed that the Earth was flat.

And that was disproved using sound mathematical reasoning and physical proof that was accepted by the appropriately qualified community. It was not disproved by vague handwaving and begging the question.

Just because people in general once believed things that turned out to be true doesn't mean any particular other community belief is automatically untrue. The people who believed the Earth was flat also believed that death could be caused by severing the head. That belief is still correct.

[margamatix]

jayutah said:

That is not true. I can now reveal my source -- Bart Sibrel's ex-wife.

Evidence?