As requested by sts60, I have moved reference to the faked Apollo footage. Here are the some urls for you.
There is commentary to the videos, but I don't know who supplied it.A right dunce, apparently. The LM does not have the "equivalent weight of a UPS truck on Earth." And they do not "stall out" in a vacuum. Maybe it's ad hominem, but who pronounces "hover" as "hoo-ver"? There's no evidence here, just another in a long string of question-begging claims that there "should have been a crater".
www.clavius.org/techexhaust.htmlThe touchdown lunar weight of the H-type lunar module was about 2,700 pounds. That's only half as much as the typical American SUV on Earth.
www.futuresunltd.com/sudarshan/realaudio/Ap16_Rover.rmI disagree with the narrator that the "Grand Prix" footage at 2X looks "normal". Where's the aerosolized dust? The narrator may be a stranger to the desert, but I'm certainly not. Driving like that in the desert creates clouds of aerosolized dust that can be seen from a mile or two away and persists for several minutes.
The LRV footage is misleading because the viewer is simply being asked to agree that the footage looks "normal" when sped up. Not only is the footage short, but what basis is the viewer supposed to use for comparison? What is the "normal" speed of a vehicle across the desert?
He shows us
four seconds of an astronaut walking -- out of dozens of hours of available moonwalk video -- and again asks us to draw a conclusion based simply on that. This commits the classic generalization error. Does the narrator's explanation fit only those four seconds, or can it also explain the several hours' worth of other data that he does
not show? In fact we can look almost anywhere in the video record and find numerous examples of video that appears very comic when rendered at 2X speed, the speed the narrator says is "natural".
The comparison to the space shuttle is of limited validity. None of the space shuttle footage deals with locomotion. We already discussed locomotion, so I'll simply refer to my other comments. The salient features the narrator points to in the Apollo footage simply aren't
expected to be observed in shuttle footage. Stated differently, the narrator makes a vague reference to "things" being slower in the Apollo footage without considering whether it is appropriate for them to be slower because they depend on gravity. In the space shuttle you generally see only manual-dexterity activities that aren't really different in any gravitational context. And similarly, when you see the video of Apollo astronauts performing manual dexterity activities such as working with sampling tools, that motion appears normal at the standard frame rate.
It was the size of a suitcase, and then they pulled on a string and it all popped open etc etc.....)No, it was quite large. And there is video of them deploying it.
www.futuresunltd.com/sudarshan/realaudio/Ap16_TeleTubbyMoonWalkers.rm"It makes no scientific, logical sense why they would move slow."
Yes, it does. The space shuttle has no gravity, and so gravity is not a force that must be dealt with. Locomotion is simply
impossible on the space shuttle, so you see no attempt at it. Where gravity exists,
but is lessened, then certain movements will be necessarily slowed down -- especially during locomotion -- because the astronauts will have to deal with slower fall rates.
In the second portion of the clip the astronaut scoots his hand up the handle of the collecting tool as he approaches the foreground rock. This scooting motion is an example of something that would be largely unchanged by gravity. Note how comically quickly it occurs in the sped-up version.
We tested this theory. We got an actor, put him in a space suit, and got him out in the desert and asked him to mimic the astronauts. Then we slowed it down by half. Lo and behold, the footage looks nothing like Apollo locomotion. And we could get none of the quick manually dextrous moves that we see in Apollo footage.
This whole argument is nothing more than an elaboratedly begged question.