PDA

View Full Version : Walking on the moon



D i m o
2010-Feb-12, 12:50 AM
I've searched for posts on this but the Search function didn't work.

Looking at Apollo footage, I am wondering how anyone reconciles the astronauts' movement as being in 1/6 gravity. Taking an arbitrary body weight of 180lbs, and that the suit weighed 185lbs, this would give an astronaut a total weight of around 370lbs. In 1/6 g this would equate to around 60lbs.

How high should a moon astronaut be able to jump? There is film of Apollo crews running and bouncing along but they get little vertical lift - nowhere near as much as one can very reasonably expect. In the late 1960s there were several scientific articles (sorry I don't have references) speculating that a suited astronaut on the moon ought easily be able to make jumps of 4-6 ft with no great effort.

Bearing in mind that much of the Apollo missions were a media show, logic says that the astronauts would have made the most of low gravity and performed amazing jumps and physical feats. Yet there is no evidence of this. It very much looks like earth-filmed footage slowed down.

I'd like to invite comments please.

BertL
2010-Feb-12, 12:54 AM
Bearing in mind that much of the Apollo missions were a media show...
Um, no.

Abaddon
2010-Feb-12, 01:06 AM
I've searched for posts on this but the Search function didn't work.

Looking at Apollo footage, I am wondering how anyone reconciles the astronauts' movement as being in 1/6 gravity. Taking an arbitrary body weight of 180lbs, and that the suit weighed 185lbs, this would give an astronaut a total weight of around 370lbs. In 1/6 g this would equate to around 60lbs.

How high should a moon astronaut be able to jump? There is film of Apollo crews running and bouncing along but they get little vertical lift - nowhere near as much as one can very reasonably expect. In the late 1960s there were several scientific articles (sorry I don't have references) speculating that a suited astronaut on the moon ought easily be able to make jumps of 4-6 ft with no great effort.

Bearing in mind that much of the Apollo missions were a media show, logic says that the astronauts would have made the most of low gravity and performed amazing jumps and physical feats. Yet there is no evidence of this. It very much looks like earth-filmed footage slowed down.

I'd like to invite comments please.
and they did, just not enough for your expectations of what should have happened.

Perhaps you should first outline your expectations

Van Rijn
2010-Feb-12, 01:08 AM
I've searched for posts on this but the Search function didn't work.


Well, here's one thread:

http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/1100-aulis-armstrong-jump.html

about Armstrong's high ladder jump.

There are some good reasons why they wouldn't often make big jumps - the suits were not the most flexible, jumps were potentially dangerous, and while the weight was less, the mass was not.



It very much looks like earth-filmed footage slowed down.


No, it really doesn't. Hand movements and so forth are often quite rapid.

Van Rijn
2010-Feb-12, 01:10 AM
I've searched for posts on this but the Search function didn't work.


Try the site specific google search.

Rue
2010-Feb-12, 01:13 AM
It very much looks like earth-filmed footage slowed down.


Actually when Apollo footage is sped up the movements of the astronauts look awkward and unnatural.

LaurelHS
2010-Feb-12, 01:22 AM
From the Apollo 11 de-briefing (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11TechCrewDebrfV1_3.pdf):


10.26 WALKING
ARMSTRONG Buzz did more in that area than I did. I would say that
balance was not difficult; however, I did some fairly
high jumps and found that there was a tendency to tip
over backward on a high jump. One time I came close to
falling and decided that was enough of that.

Apollo astronauts didn't want to fall over backwards because they might damage their life-support system. Charlie Duke tried it and he did fall over backwards and it really scared him. From the ALSJ (http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16.clsout3.html):


In his book, Moonwalker, Charlie says "I decided to join in and made a big push off the moon, getting about four feet high. 'Wow!', I exclaimed. But as I straightened up, the weight of my backpack pulled me over backward. Now I was coming down on my back. I tried to correct myself but couldn't, and as my heart filled with fear I fell the four feet, hitting hard - right on my backpack. Panic! The thought that I'd die raced across my mind. It was the only time in our whole lunar stay that I had a real moment of panic and thought I had killed myself. The suit and backpack weren't designed to support a four-foot fall. Had the backpack broken or the suit split open, I would have lost my air. A rapid decompression, or as one friend calls it, a high-altitude hiss-out, and I would have been dead instantly. Fortunately, everything held together."

John Young's "Big Navy Salute" (http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16salute.mpg) doesn't look to me like it took place in Earth's gravity. How do you jump that high on Earth when you're in a spacesuit?

JayUtah
2010-Feb-12, 01:51 AM
...

How high should a moon astronaut be able to jump?

Considering all pertinent effects, or just weight?

In the late 1960s there were several scientific articles (sorry I don't have references)...

I'd be interested in those references. If you're going to play the science card, you need to have that card in your hand.

Bearing in mind that much of the Apollo missions were a media show...

Begging the question. I don't agree with that assessment at all.

...logic says that the astronauts would have made the most of low gravity...

No, logic says you're begging the question again. There are other factors to consider besides what the astronauts would "logically" have made the most of, in your humble opinion.

Since the astronauts' center of gravity was displaced considerably rearward by the PLSS and their peripheral range of motion was hampered by the PGA and the associated flexion aids, they found that extreme gymnastics were not advisable.

Yet there is no evidence of this.

Actually there is, just not as much as conspiracy theorists say.

Neil Armstrong, for example, jumped up to the third rung of the LM -- a height he estimated as about five feet. This is visible in the Apollo 11 telecast.

It very much looks like earth-filmed footage slowed down.

Nope. Experiments have shown that Earth footage slowed down doesn't look like the Apollo films at all. Of course none of the conspiracy theorists have done that experiment...

Gobligok
2010-Feb-12, 01:52 AM
Yet there is no evidence of this. It very much looks like earth-filmed footage slowed down.


Speaking of evidence, do you have any that the Apollo moon footage actually "looks like earth-filmed footage slowed down?"

The film speed claims of hoax proponents have been utterly debunked, both on this site and elsewhere. The rapid arm movements of the astronauts relative to vertical movement is just one strike against you. Look up user JayUtah here on BAUT and visit his website.

Edit: Never mind. He posted above me. See the "Clavius Moon Base" link in his sig.

moog
2010-Feb-12, 02:32 AM
How high should a moon astronaut be able to jump? There is film of Apollo crews running and bouncing along but they get little vertical lift - nowhere near as much as one can very reasonably expect. In the late 1960s there were several scientific articles (sorry I don't have references) speculating that a suited astronaut on the moon ought easily be able to make jumps of 4-6 ft with no great effort.

The 1966 study
"EXPLORATORY STUDY OF MAN'S SELF-LOCOMOTION CAPABILITIES WITH A SPACE SUIT IN LUNAR GRAVITY"
By Spady and Krasnow seems to be the one to which you are referring.

The study used a suit which was lighter and more flexible than the final Apollo suit and had no PLSS, and the 1/6g simulation was not ideal but it have a reasonable approximation.
The test subjects in the study reported considerable balance problems while jumping in a pressurised suit. And that was without the additional mass of the PLSS and on a stable surface.

The Apollo astronauts had a heavier less flexible suit with a heavy PLSS strapped to their back, along with a difficult surface and the chances of death if they damaged their suit.
Given that I certainly would see them showing more than a little caution while jumping.

Weltraum
2010-Feb-12, 02:34 AM
From the Apollo 11 de-briefing (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11TechCrewDebrfV1_3.pdf):



Apollo astronauts didn't want to fall over backwards because they might damage their life-support system. Charlie Duke tried it and he did fall over backwards and it really scared him. From the ALSJ (http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16.clsout3.html):


John Young's "Big Navy Salute" (http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16salute.mpg) doesn't look to me like it took place in Earth's gravity. How do you jump that high on Earth when you're in a spacesuit?

And speaking of Charlie Duke's dangerous jump, it can be seen complete with commentary online:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16D0hmLt-S0

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-12, 03:00 AM
Not much I can say that hasn't been said already.


In the late 1960s there were several scientific articles (sorry I don't have references) speculating that a suited astronaut on the moon ought easily be able to make jumps of 4-6 ft with no great effort.


In the late 1980s, there were several scientific articles (sorry I don't have references) that I was the son of Cthulhu and that humanity would fall when I came of age.

Orion's Fan
2010-Feb-12, 03:04 AM
And speaking of Charlie Duke's dangerous jump, it can be seen complete with commentary online:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16D0hmLt-S0

Those jumps look pretty high to me.

Weltraum
2010-Feb-12, 03:22 AM
Not much I can say that hasn't been said already.



In the late 1980s, there were several scientific articles (sorry I don't have references) that I was the son of Cthulhu and that humanity would fall when I came of age.

I believe you :dance:

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-12, 03:36 AM
Ia! Ia! Cthulhu Fhtagn!

Tedward
2010-Feb-12, 08:26 AM
I'd like to invite comments please.

OK, here is one. Thinking out loud.
How high can you jump using your ankles and calf muscles with minimum knee movement. Look at the video (posted higher) to determine the amount. You would obviously have to imagine a suit and PLSS unless you have one kicking around. I would suggest that the suit would have to be real and the PLSS also. This is because to film the hoax on earth I cannot see how it can be done unless it is in a vacuum.

Now this raises the issues with what could be built in those days and indeed today in the way of vacuum chamber film sets. You need this because the action of the regolith and clarity of view and the sun comes up every day etc.

Cannot see how it could be done unless it was on the moon.

Tom Servo
2010-Feb-12, 08:46 AM
Welcome to Baut,

Indeed the sped up films do not look like they were filmed here on earth to me. The limb movement and moon dust movement go way too fast.

As for why the astronauts are not trying to jump 20 feet in the air. Just remember a space suit is very restrictive and it is also breakable. It was built well however it was built to work not for speed and agility. Many many moveable parts means they need many many air tight pressurized seals, it is very possible to land wrongly and break your suit then you die. Not a good idea. Not to mention How increadibly off balance their centers of gravity are with the heavy back packs.

Please watch some of the footage of them skipping around on the surface they pull off very long distances per skip with minimal bending of the knees. Something that could only happen under 1/6th gravity.

please respond to the answers provided and let us know if you agree or disagree.

Jason Thompson
2010-Feb-12, 12:35 PM
How high should a moon astronaut be able to jump?

How high do you think they should be able to jump and how do you justify your expectation?


Bearing in mind that much of the Apollo missions were a media show, logic says that the astronauts would have made the most of low gravity and performed amazing jumps and physical feats.

I disagree entirely. Bearing in mind that the astronaiuts are in a totally hostile environment carrying the only thing keeping them alive on their backs, performing 'amazing jumps and physical feats' would be extremely inadvisable.

Have you considered the difference between weight and mass? The astronauts may only weigh about 60lb, but they still have 360lb of mass, and that means they still have to deal with that in all their movements. Momentum is a problem.


Yet there is no evidence of this. It very much looks like earth-filmed footage slowed down.

Really? All of it? Including sections where the astronauts fall over and wave their arms around? The motions that are not affected by gravity look very strange indeed when you speed up the footage.

Glom
2010-Feb-12, 02:05 PM
Funnily enough, the jump-salute photo was cause of much consternation for different reasons. Here's Jay's debunking. (http://www.clavius.org/jumpsal.html)

I was looking through ALSJ to find the jump-salute photo before I noticed LaurelHS has already ToSeeked me. I at first thought it was from Apollo 15, so I started there and found this. (http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-92-12446.jpg) Is it just me or do the B&W photos have an extra aura of class to them?

Swift
2010-Feb-12, 03:12 PM
It very much looks like earth-filmed footage slowed down.

The American TV program Mythbusters did an episode on the Moon Landing Hoax (http://mythbustersresults.com/episode-104-nasa-moon-landing), and specifically addressed this idea.

The film of the astronauts moonwalking is actually film of the astronauts skipping in front of a high-framerate camera, slowing down the picture and giving the illusion they are on the Moon.

BUSTED

Adam donned a replica NASA spacesuit and mimicked the astronauts’ motions while being filmed by a slow motion camera. They also attached Adam to wires in order to mimic the Moon’s lower gravity. While comparing their new footage with the original footage, the Mythbusters noted an initial similarity, but there were several small discrepancies attributable to filming in Earth’s gravity. In order to film in microgravity, the Mythbusters boarded a Reduced Gravity Aircraft and filmed the exact same movements. Adam noted that the movements were more comfortable and more logical in microgravity, and their footage from the plane looked exactly like the original NASA film. The Mythbusters concluded that the moon landing film is authentic.

D i m o
2010-Feb-12, 04:18 PM
Bearing in mind that much of the Apollo missions were a media show...
Begging the question. I don't agree with that assessment at all.

I should have clarified. To me, ‘playing’ golf, singing songs (“I was strolling on the moon one day…” and others), moon olympics (behind hardware) and generally performing for the camera are all forms of media show.


...logic says that the astronauts would have made the most of low gravity...
No, logic says you're begging the question again. There are other factors to consider besides what the astronauts would "logically" have made the most of, in your humble opinion.

Sorry, but I cannot agree. Perhaps you intimate that my opinion is more humble. As the missions progressed, public interest in Apollo gradually waned. To help counter it the media was fed an increasing diet of attention grabbing cameos and light entertainment. More simply, the opportunity of CLEARLY demonstrating 1/6 gravity would, in such a scenario, plainly be too good an opportunity to disregard.


Since the astronauts' center of gravity was displaced considerably rearward by the PLSS and their peripheral range of motion was hampered by the PGA and the associated flexion aids, they found that extreme gymnastics were not advisable.

I never mentioned ‘extreme gymnastics’. Just clearly evident demonstrations of 1/6 gravity.


Neil Armstrong, for example, jumped up to the third rung of the LM -- a height he estimated as about five feet.

Can you give a specific video link please, as I can’t locate it with the search you suggested? I have found http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xcgir_nasa-moon-landing-ladder-jump_events.
As for the jump salute - http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16salute.mpg - a person would jump higher in 1/6 gravity after flexing his knees and pushing off hard as in this sequence. Compare it with jumps obscured by hardware – odd that when partially hidden, the astronauts' jumps are much more impressive and with such effortless ease, but I don't think anyone wants to witness that as a comparison.


In the late 1980s, there were several scientific articles (sorry I don't have references) that I was the son of Cthulhu and that humanity would fall when I came of age.
I believe you

Good, Weltraum. That’s you out of the equation.


I disagree entirely. Bearing in mind that the astronaiuts are in a totally hostile environment carrying the only thing keeping them alive on their backs, performing 'amazing jumps and physical feats' would be extremely inadvisable.

I would not call a vertical jump from standstill of say 3 to 4 feet in 1/6 gravity an amazing feat at all. Quite a reasonable one actually.


It very much looks like earth-filmed footage slowed down.
The American TV program Mythbusters did an episode on the Moon Landing Hoax, and specifically addressed this idea.

I have watched it and they did show very similar movement to astronauts on the moon. So thanks for that.

For me the jury is still out on the Apollo program, though less so over the past year. A lot of the conspiracy theories have been debunked and I applaud that along with anyone who can counter argue sensibly. But conspiracy theorists do not hold exclusivity over holding on to ideas, concepts and beliefs despite what is questioned or shown to the contrary.

I’m all for lively debate, although if it descends into the hostile or puerile (as with the Jose Escamilla thread) then it simply isn’t worth the bother. I have no problem discovering through evidence, logic and conclusion that I am wrong on something. No one is right all the time- but I dare say someone will disagree even on that! :doh:

Swift
2010-Feb-12, 04:31 PM
I’m all for lively debate, although if it descends into the hostile or puerile (as with the Jose Escamilla thread) then it simply isn’t worth the bother. I have no problem discovering through evidence, logic and conclusion that I am wrong on something. No one is right all the time- but I dare say someone will disagree even on that! :doh:
Dimo,

If the discussion becomes hostile, please click on the http://www.bautforum.com/picture.php?albumid=150&pictureid=1101 Report Post button in the upper right corner of the offending post and let the Moderation team deal with it.

But, I would also point out the advice for Conspiracy Theory suporters (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/86593-advice-conspiracy-theory-supporters.html) and rule of this forum (http://www.bautforum.com/forum-rules-faqs-information/32864-rules-posting-board.html#post564845). Under those, as the advocate of a conspiracy theory (in this case, that the moon landing were faked) it is your obligation to prove this, and to answer all questions put to you. It is not up to the rest of the membership to prove to you that the landings were real.

Jason Thompson
2010-Feb-12, 04:53 PM
To me, ‘playing’ golf, singing songs (“I was strolling on the moon one day…” and others), moon olympics (behind hardware) and generally performing for the camera are all forms of media show.

Those are small PR events in literally hours and hours of footage of them doing really a very dull job. PR was of course part of the Apollo program, on the basis that NASA was fiunded by the taxpayers and they should see some of the results of their expediture (there was a big argument in NASA about getting TV on the flights at all: it almost was discounted as a waste of weight and time, detracting from the actual business of landing on the Moon). There is a very tiny proportion of the footage that can be considered any kind of 'show'. They didn't go there just to put on a show, they went there to do a job.



More simply, the opportunity of CLEARLY demonstrating 1/6 gravity would, in such a scenario, plainly be too good an opportunity to disregard.

To many people they did clearly demonstrate the low gravity, with long throws, picking up heavy equipment, and bounding around. Only a few people find anything wrong with that.


a person would jump higher in 1/6 gravity after flexing his knees and pushing off hard as in this sequence.

Really? In a space suit that resists every bending motion? Go on, push off hard and see how high you jump from a standing start bending your knees onlt as far as John Young did.


I would not call a vertical jump from standstill of say 3 to 4 feet in 1/6 gravity an amazing feat at all. Quite a reasonable one actually.

But a potentially dangerous one when the heavy backpack moves their centre of gravity backwards and they can't see their feet clearly. The potential consequences of damaging the PLSS are too severe to warrant jumping in the air for the sake of it, just to satisfy a few people that they are really in low gravity. Have you seen Jack Schmitt flinging the geology hammer? Have you seen Gene Cernan bouding down the slope and then falling over at the end, sending a spray of dust several metres (dust that doesn't aerosolise and travels far further than would be expected on Earth)? Have you seen the wonderful clip (I think from Apollo 16) that shows one of the astronauts throwing the mylar blanket off a piece of ALSEP equipment using a tool handle? It flies around quite amazingly in the low gravity and with no air resistance. Have you seen Buzz Aldrin effortlessly carrying the rather large EASEP packages?

There is plenty of evidence of their low gravity environment on show in the Apollo footage. Your singling out one thing they did not do just seems like dismissing the whole lot because it doesn't live up to your expectations. NASA was under no obligations to live up to your expectations of what the astronauts should have been doing on the Moon while the TV cameras were on them.

Glom
2010-Feb-12, 04:56 PM
I should have clarified. To me, ‘playing’ golf, singing songs (“I was strolling on the moon one day…” and others), moon olympics (behind hardware) and generally performing for the camera are all forms of media show.

This is a straw man. Just because there is occasional frivolity, it does not mean the whole thing is the Apollo Variety Hour. Many hours were spent in lunar EVA accomplishing real science. Most of this stuff is as dull as rocks (hahahaha) to the average public. It is only the astronauts' small bits of frivolity put in to amuse themselves more than anything else that gets attention.

I advise you to become more thoroughly versed in the full extent of lunar surface activities (http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html) before passing judgement on the tone of the lunar surface stays.


Sorry, but I cannot agree. Perhaps you intimate that my opinion is more humble. As the missions progressed, public interest in Apollo gradually waned. To help counter it the media was fed an increasing diet of attention grabbing cameos and light entertainment. More simply, the opportunity of CLEARLY demonstrating 1/6 gravity would, in such a scenario, plainly be too good an opportunity to disregard.

Begging the question again. Apollos 12 thru 17 were not increasingly putting in gimmicks. They were however becoming more relaxed as they had more time and more confidence.


I never mentioned ‘extreme gymnastics’. Just clearly evident demonstrations of 1/6 gravity.

We have provided evidence of some feats that clearly would not have been possible in Earth surface gravity. You have rejected them based on the notion that they're not good enough. Show us your calculations to justify how high you think they should have jumped. Do you not accept concern about maintaining balance?


Can you give a specific video link please, as I can’t locate it with the search you suggested? I have found http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xcgir_nasa-moon-landing-ladder-jump_events.

Here (http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11f1092206.mov) is a Quicktime movie of Armstrong's egress from Eagle. There are many other videos easily available on ALSJ.


As for the jump salute - http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16salute.mpg - a person would jump higher in 1/6 gravity after flexing his knees and pushing off hard as in this sequence.

Please justify with calculations and analogues.


I would not call a vertical jump from standstill of say 3 to 4 feet in 1/6 gravity an amazing feat at all. Quite a reasonable one actually.

So you accept that the astronauts display movements that are reasonable for the lunar surface environment?

R.A.F.
2010-Feb-12, 05:55 PM
To me, ‘playing’ golf, singing songs (“I was strolling on the moon one day…” and others), moon olympics (behind hardware) and generally performing for the camera are all forms of media show.

So you have no concept of what it is to "have fun" while working?


As the missions progressed, public interest in Apollo gradually waned. To help counter it the media was fed an increasing diet of attention grabbing cameos and light entertainment.

Be specific...what "cameos/entertainment"??


I never mentioned ‘extreme gymnastics’. Just clearly evident demonstrations of 1/6 gravity.

Watching them walk around is sufficient for that...why is it not sufficient for you?


...odd that when partially hidden, the astronauts' jumps are much more impressive and with such effortless ease, but I don't think anyone wants to witness that as a comparison.

That's ridiculous. It is OF COURSE easier to jump when you have something to steady you.


Good, Weltraum. That’s you out of the equation.

NO...Weltraum may be sarcastic, but his point that you come here and talk about articles that you can not provide is entirely relevant.

edit to add...it was actually Solus Lupus who posted what dimos was referring to. Please learn how to use the quote feature..it'll make things less confusing.




I would not call a vertical jump from standstill of say 3 to 4 feet in 1/6 gravity an amazing feat at all. Quite a reasonable one actually.

Well, if you "ran the railroad" then you could "call" it whatever you want...but that doesn't make it reasonable for the safety reasons already listed.


I have no problem discovering through evidence, logic and conclusion that I am wrong on something.

Then you should enjoy your stay here.

Gillianren
2010-Feb-12, 06:09 PM
To help counter it the media was fed an increasing diet of attention grabbing cameos and light entertainment.

What, Alfred Hitchcock dropped by? I do not think cameo means what you think it means.


For me the jury is still out on the Apollo program, though less so over the past year. A lot of the conspiracy theories have been debunked and I applaud that along with anyone who can counter argue sensibly. But conspiracy theorists do not hold exclusivity over holding on to ideas, concepts and beliefs despite what is questioned or shown to the contrary.

One side has evidence. The other does not. "Ideas, concepts, and beliefs" are all well and good, but the hoax believer crowd can't even come up with one coherent explanation which fits all the known evidence.


I’m all for lively debate, although if it descends into the hostile or puerile (as with the Jose Escamilla thread) then it simply isn’t worth the bother. I have no problem discovering through evidence, logic and conclusion that I am wrong on something. No one is right all the time- but I dare say someone will disagree even on that! :doh:

So you plan to answer questions when asked, then, right? As per the rules?

Dwight
2010-Feb-12, 06:17 PM
Hi Dimo,

the claim the astronauts were adding entertainment shows into their EVAs is somewhat unfair. Off the top of my head I'd say the percentage of "frivolous" moments against "fun while working" against pure work would be 0.02%, 15% and 74.98% comparitively. For example after over 9 hours on the lunar surface, Al Shepard's golf shot took less than 60 seconds. Surely you cannot claim that was a dominant chunk of the moonwalks.

NEOWatcher
2010-Feb-12, 06:28 PM
For example after over 9 hours on the lunar surface, Al Shepard's golf shot took less than 60 seconds. Surely you cannot claim that was a dominant chunk of the moonwalks.

Sure; but how long did he take to get to the shot? Don't forget, they didn't have a golf cart up there until the next mission. :shifty:

Dwight
2010-Feb-12, 06:46 PM
Fom the second he grabs the "club" to taking the three shots to going back to work is circa 55 seconds.

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-12, 06:48 PM
Good, Weltraum. That’s you out of the equation.

Buh?

It appears I have made one person mad*. He sees faces that don't belong!




*This was meant in a light spirited way, and not as an ad hominem or insult.

Dave J
2010-Feb-12, 07:01 PM
Somewhere, there is footage of an astronaut throwing an open sheet of Mylar around 20-30 feet. I can't imagine any way to fake something like that in an atmosphere...

Bobbar
2010-Feb-12, 07:12 PM
Somewhere, there is footage of an astronaut throwing an open sheet of Mylar around 20-30 feet. I can't imagine any way to fake something like that in an atmosphere...


This is one of my most favorite YT videos, and I think it is perfect for this thread. ***Dave J, this video contains the bag I believe you are talking about.

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


**For the low BW and blocked users:

The author analyzes Apollo videos and calculates the gravity via a swinging pendulum on the SEQ bay and also by timing the flight and apex of a plastic bag that was thrown by one of the astronauts. He then uses the data to speed up the videos to what would be required to make the objects move as if they were in Earths gravity. Shockingly, the movements of the astronauts becomes impossibly fast.

Extracelestial
2010-Feb-12, 08:06 PM
I've searched for posts on this but the Search function didn't work.

Looking at Apollo footage, I am wondering how anyone reconciles the astronauts' movement as being in 1/6 gravity. Taking an arbitrary body weight of 180lbs, and that the suit weighed 185lbs, this would give an astronaut a total weight of around 370lbs. In 1/6 g this would equate to around 60lbs.

How high should a moon astronaut be able to jump? There is film of Apollo crews running and bouncing along but they get little vertical lift - nowhere near as much as one can very reasonably expect. In the late 1960s there were several scientific articles (sorry I don't have references) speculating that a suited astronaut on the moon ought easily be able to make jumps of 4-6 ft with no great effort.

Bearing in mind that much of the Apollo missions were a media show, logic says that the astronauts would have made the most of low gravity and performed amazing jumps and physical feats. Yet there is no evidence of this. It very much looks like earth-filmed footage slowed down.

I'd like to invite comments please.

Hi D I M O,
I guess you don't accept evidence or scientific reasoning so why don't you go over to YouTube where all the secret evidence of the moon hoax is hidden and type in "Myth Busters". You'll find that they did a thorough and quite entertaining analysis of the moon landing conspiracy and refuted every single issue pointed out by truth seekers including the slowed down motion footage that, they were able to show without a doubt, was staged by the MIB.
Have fun
Ex

Extracelestial
2010-Feb-12, 08:20 PM
[I][B]...

I never mentioned ‘extreme gymnastics’. Just clearly evident demonstrations of 1/6 gravity...

No one is right all the time- but I dare say someone will disagree even on that! :doh:

HI DIMO,

as you wish. Here is a clearly evident demonstration. Check this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk
The famous hammer/feather experiment that proves that it
a: happened in a vacuum
b: in a gravity of about 1/6th of the earth's
Ex

Weltraum
2010-Feb-12, 10:08 PM
HI DIMO,

as you wish. Here is a clearly evident demonstration. Check this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk
The famous hammer/feather experiment that proves that it
a: happened in a vacuum
b: in a gravity of about 1/6th of the earth's
Ex

I know one of the film-making hoax declaimers claims that the feather was weighted with lead to help it fall at an equal speed to the hammer, and then the rest would presumably film speed adjustment. Of course, as it happens, Bobbar's video does show that particular feat amongst the myriad others at both regular speed and sped up to match Earth's gravitational acceleration, and as always, the astronaut's movements become ridiculously fast.

I don't think the hoax declaimer had taken gravitational acceleration into account. Particularly when the hoax claim seems to imply that speeding moon footage up by merely about 33% is supposed to restore it to an earthly, normal speed, though they make this claim in regards to how the astronauts skip or hop along, and not how objects fall. They seem to make the 33% speed adjustment in accordance with how natural astronauts' movement appear and not at all based on the mathematics of how things move.

There is one jump salute video on YT, though, that poses what must be faulty calculation in an attempt demonstrate a hoax. That video author was indeed applying mathematics to both the jump and the behaviour of the dust that John Young had kicked up in the process. He seemed to think that the dust had fallen too quickly in comparison to how John Young had fallen. My own reasoning here tells me that the horizontal motion of the dust meant that it would not go as high as Young did, and of course it would reach the surface again sooner. Here's one video making the claim:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQjW9p53kR0

Naturally, there are already debunking videos for this particular topic on YT about this topic. It's just amazing to me that seemingly intelligent people can be so wrong about something like this. It shows what bias can do to one's reasoning!

Tom Servo
2010-Feb-13, 04:25 AM
Here is another analogy to consider when thinking about acrobatics and wearing valuable life suport systems.

Why do we never ever see videos of deep sea divers reenacting the Matrix while deep underwater? I mean real actual diving videos not youtube fakes or people doing stuff in their pool. (the only time I know of this happeneing is in the movies like the famous James Bond underwater fight scene. But that is hollywood filmed not very deep were if something went wrong they could easily be rescued by their rescue teams. Not to mention practice practice practice, Hours and hours worth. Also many shots were done using hollywoods majical cut jumps and camera tricks. Its very obvious. Well maybe if you know what your looking for)

Surely with water supporting them they could do all kinds of acrobatics

Now consider a real life deep sea diver who values his life Reenacting the Matrix alone in the hostile to life environment of the deep. Lets make it a deep sea cave just to add to the danger. It just isnt going to happen. No one in their right mind would attempt a potentialy suicidal stunt such as this. They would run a similar risk of damaging their life saving equiptment.



However The moon is a much deadlier environment than that of the deep waters. If their suit breaks they cant buddy breath with the other persons suit until they reach safety.

Please let me know if you think this is a fair analogy. If not why.

Tom Servo
2010-Feb-13, 04:30 AM
If anything the fact that they didn't go around performing dangerous stunts would be a strike against it beeing faked.

If they had ran around jumping like crazy I would consider this is not what a real trained profesional would do knowing that this could potentialy kill him.

I see the fact that they don't do crazy stunts as a point toward the we really did land on the moon theory. Not the other way around.

Weltraum
2010-Feb-13, 09:23 AM
If anything the fact that they didn't go around performing dangerous stunts would be a strike against it beeing faked.

If they had ran around jumping like crazy I would consider this is not what a real trained profesional would do knowing that this could potentialy kill him.

I see the fact that they don't do crazy stunts as a point toward the we really did land on the moon theory. Not the other way around.

Yes, and the danger you emphasise helps a person understand why John Young did not jump absolutely as high as he could have on the moon for his jump salutes. He jumped impressively high, but didn't endanger himself. Not like that poor fellow from the lunar olympics video who landed on his back from taking that fun a little too far.

Incidentally, what are you talking about in the Matrix? I don't recall an underwater scene.

Tom Servo
2010-Feb-13, 10:28 AM
Incidentally, what are you talking about in the Matrix? I don't recall an underwater scene.

Well I mean that it is possible to immitate some of the crazy fight scenes in the movie while underwater. me and my friends would always imitate our favorite fight scenes at the local pool during the summer. Your right theres not an underwater scene but you could play around and immitate a fight scene underwater. However while wearing scuba gear that your life depends on would be highly ill advised.

D i m o
2010-Feb-13, 12:05 PM
Thank you for some interesting and insightful responses. I can see that the astronauts operating in 1/6 gravity does stack up. I am happy to reach this conclusion. I maintain the right, however, to hold opinion over some aspects of the side shows they performed, just as you maintain the right to your opinion.

As an aside, I always find it surprising in a forum that some adopt a rather confrontational attitude as if they are so very desperate to be right (which raises questions), or seemingly deliberately misinterpret what has been said! Personally, I only value cohesive and constructive dialogue (and relevant humour) so will avoid being drawn into petty argument for its own sake.

For now, perhaps I can put one last question:- Do you believe that all official NASA footage and published photographs of the Apollo missions were shot on the moon without a single exception?

Glom
2010-Feb-13, 12:22 PM
For now, perhaps I can put one last question:- Do you believe that all official NASA footage and published photographs of the Apollo missions were shot on the moon without a single exception?

Yes.

Garrison
2010-Feb-13, 12:50 PM
Thank you for some interesting and insightful responses. I can see that the astronauts operating in 1/6 gravity does stack up. I am happy to reach this conclusion. I maintain the right, however, to hold opinion over some aspects of the side shows they performed, just as you maintain the right to your opinion.

As an aside, I always find it surprising in a forum that some adopt a rather confrontational attitude as if they are so very desperate to be right (which raises questions), or seemingly deliberately misinterpret what has been said! Personally, I only value cohesive and constructive dialogue (and relevant humour) so will avoid being drawn into petty argument for its own sake.

For now, perhaps I can put one last question:- Do you believe that all official NASA footage and published photographs of the Apollo missions were shot on the moon without a single exception?

D i m o I don't think people are being confrontational; it's more that having had the same issue raised dozens of times posters are less inclined to indulge in a lot of in depth analysis and instead just cut to the chase as to why it's wrong.
As to your question it's the wrong way round; has anyone shown you convincing proof that any of the material was produced on Earth? By proof I mean 'outtakes', documentation etc.

Dwight
2010-Feb-13, 01:39 PM
I have viewed the near-complete video record from Apollo 7 through 17, the majority of Skylab, and the majority of ASTP video footage - not only from NASA but from the major US TV networks and from several foreign TV stations. I am absolutely certain that all the material claimed to be shot in space and on the lunar surface was indeed shot there. The Saturn V and 1B launches, were, of course shot on earth, as was the recovery footage.

Zvezdichko
2010-Feb-13, 02:16 PM
For now, perhaps I can put one last question:- Do you believe that all official NASA footage and published photographs of the Apollo missions were shot on the moon without a single exception?

Yes. No exception.

gwiz
2010-Feb-13, 02:47 PM
Do you believe that all official NASA footage and published photographs of the Apollo missions were shot on the moon without a single exception?
Apart from the bits of the missions shot from earth (training/preparation/launch/tracking/reentry/aftermath) or in space, yes.

Swift
2010-Feb-13, 04:01 PM
I maintain the right, however, to hold opinion over some aspects of the side shows they performed, just as you maintain the right to your opinion.
You can hold any opinion you like about anything. But on this forum, if you put forth that opinion, and that opinion is in contradiction to accepted mainstream science, you will be held accountable to defend and support it.

Did you read my last post on this? Did you look over the rules I linked to?


For now, perhaps I can put one last question:- Do you believe that all official NASA footage and published photographs of the Apollo missions were shot on the moon without a single exception?

Yes (with the exception noted by Gwiz of stuff that was on Earth or in orbit, etc.). I have never seen one shred of "evidence" put forth by a moon hoax believer which has made me doubt for a second, and most of it, quite frankly, is laughable.

R.A.F.
2010-Feb-13, 04:20 PM
I always find it surprising in a forum that some adopt a rather confrontational attitude as if they are so very desperate to be right (which raises questions),

Mischaracterization. Desperation has nothing to do with it.

slang
2010-Feb-13, 04:23 PM
For now, perhaps I can put one last question:- Do you believe that all official NASA footage and published photographs of the Apollo missions were shot on the moon without a single exception?

And right after you complain about a confrontational attitude, you ask what seems to be a baiting question. It may be an honest question, we'll see, but that particular question is often followed by "aha! but see this!" and sometimes "it was all faked after all!". And then there will be one or two pages explaining the background of the mentioned items, largely to be ignored, and the next step of the gish gallop is performed. It gets old, and I sincerely hope it isn't the case here.

D i m o
2010-Feb-13, 04:33 PM
And right after you complain about a confrontational attitude, you ask what seems to be a baiting question. It may be an honest question, we'll see, but that particular question is often followed by "aha! but see this!" and sometimes "it was all faked after all!". And then there will be one or two pages explaining the background of the mentioned items, largely to be ignored, and the next step of the gish gallop is performed. It gets old, and I sincerely hope it isn't the case here.

No baiting at all. Perhaps you misinterpreted my motivation and intent.

Anyway, thanks for all the responses. And yes, I have looked at the rules on posting here.

JayUtah
2010-Feb-13, 06:06 PM
...

I should have clarified. To me, ‘playing’ golf, singing songs... etc.

"To you." That's the definition of a subjective claim, and the basis for my contention that you are begging the question.

That individual astronauts should, from time to time, behave as humans does not create the expectation that media frivolity was a goal of the Apollo missions. You propose that it's suspicious certain things were not done; but that suspicion is based solely on your notion of what ought to have been done. If that notion turns out simply to be your subjective opinion, then it doesn't really matter. You don't get to impose your opinions on others.

Sorry, but I cannot agree.

Fine, but you don't seem able to give any reasons for your disagreement other than to restate your contrary belief. We all know what you believe, but we would like to know why you believe it. That's important when you expect others to believe it too.

More simply, the opportunity of CLEARLY demonstrating 1/6 gravity would, in such a scenario, plainly be too good an opportunity to disregard.

No, you're simply begging the question again. You want us all to agree -- simply because you say so -- that the astronauts should have done some certain number or kind of things to demonstrate that they were really in 1/6 Earth gravity. Then you want us to agree that they failed to meet that standard.

Sorry, but if you want to establish a standard and propose to judge the actions of others by it, you bear the burden to prove (not just suggest) that your standard is correct, reasonable, and applicable.

I never mentioned ‘extreme gymnastics’. Just clearly evident demonstrations of 1/6 gravity.

But your notion of "clearly evident demonstrations" seems limited to high leaps. People have given you reasons why high leaps were inadvisable. You have entirely ignored those reasons and persist in your belief.

Can you give a specific video link please, as I can’t locate it with the search you suggested?

The Apollo 11 EVA is easily available from any number of sources. I happen to use a DVD. Simply fast-forward to where Armstrong gets in the LM. It's not that hard to find.

Speaking of which, how much Apollo footage would you say you've personally examined?

a person would jump higher in 1/6 gravity after flexing his knees and pushing off hard as in this sequence.

Prove it. Show your work. Consider all the variables.

Again, you're proposing a standard by which the authenticity of others' actions is to be judged. You bear the burden to prove the propriety of your standard.

I would not call a vertical jump from standstill of say 3 to 4 feet in 1/6 gravity an amazing feat at all. Quite a reasonable one actually.

That's the second time you have ignored the point. You need to reconcile the notion of "reasonable" with the very real danger of falling down that others have brought up.

I have watched it and they did show very similar movement to astronauts on the moon.

Specifically which ones?

But conspiracy theorists do not hold exclusivity over holding on to ideas, concepts and beliefs despite what is questioned or shown to the contrary.

Examples?

I have no problem discovering through evidence, logic and conclusion that I am wrong on something.

But so far your line of reasoning is based entirely on begging the question. If you propose to examine your claims logically, then you should be able to identify and avoid that common fallacy.

JayUtah
2010-Feb-13, 06:40 PM
...

I maintain the right, however, to hold opinion over some aspects of the side shows they performed...

You can hold whatever opinion you want. But unless you can demonstrate why your opinion has objective validity, you can't rightly judge other people's behavior by it. You can't say that because they played golf they should also have turned somersaults, and because they didn't there's something wrong.

As an aside, I always find it surprising in a forum that some adopt a rather confrontational attitude as if they are so very desperate to be right...

Conversely I've always found it surprising that people who claim to value the truth are sometimes willing to dismiss as "petty" and "desperate" what amounts to a fairly rigorous and thorough test of their claims. I don't know if you're referring to any specific argument here, but what I do best (both here and in my professional life) is to identify and uncover the many hidden assumptions people make in what seem otherwise to be unremarkable lines of reasoning. Often we find that the strength of a conclusion rests on premises that we never thought to question, or even knew existed.

Often we find that our devotion to an idea has more to do with how comfortable it makes us, not with how true it is. It's morally easy to eviscerate a claim we don't like. It takes much more fortitude to tear into an idea you believe in. I'm an engineer. I've produced many ideas that have beauty, but only a few that have truth. The difference is important, and truth is discovered only in a harsh and unyielding crucible. It's up to you what you propose to value.

For now, perhaps I can put one last question:- Do you believe that all official NASA footage and published photographs of the Apollo missions were shot on the moon without a single exception?

I have seen every minute of film and video footage and all of the 70 mm stills from the Apollo missions. In all that study, I have yet to see any evidence that this material was forged, or in any way represents something other than what it claims to be.

Weltraum
2010-Feb-13, 08:35 PM
No baiting at all. Perhaps you misinterpreted my motivation and intent.

Anyway, thanks for all the responses. And yes, I have looked at the rules on posting here.

I hope you'll be back to answer for yourself here.

As for all of the video and stills claiming to be on the moon actually being from the moon, I haven't seen it all as Jay claims to have done, but I certainly agree with his assessment in that I've also never seen anything to suggest forgery. I find that hoax believers who haven't a clue about examining photographs from Earth suddenly become experts in examining Apollo photographs, and likewise for the video. They also become experts in everything from how high an astronaut ought to be jumping to what those astronauts actually would coulda shoulda done on the moon, as opposed to what they're actually seen doing, which largely involves setting up experiments and gathering samples while taking still shots, shooting some 16mm video and helping NASA get TV.

I've seen hoax believers/declaimers point to all sorts of photographic anomalies they obviously either do not understand or purposely wish to use as a deception in trying to make a case for forgery on NASA's part. Every photographic analysis on aulis.com can serve as an example of this shoddy argumentation. And YouTube is full of Apollo video segments with all sorts of bias applied. Like when they try to claim that astronauts are talking about "cables" or something in various clips, and what they're really doing is subtly changing (likely selectively mishearing) the spoken words.

Example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1-meadyXSM

Looking up the matching section of the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal will reveal what they're actually saying, and there are often explanatory bits there as well to reveal what exactly is going on.

LaurelHS
2010-Feb-13, 09:53 PM
Like when they try to claim that astronauts are talking about "cables" or something in various clips, and what they're really doing is subtly changing (likely selectively mishearing) the spoken words.

Example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1-meadyXSM

Looking up the matching section of the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal will reveal what they're actually saying, and there are often explanatory bits there as well to reveal what exactly is going on.
For that video, the relevant section of the ALSJ is here (http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14-prelim1.html) at 114:18:33.

Basically, the astronauts are having a little trouble deploying the S-Band antenna and Shepard makes a joke about how there are "all kinds of freebies in today's simulation" and CapCom Bruce McCandless says, "We've got the boys in the Backroom working overtime." The ignorant individual who made the video claims Shepard was serious about it being a simulation and that the "boys in the Backroom" are stagehands on the fake Moon set. Never mind that such comments about simulations were a common astronaut joke or that McCandless was actually talking about engineers in the backroom (I think the official term is Mission Evaluation Room?).

D i m o
2010-Feb-13, 10:14 PM
I should have clarified. To me, ‘playing’ golf, singing songs... etc.

"To you." That's the definition of a subjective claim, and the basis for my contention that you are begging the question.

That individual astronauts should, from time to time, behave as humans does not create the expectation that media frivolity was a goal of the Apollo missions.

When did I say that media frivolity was the goal of the Apollo missions. This is just argumentative.


You propose that it's suspicious certain things were not done; but that suspicion is based solely on your notion of what ought to have been done. If that notion turns out simply to be your subjective opinion, then it doesn't really matter. You don't get to impose your opinions on others.

I never attempted to impose my opinions on others. Can you not see that I was asking questions?


Sorry, but I cannot agree.

Fine, but you don't seem able to give any reasons for your disagreement other than to restate your contrary belief. We all know what you believe, but we would like to know why you believe it. That's important when you expect others to believe it too.

I have no expectation of others to believe what I do. Why do you make wrong assertions and assumptions? I believe there is a realm beyond what science and slide rules can currently comprehend, but if I share that with anyone I don't expect them to believe it. I can put forward ideas and theories but that is not expecting others to take them on board.


More simply, the opportunity of CLEARLY demonstrating 1/6 gravity would, in such a scenario, plainly be too good an opportunity to disregard.

No, you're simply begging the question again. You want us all to agree -- simply because you say so -- that the astronauts should have done some certain number or kind of things to demonstrate that they were really in 1/6 Earth gravity. Then you want us to agree that they failed to meet that standard.

Why are you doing this? I repeat, I have not asked nor expected anyone to agree with me. I originally suggested that a 1/6 g environment was too good an opportunity to disregard, and that given the occasional entertainment footage, more might have been made of it. That is a reasonable argument, and I sincerely believe if it were asked of one of the astronauts they would answer in an equally reasonable manner without setting out to tell me I want and expect.


I never mentioned ‘extreme gymnastics’. Just clearly evident demonstrations of 1/6 gravity.

But your notion of "clearly evident demonstrations" seems limited to high leaps. People have given you reasons why high leaps were inadvisable. You have entirely ignored those reasons and persist in your belief.

Do I? How do you conclude that I've ignored them?


Speaking of which, how much Apollo footage would you say you've personally examined?

Tens of hours. Please do not demand a precise number.


a person would jump higher in 1/6 gravity after flexing his knees and pushing off hard as in this sequence.

Prove it. Show your work. Consider all the variables.

I am not an engineer, and thus you can enjoy your satisfaction. Is a person not permitted from their observations to ask questions over the NASA footage? It seems that as I do not have a PhD in physics there is little point in putting forth my queries because you for one want the sums. You overlook that from the outset I asked a series of questions without any hint of trying to convince anyone of anything.


I would not call a vertical jump from standstill of say 3 to 4 feet in 1/6 gravity an amazing feat at all. Quite a reasonable one actually.

That's the second time you have ignored the point. You need to reconcile the notion of "reasonable" with the very real danger of falling down that others have brought up.

I will not concede that in 1/6 gravity, a jump of 3-4 feet is UNreasonable accepting the safety aspect because this could have been clearly demonstrated in full view rather than behind hardware. Given the other sequences filmed for the media, I contest that this would be a reasonable expectation and a LOGICAL move. Yes, in my view, and one that isn't exclusive to me. On this I am sorry to say that I think it is you that deliberately refutes what would be an obvious media transmission given the other 'entertainment' footage that was shot.


I have watched it and they did show very similar movement to astronauts on the moon.

Specifically which ones?

Loping.


But conspiracy theorists do not hold exclusivity over holding on to ideas, concepts and beliefs despite what is questioned or shown to the contrary.

Examples?

Would you not agree that scientists, physicists smd do on hold onto ideas and theories despite what is QUESTIONED? To me you are simply baiting. Once, many believed the earth was flat and that the sun orbited the earth, despite what was otherwise postulated.


I have no problem discovering through evidence, logic and conclusion that I am wrong on something.

But so far your line of reasoning is based entirely on begging the question. If you propose to examine your claims logically, then you should be able to identify and avoid that common fallacy.

"Begging the question"? Why use that phrase? My line of reasoning is based upon what I see and my deductions. You may not like them but I've never suggested they are concrete beliefs, and hence I have asked questions. The fallacy is that you appear to think I have made a series of statements rather than asked questions.

D i m o
2010-Feb-13, 10:47 PM
I hope you'll be back to answer for yourself here.

As for all of the video and stills claiming to be on the moon actually being from the moon, I haven't seen it all as Jay claims to have done, but I certainly agree with his assessment in that I've also never seen anything to suggest forgery. I find that hoax believers who haven't a clue about examining photographs from Earth suddenly become experts in examining Apollo photographs, and likewise for the video. They also become experts in everything from how high an astronaut ought to be jumping to what those astronauts actually would coulda shoulda done on the moon, as opposed to what they're actually seen doing, which largely involves setting up experiments and gathering samples while taking still shots, shooting some 16mm video and helping NASA get TV.

I've looked at a lot of conspiracy material and have drawn my own conclusions, but what some people seem to have assumed here is that I'm a hoax believer because I asked a few questions and then have grilled me over what, from deduction, I consider to be 'reasonable'. Demonstrating low gravity I believe is a reasonable expectation given that they are on the moon. Does anyone here really disagree that it's a reasonable expectation?

Accepting the safety aspect, the only impressive jumps I have seen are when they are partly obscured by hardware. Why film it so? Having shot clear footage of rock kicking, singing and golf, etc., I question why not safe 'jump' footage across the missions.

kleindoofy
2010-Feb-13, 11:13 PM
... logic says that the astronauts would have made the most of low gravity and performed amazing jumps and physical feats. ...
Actually they did, but not on the Moon's surface in their spacesuits, which would have been much too dangerous, as stated above.

They did a lot of "zero" gravity stunts during their TV transmissions on their way to the Moon. At least as much as the space in the CM allowed.

Later on, the astronauts on Skylab went full tilt. There is a film of one astronaut doing a very impressive gymnastics show in "zero" gravity on Skylab. I couldn't find it on YouTube, only a few videos of the crew jumping around.

Perhaps someone else here can provide a link.

As to the "expert" prognosis about what can happen in space (or elsewhere), in the 50's some experts said an astronaut's eyeballs would pop out in zero gravity (sorry, no link).

In the 1800's, as trains were being developed, one "expert" said that no human could possibly survive a journey travelling faster than 30 MPH, and that a locomotive engineer would go crazy within a few hours (sorry, no link).

LaurelHS
2010-Feb-13, 11:16 PM
Demonstrating low gravity I believe is a reasonable expectation given that they are on the moon. Does anyone here really disagree that it's a reasonable expectation?
The question is why you feel that the examples of low gravity demonstrations already mentioned in this thread (such as high jumps, throwing objects, carrying heavy objects, etc.) are insufficient.

Selenite
2010-Feb-13, 11:17 PM
Accepting the safety aspect, the only impressive jumps I have seen are when they are partly obscured by hardware. Why film it so? Having shot clear footage of rock kicking, singing and golf, etc., I question why not safe 'jump' footage across the missions.

I imagine that in those momentous and heady times for the space program, the astronauts never dreamed for a moment that some 40 years would pass without a return to the moon, and therefore they should go out of their way to hold an low-gravity acrobatic exhibition of sorts to prove it really happened when it did to placate a future generation of doubters.

slang
2010-Feb-13, 11:38 PM
Demonstrating low gravity I believe is a reasonable expectation given that they are on the moon. Does anyone here really disagree that it's a reasonable expectation?

Almost every filmed movement on the moon's surface is a reasonable demonstration of low gravity. What is not reasonable is to expect the astronauts to make room in their very full schedules to preemptively waste time on potential future Apollo deniers. Not knowing in advance which action might be questioned later. Not knowing in advance that their moment in history would be denied. Taking into account the fight among scientists and planners about how every spare EVA minute ought to be spent (preferably on their pet Moon science project).

Swift
2010-Feb-13, 11:55 PM
I have to say, this discussion is rather funny. We've had several Hoax Believers who insisted that the fact the astronauts did any non-serious stuff (such as jumping around or hitting golf balls) was proof that the whole thing was a hoax, since it was obvious that for a serious enterprise like visiting the moon, they would not have done anything like that. Now we have Dimo saying it is suspicious that they didn't do enough of this kind of stuff.

Van Rijn
2010-Feb-13, 11:59 PM
I've looked at a lot of conspiracy material and have drawn my own conclusions, but what some people seem to have assumed here is that I'm a hoax believer because I asked a few questions and then have grilled me over what, from deduction, I consider to be 'reasonable'.


You started a thread in the conspiracy theory forum. Perhaps you haven't read the board rules (http://www.bautforum.com/forum-rules-faqs-information/32864-rules-posting-board.html)? Typically, you start a thread in the CT forum to argue a conspiracy theory, and by doing so, you obligate yourself to answering others' direct questions about your claims. If you wanted to ask questions, but not make claims, or answer questions about your claims, this wasn't the right section of the board to start a thread.

By the way, whether or not you are a hoax believer, your claims are very much like those of HBs I've seen.




Demonstrating low gravity I believe is a reasonable expectation given that they are on the moon. Does anyone here really disagree that it's a reasonable expectation?


It depends on what you mean by "demonstrating." I think it is reasonable to expect that actions on the moon would be consistent with low gravity. I don't think there should have been a requirement for the astronauts to make any specific low gravity demonstration.



Accepting the safety aspect, the only impressive jumps I have seen are when they are partly obscured by hardware. Why film it so?


What is the point of this question?

You have a subjective standard ("impressive jumps") that you can use to exclude any evidence of jumps provided. Also, it seems to assume that there should have been a preplanned deliberate high jump demonstration for film.

Again, this sounds very much like HB arguments I've heard. Whether or not the astronauts did high jumps that meet your expectations, it is irrelevant to the evidence that they were on the moon.

Swift
2010-Feb-14, 12:08 AM
Originally Posted by D i m o
I've looked at a lot of conspiracy material and have drawn my own conclusions, but what some people seem to have assumed here is that I'm a hoax believer because I asked a few questions and then have grilled me over what, from deduction, I consider to be 'reasonable'.
You started a thread in the conspiracy theory forum. Perhaps you haven't read the board rules (http://www.bautforum.com/forum-rules-faqs-information/32864-rules-posting-board.html)? Typically, you start a thread in the CT forum to argue a conspiracy theory, and by doing so, you obligate yourself to answering others' direct questions about your claims. If you wanted to ask questions, but not make claims, or answer questions about your claims, this wasn't the right section of the board to start a thread.

By the way, whether or not you are a hoax believer, your claims are very much like those of HBs I've seen.

I will make one clarification.

We do now allow questions about conspiracy theories in the CT section without actually advocating them.

However Dimo, if you were "just asking" then one would expect that when your question was answered multiple times by multiple people, that you would accept the answers. The fact that you keep questioning and doubting the answers you are given, makes it look a lot like you are doing more than "just asking".

And such methods are a common past tactic of hoax advocates - starting with "just asking", so they can avoid having to show proof of their beliefs.

Glom
2010-Feb-14, 12:17 AM
D I M O, you're argument is inconsistent. You asked for demonstrations of low gravity. You were given some. You then said they weren't good enough. This is called moving the goalposts. Given the history of participants here, it is hard to accept that you are genuinely just asking questions with no loading attached when you so arbitrarily reject the answers you are given.

R.A.F.
2010-Feb-14, 12:50 AM
I question why not safe 'jump' footage across the missions.

I question the need for any jump just to satisify your curiousity.

JayUtah
2010-Feb-14, 01:11 AM
...

"Begging the question"? Why use that phrase?

Because it's the term in logic that best describes your argument.

My line of reasoning is based upon what I see and my deductions.

No, your line of reasoning is based on measuring the astronauts' behavior according to what you personally believe to be acceptable and expected. Deducing that they didn't do enough to demonstrate low gravity doesn't excuse you from defending your standard of evidence.

The fallacy is that you appear to think I have made a series of statements rather than asked questions.

"Don't you think it's reasonable for the astronauts to have performed some sort of demonstration of low gravity?" is not a question designed to obtain information. It's a question designed to compel your readers to accept your argument.

We not accept it.

Paul Beardsley
2010-Feb-14, 01:11 AM
For now, perhaps I can put one last question:- Do you believe that all official NASA footage and published photographs of the Apollo missions were shot on the moon without a single exception?
I haven't investigated every single photograph and piece of footage, so I cannot say.

However, I would like to ask, given that some of the footage was unquestionably taken on the moon, meaning that there is no room for any reasonable doubt that they really went, why would they bother faking anything at all?

When the truth is clearly on your side, why would you bother to add a lie?

Weltraum
2010-Feb-14, 01:36 AM
Basically, Dimo, the photographs and video provide ample evidence of low gravity, no atmosphere and lunar lighting conditions. I've seen HB claims attack how the sun appears, how the sun reflects, how the shadows appear to fall in various images, how the crosshairs appear, how the "sky" appears, so on and so forth. There are explanations available for the questions they do raise, but they don't bother pursuing the answers themselves. Rather, they're content to allow their "unanswered" questions serve as "evidence" for their belief in a hoax.

You've been claiming that examples of 1/6th gravity motion in lunar video aren't good enough for you. It seems you've excluded the jump salutes because they're not "impressive" enough, while the more imressive jumps were shot with the LRV blocking part of the view of the astronauts (it appears to have been shot with the LRV's on-board camera). What about all the rest of the video? You'll see a lot of skipping and hopping, and even some falling down and getting back up in low gravity. They can move around pretty easily, albeit clumsily, in that lower gravity.

And as Paul asked, why add fake material to genuine lunar material? What possible purpose could that serve? It would be a big waste of money and a great risk to take besides.

I'd encourage you to look upon the evidence and let it speak for itself. The astronauts did what you see them doing up there, and whether you'd like to see more "lunar olympics" than what was done is not particularly important. I'd love to see more high jumps, too, but it was indeed a dangerous thing for an astronaut to attempt up there. I'm impressed that they did as much as they actually did! A torn suit or damaged PLSS would very likely have meant a rapid death. The video posted earlier demonstrates this quite effectively.

JayUtah
2010-Feb-14, 01:52 AM
When did I say that media frivolity was the goal of the Apollo missions.

In your first post.

I never attempted to impose my opinions on others. Can you not see that I was asking questions?

You're asking us to accept that your standard of sufficiency is reasonable. That's not "just asking questions." In fact, that kind of question is the oldest high-school debate trick in the book. You get your opponent to agree to the premise that you're going to have the hardest time proving just by asking it conversationally.

Please go look up "begging the question" and try to understand that this is the argument you're making.

Fine, but you don't seem able to give any reasons for your disagreement other than to restate your contrary belief.

I gave you three good reasons: danger of damage to the PLSS, loss of balance due to displaced center of gravity, and lack of flexibility.

I have no expectation of others to believe what I do.

Yes, you do. That's why you're asking us to accept your premises without proof.

I believe there is a realm beyond what science and slide rules can currently comprehend...

Probably, but your arguments deal with the world of slide rules and physics. You are the one claiming that such-and-such a height is not a sufficiently high jump. Pull out the slide rule and prove it.

Why are you doing this? I repeat, I have not asked nor expected anyone to agree with me.

Yes, you have -- multiple times. You have the burden to prove that your expectations are valid. You expect the astronauts to have done more. Why? The only answer you've given is to insist that it's "reasonable."

That is a reasonable argument...

No, it isn't. It's simply you picking an arbitrary standard and asking everyone to accept it as binding on NASA and the astronauts.

Do I? How do you conclude that I've ignored them?

Because you haven't explained why your expectations are still reasonable given the factors we've brought up.

I am not an engineer, and thus you can enjoy your satisfaction.

I didn't ask whether you were an engineer. I asked simply whether you were willing to support the premises to your claims in a way that considered all the variables and extended beyond simply insisting that it's reasonable.

Given the other sequences filmed for the media, I contest that this would be a reasonable expectation and a LOGICAL move.

No, you're still just begging the question.

Would you not agree that scientists, physicists smd do on hold onto ideas and theories despite what is QUESTIONED?

Begging the question yet again. Physicists and scientists demand proof for claims. Unproven claims are rejected, even if they seem to question what is known.

To me you are simply baiting.

No, I'm questioning the premises to your argument -- the ones you didn't realize you had based it on.

kleindoofy
2010-Feb-14, 02:19 AM
Expectations are fickle friends.

Some people wanted the astronauts to do this, others thought they should do that.

As far as I am informed, the scientists from the various disciplines who were affiliated with the Apollo program were constantly at odds with one another about how many *minutes* each astronaut should spend doing certain experiments, observations, sample collections, photographs, this, that, and whatever.

We shouldn't forget, every minute on the Moon costed millions.

Jump up and down? Just for fun?

Why not kick a universal record field goal with a football? Why not hit the longest homerun ever with a baseball? Why not jump the highest in history?

I could think of thousands of things they could, should, must have done.

Ok, they hit a golf ball.

Everybody has their own expectations of what others should do in a given situation. Most of them end up disappointed.


Do you believe that all official NASA footage and published photographs of the Apollo missions were shot on the moon without a single exception?

No, absolutely not.

This official NASA photograph of an Apollo mission was *not* shot on the Moon:

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/8416/apollo11astronautsarmst.jpg

Torch2k
2010-Feb-14, 03:09 AM
Whenever the question arises as to what the astronauts could have done to 'prove' they were actually on the moon, I'm always reminded of Dave Scott's hammer and feather demonstration. I mean really -- what more elegant proof could one of the astronauts have provided? And yet even this is hotly contested by hoax proponents.

I think if NASA had been prescient enough to envision doubters 40 years after the landings, they would just as likely have foreseen that no proof would be sufficient. They probably would have said "Nuts to them!" and carried on with their job.

Paul Beardsley
2010-Feb-14, 09:40 AM
What Torch2k said.

I find I've got so much less patience for Hoax Believers than I once had. It's not as if NASA announced, "Well, we've been to the moon, but due to weight issues they weren't able to take any cameras or bring back samples. So you'll just have to take our word for it."

I have no more patience for HBs who point to a picture or piece of footage that could conceivably have been faked. What about the many that couldn't? A few seconds of the rover kicking up dust which falls in a vacuumy way... explain that away, HBs, and don't talk to me until you've done it!

agingjb
2010-Feb-14, 10:33 AM
Yes, my patience ran out a long time ago - as soon as I first heard of the nonsensical hoax theory.

I came close to being banned once (certainly I was reported) for saying that I could see no way that an HB could not be either dim or dishonest. Well I won't say that again, but I do remain puzzled how, when the Apollo landings happened, and there is abundant and conclusive evidence of that fact, sincere and intelligent people continue to assert, or even entertain, the contrary.

Paul Beardsley
2010-Feb-14, 10:49 AM
I came close to being banned once (certainly I was reported) for saying that I could see no way that an HB could not be either dim or dishonest.
I can understand it if someone has been told (by a parent, say) that it was a hoax. But to persist in the belief or claim after being presented with the evidence... that's difficult to explain politely!

slang
2010-Feb-14, 10:57 AM
I can understand it if someone has been told (by a parent, say) that it was a hoax.

That dreaded FOX thingy (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html) was certainly persuasive to those with no knowledge on the subject whatsoever. And I still occasionally meet people who mention Henry Kissinger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Side_of_the_Moon_%28documentary%29) having something to do with the hoaxing stuff. They remember a well known name, but never bother to verify. They don't care enough, and the idea that the great big US did something "bad" is just what many like to hear in our small country.

ETA: More often than not they would not even remember it was Kissinger, they'd mention "some well known American politician...".

Extracelestial
2010-Feb-14, 12:45 PM
...

For now, perhaps I can put one last question:- Do you believe that all official NASA footage and published photographs of the Apollo missions were shot on the moon without a single exception?

Hi D I M O,

of course one never can be sure, but I'm pretty sure that this one was staged on earth.

http://images.ksc.nasa.gov/photos/1971/low/KSC-71PC-0178.gif

Ex

Paul Beardsley
2010-Feb-14, 12:53 PM
Hi D I M O,

of course one never can be sure, but I'm pretty sure that this one was staged on earth.

http://images.ksc.nasa.gov/photos/1971/low/KSC-71PC-0178.gif

Ex
See post #69.

Extracelestial
2010-Feb-14, 01:02 PM
...

For now, perhaps I can put one last question:- Do you believe that all official NASA footage and published photographs of the Apollo missions were shot on the moon without a single exception?

Hi D I M O,

of course one never can be sure, but I'm pretty sure that this one was staged on earth.

http://images.ksc.nasa.gov/photos/1971/low/KSC-71PC-0178.gif

Ex

P.S.

I'm sorry, but I just noticed that kleindoofy beat me by several hours with this image.
However, it would be nice and becoming (and in the best tradition of science) to state your idea/suspicion/claim first and then present your evidence. Otherwise one might surmise an attempt to be framed.
Honestly, I'd like to know where your question is aiming at and what you like to prove.

Ex

Jim
2010-Feb-14, 06:49 PM
See post #69.

Yeah, but his is signed!

Tobin Dax
2010-Feb-14, 07:16 PM
Yeah, but his is signed!
I don't think that was done on the moon, either.

LaurelHS
2010-Feb-14, 07:20 PM
I wonder if it was signed with a Fisher Space Pen. :)

violentquaker
2010-Feb-14, 07:22 PM
I don't think that was done on the moon, either.

It would be quite an artifact if it was, especially if all three astronauts signed it there.

kleindoofy
2010-Feb-14, 08:22 PM
Who needs a signature when you have post #69? ;)

D i m o
2010-Feb-14, 10:16 PM
Here are my final responses:

- Thank you for my time here. It has been a revelation in one or two respects even having read numerous posts before contributing myself.

- My “line of reasoning” has ultimately come down the crux of comparing the impressive jumps made with very apparent ease when the astronauts are partly obscured, yet nothing of comparable ease in any other footage.

- I have never said media frivolity was the GOAL of the Apollo missions even in my first post. I refute and take exception to being told otherwise.

- I can accept and understand impatience with hoax believers. However, I would politely point out that the creators of this forum have opted to include a Conspiracy section and that presumably the intent is never to castigate, ridicule, pour scorn on and/or demonstrate intolerance with a confrontational attitude.

- Being told that I have set out to convert or compel others here is patent nonsense whatever the phraseology used or whatever psychological ploys and distractions are engaged. Sometimes one has to accept things simply for what they are. Clearly some of us cannot do that.


"Don't you think it's reasonable for the astronauts to have performed some sort of demonstration of low gravity?" is not a question designed to obtain information. It's a question designed to compel your readers to accept your argument.

No, totally wrong. It is asking others to give consideration to the question, not to compel or convert (whatever psychology or wordy argument is dragged in).


- In my opinion (in case anyone cares to know), rather than seeing HB or CT run with their tails between their legs I think it is equally that debates descend into semantics, ridicule, futile counter-argument, or the OPs have no wish to be told what their thinking or their motivation and reasoning amounts to. Questions and critique are fine, but just as with what people say, as important is the manner in which they say it. Thus, my conclusion is that there exists a minority intent to ply aggressive intimidation with deliberately beguiling content, which does this forum no favours.

- My motivations for being here were not transparent and never will be. I saw numerous individuals who are fair, tolerant and creative who are a credit to BAUT. Thanks for your time and contributions.

Glom
2010-Feb-14, 10:31 PM
This is what you said in your first post.


Bearing in mind that much of the Apollo missions were a media show, logic says that the astronauts would have made the most of low gravity and performed amazing jumps and physical feats.

You were clearly stating that a key purpose of the programme was to put on a show for the Earthbound viewers and such a show would logically have included low gravity stunts.

Garrison
2010-Feb-14, 10:34 PM
Here are my final responses:

- Thank you for my time here. It has been a revelation in one or two respects even having read numerous posts before contributing myself.

- My “line of reasoning” has ultimately come down the crux of comparing the impressive jumps made with very apparent ease when the astronauts are partly obscured, yet nothing of comparable ease in any other footage.

- I have never said media frivolity was the GOAL of the Apollo missions even in my first post. I refute and take exception to being told otherwise.

- I can accept and understand impatience with hoax believers. However, I would politely point out that the creators of this forum have opted to include a Conspiracy section and that presumably the intent is never to castigate, ridicule, pour scorn on and/or demonstrate intolerance with a confrontational attitude.

- Being told that I have set out to convert or compel others here is patent nonsense whatever the phraseology used or whatever psychological ploys and distractions are engaged. Sometimes one has to accept things simply for what they are. Clearly some of us cannot do that.


"Don't you think it's reasonable for the astronauts to have performed some sort of demonstration of low gravity?" is not a question designed to obtain information. It's a question designed to compel your readers to accept your argument.

No, totally wrong. It is asking others to give consideration to the question, not to compel or convert (whatever psychology or wordy argument is dragged in).


- In my opinion (in case anyone cares to know), rather than seeing HB or CT run with their tails between their legs I think it is equally that debates descend into semantics, ridicule, futile counter-argument, or the OPs have no wish to be told what their thinking or their motivation and reasoning amounts to. Questions and critique are fine, but just as with what people say, as important is the manner in which they say it. Thus, my conclusion is that there exists a minority intent to ply aggressive intimidation with deliberately beguiling content, which does this forum no favours.

- My motivations for being here were not transparent and never will be. I saw numerous individuals who are fair, tolerant and creative who are a credit to BAUT. Thanks for your time and contributions.

Unless your motivations were to ask a genuine question and accept valid answers to you question then I for one don't care what they were. You insist on regarding directness as aggression, and expecting you to obey the rules and answer questions asked of you under those rules as intimidation. Like other HB's before you seem to believe your expectations should be regarded as a form of evidence and when they haven't been you've gotten mad about it. You could have avoided all that if you had simply read through the forum before posting the thread in the first place, and if you had come in with some actual evidence that required your viewpoint to be given some deeper consideration.

Weltraum
2010-Feb-14, 10:38 PM
Here are my final responses:

- Thank you for my time here. It has been a revelation in one or two respects even having read numerous posts before contributing myself.

- My “line of reasoning” has ultimately come down the crux of comparing the impressive jumps made with very apparent ease when the astronauts are partly obscured, yet nothing of comparable ease in any other footage.

- I have never said media frivolity was the GOAL of the Apollo missions even in my first post. I refute and take exception to being told otherwise.

- I can accept and understand impatience with hoax believers. However, I would politely point out that the creators of this forum have opted to include a Conspiracy section and that presumably the intent is never to castigate, ridicule, pour scorn on and/or demonstrate intolerance with a confrontational attitude.

- Being told that I have set out to convert or compel others here is patent nonsense whatever the phraseology used or whatever psychological ploys and distractions are engaged. Sometimes one has to accept things simply for what they are. Clearly some of us cannot do that.


"Don't you think it's reasonable for the astronauts to have performed some sort of demonstration of low gravity?" is not a question designed to obtain information. It's a question designed to compel your readers to accept your argument.

No, totally wrong. It is asking others to give consideration to the question, not to compel or convert (whatever psychology or wordy argument is dragged in).


- In my opinion (in case anyone cares to know), rather than seeing HB or CT run with their tails between their legs I think it is equally that debates descend into semantics, ridicule, futile counter-argument, or the OPs have no wish to be told what their thinking or their motivation and reasoning amounts to. Questions and critique are fine, but just as with what people say, as important is the manner in which they say it. Thus, my conclusion is that there exists a minority intent to ply aggressive intimidation with deliberately beguiling content, which does this forum no favours.

- My motivations for being here were not transparent and never will be. I saw numerous individuals who are fair, tolerant and creative who are a credit to BAUT. Thanks for your time and contributions.

Silly us thought this thread was meant to debate the stated topic, but it seems you just wanted to ask questions without defending a position?
:confused:

Strange
2010-Feb-14, 10:46 PM
"Don't you think it's reasonable for the astronauts to have performed some sort of demonstration of low gravity?" is not a question designed to obtain information. It's a question designed to compel your readers to accept your argument.

No, totally wrong. It is asking others to give consideration to the question, not to compel or convert (whatever psychology or wordy argument is dragged in).

That might be plausible if you had accepted any of the answers and clear explanations why this was not a reasonable expectation. As it is, you clearly had some ulterior motive for asking the question.

You didn't just want people to "consider" the question, otherwise you wouldn't have ignored the answers and just repeated the question.


- My motivations for being here were not transparent and never will be.

Quite. You clearly weren't "just asking questions".

AstroRockHunter
2010-Feb-14, 10:48 PM
Here are my final responses:

- Thank you for my time here. It has been a revelation in one or two respects even having read numerous posts before contributing myself.

- My “line of reasoning” has ultimately come down the crux of comparing the impressive jumps made with very apparent ease when the astronauts are partly obscured, yet nothing of comparable ease in any other footage.

- I have never said media frivolity was the GOAL of the Apollo missions even in my first post. I refute and take exception to being told otherwise.Really? When you say:

... [SNIP] ... Bearing in mind that much of the Apollo missions were a media show ... [SNIP] ... this implies that you think that the media hype was, at least, a goal. It is not so much of a stretch, from your wording, that your thinking is that it was the goal.


- I can accept and understand impatience with hoax believers. However, I would politely point out that the creators of this forum have opted to include a Conspiracy section and that presumably the intent is never to castigate, ridicule, pour scorn on and/or demonstrate intolerance with a confrontational attitude.
No one castigated, ridiculed, poured scorn on, you. Just your ideas that (lack of) logic behind them.


- Being told that I have set out to convert or compel others here is patent nonsense whatever the phraseology used or whatever psychological ploys and distractions are engaged. Sometimes one has to accept things simply for what they are. Clearly some of us cannot do that.Wrong again. It was pointed out that the structure of your 'questions' implied that others must accept your rational behind the premise.



"Don't you think it's reasonable for the astronauts to have performed some sort of demonstration of low gravity?" is not a question designed to obtain information. It's a question designed to compel your readers to accept your argument.

No, totally wrong. It is asking others to give consideration to the question, not to compel or convert (whatever psychology or wordy argument is dragged in). It is not asking other to consider the question, it is asking to accept your idea that no sort of demonstration of low gravity occurred. Anyone who was alive and watched the moon landings live, or those who studied the films and pictures, would not agree that there were no such demonstrations. Since I don't agree with your premise, then why should I consider your 'question'?



- In my opinion (in case anyone cares to know), rather than seeing HB or CT run with their tails between their legs I think it is equally that debates descend into semantics, ridicule, futile counter-argument, or the OPs have no wish to be told what their thinking or their motivation and reasoning amounts to. Questions and critique are fine, but just as with what people say, as important is the manner in which they say it. Thus, my conclusion is that there exists a minority intent to ply aggressive intimidation with deliberately beguiling content, which does this forum no favours.In case no one has ever mentioned it to you, the structure of an argument in a debate is as important as the evidence behind it.


- My motivations for being here were not transparent and never will be. I saw numerous individuals who are fair, tolerant and creative who are a credit to BAUT. Thanks for your time and contributions.Your motivations not being transparent here seems to be the biggest problem. Had there been transparency, rather than dismissal of the evidence presented against your premise, then this discussion would have been much more informative for you.

R.A.F.
2010-Feb-14, 11:12 PM
My “line of reasoning” has ultimately come down the crux of comparing the impressive jumps made with very apparent ease when the astronauts are partly obscured, yet nothing of comparable ease in any other footage.

Sorry, we simply don't accept that characterization...don't you remember, you weren't trying to "convert"....


Being told that I have set out to convert or compel others here is patent nonsense whatever the phraseology used or whatever psychological ploys and distractions are engaged.

So your argument that you're not here to promote/convert/whatever simply doesn't hold water.


Sometimes one has to accept things simply for what they are. Clearly some of us cannot do that.

Thanks..I couldn't have said it better myself.

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-14, 11:33 PM
- My motivations for being here were not transparent and never will be.
I think this applies:

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/1377/mysteerious.png

kleindoofy
2010-Feb-14, 11:46 PM
When I ask a question, it's usually because I don't know the answer.

Orion's Fan
2010-Feb-15, 12:28 AM
When I ask a question, it's usually because I don't know the answer.

And probably that you are willing to consider the answer...particularly if it comes from a multitude of people?

Van Rijn
2010-Feb-15, 12:38 AM
- My “line of reasoning” has ultimately come down the crux of comparing the impressive jumps made with very apparent ease when the astronauts are partly obscured, yet nothing of comparable ease in any other footage.


Apparent ease like Charlie Duke falling backwards and afraid he had killed himself?

As I pointed out before, when you said something very similar to this, you're using a subjective standard (then "impressive jumps" and now you've added "apparent ease") by which you can (and apparently are) excluding evidence. It has also been pointed out (and you seemed to accept this point) that high jumps were dangerous, so why would you expect there to be many of the higher, more dangerous, jumps captured on film?

It would be nice to see your answer to this, but I doubt we'll get one.

JayUtah
2010-Feb-15, 12:43 AM
...

My “line of reasoning” has ultimately come down the crux of comparing the impressive jumps made with very apparent ease when the astronauts are partly obscured, yet nothing of comparable ease in any other footage.

No, your line of reasoning is and has always been to invent an arbitrary standard simply so that thing you wish to disbelieve can fail to measure up to it. This was pointed out in the first few responses to your claims, and you have spent the intervening pages running from it.

I have never said media frivolity was the GOAL of the Apollo missions even in my first post.

Oh, but that's the kingpin in your entire tortured line of reasoning. "Bearing in mind that much of the Apollo missions were a media show," you want to create an expectation for low-gravity frivolity. You said that waning interest forced NASA to up the ante for entertainment. How does that not amount to a statement of a goal?

If high leaps can be understood to be unwise because of safety issues, or simply not as entertaining as you would lead is to believe, then you have no basis for saying the record doesn't have enough of them, or that they're suspiciously photographed.

...presumably the intent is never to castigate, ridicule, pour scorn on and/or demonstrate intolerance with a confrontational attitude.

The "confrontational attitude" is enshrined in the rules: you were warned that your ideas would be challenged vigorously. Obviously they're being challenged in a way you're not prepared to deal with, but that's the whole point of challenging ideas. We do that to test how reliable they are. Ideas based on flaws the proponent can't see might mistakenly get accepted as truth.

You're not being ridiculed or scorned.

Being told that I have set out to convert or compel others here is patent nonsense whatever the phraseology used or whatever psychological ploys...

Simply pointing to what you have said is by no means a "psychological ploy."

You use glittering phrases like, "It's logical that..." and "it's a perfectly reasonable expectation," instead of giving us real reasons. Things that truly are logical and reasonable are the easiest to explain in simple, evidentiary terms. You say 3-4 feet is a reasonable jump, but you won't explain where that number comes from. Numbers are the result of measurement or computation; they're not simply plucked out of the air and set up as physical capabilities.

Sometimes one has to accept things simply for what they are. Clearly some of us cannot do that.

That's right. Some of us have to descend to contrived expectations and farfetched claims of Earth-based fakery, just to avoid having to accept that humans have walked on the Moon.

You've made the same argument that has been repeatedly for ten years. Your version of it evolved the same way it has evolved a hundred times before. You are initially unaware of any high jump evidence. So you say it's suspicious they didn't make any attempts. Then when you have to deal with the evidence you just discovered, you change the tune to argue that they were staged somehow.

But since everyone who tries this argument bases it on the same begged question, yours is just as doomed to failure as all the others.

No, totally wrong. It is asking others to give consideration to the question...

And so they did. But when you completely sidestepped those considerations and reiterated your belief as "logical" and "reasonable" anyway, you pretty much obviated any credibility in spinning your approach this way.

...I think it is equally that debates descend into semantics, ridicule, futile counter-argument

You propose to cherish "evidence, logic, and conclusion." But when your major premise is discovered immediately to be an arbitrary expectation and you are challenged on it, your line of reasoning suddenly changes over to how hostile and unfair that challenge is.

My motivations for being here were not transparent and never will be.

Ah, so you're the one playing games. Good to know.

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-15, 01:04 AM
Ah, so you're the one playing games. Good to know.

I think the image I posted says it all. :D

Gobligok
2010-Feb-15, 12:58 PM
...an expectation for low-gravity frivolity.

I'll be filing that one away for future use.

Tensor
2010-Feb-15, 03:43 PM
I'll be filing that one away for future use.

I think just about everyone here has a "JayUtah" file for future reference. He simply puts out too many good quotes to ignore. :)

JayUtah
2010-Feb-15, 04:39 PM
I think just about everyone here has a "JayUtah" file for future reference. He simply puts out too many good quotes to ignore. :)

I may have said this before, but the people I know in real life collect my aphorisms too, sometimes behind my back. When I left one job, my staff presented me with a hardcopy of the secret wiki they'd been keeping with all my memorable quotes in it.

thoth II
2010-Feb-15, 04:53 PM
After being initially skeptical about the moon videos, after looking at them for a year and comparing them with a mythbusters test whereby the actor simulated 1/6 g in a plane, I would say that the videos are absolutely dead on on how actual astronauts on the moon would look in 1/6 g. If you study carefully, you will see that there is a certain motion in their , I'll say ankles, or whatever, when they skip that couldn't be faked. The only possible way to create those videos would be in a plane with the fake moon set in the plane simulating 1/6 g and that is preposterous. So I would say they are real.

Glom
2010-Feb-15, 06:23 PM
The only possible way to create those videos would be in a plane with the fake moon set in the plane simulating 1/6 g and that is preposterous. So I would say they are real.

Preposterous indeed. It would only work for about a minute. The footage, both TV and film is many, many minutes long uninterrupted.

Grashtel
2010-Feb-15, 07:38 PM
Preposterous indeed. It would only work for about a minute. The footage, both TV and film is many, many minutes long uninterrupted.
Plus other little problems like needing a plane that makes an Antonov 225 look tiny to accommodate the huge vacuum chamber required.

Glom
2010-Feb-15, 09:00 PM
Plus other little problems like needing a plane that makes an Antonov 225 look tiny to accommodate the huge vacuum chamber required.

Yes that too.

I think the solution is undeniable. The best venue for faking the moonlanding is on the Moon.

glappkaeft
2010-Feb-15, 09:34 PM
I think the solution is undeniable. The best venue for faking the moonlanding is on the Moon.

Mars or perhaps Mercury might do in a pinch if the studio sets on the Moon happend to be fully booked.

Paul Beardsley
2010-Feb-15, 09:36 PM
The danger of Mars is that it does have a bit of an atmosphere - perhaps enough to make a flag wave.

Daffy
2010-Feb-15, 10:22 PM
Yes that too.

The best venue for faking the moonlanding is on the Moon.

Now there's a line I want to remember...mind if I quote you?

mike alexander
2010-Feb-15, 10:24 PM
The danger of Mars is that it does have a bit of an atmosphere - perhaps enough to make a flag wave.

Plus the possibility you might accidentally get a canal in a background shot.

My incredulity meter pins when I have to consider that anyone accepts there were no real moon landings. It relaxes back when I eventually realize those in such a position have no idea what they are talking about.

Skyfire
2010-Feb-15, 11:57 PM
The danger of Mars is that it does have a bit of an atmosphere - perhaps enough to make a flag wave.

Then there would be the colour, Mars being red, and moon rock grey (mostly) ..... have to film in black and white ....

(But then what about "Hey! There's orange soil!")

Weltraum
2010-Feb-16, 12:33 AM
The danger of Mars is that it does have a bit of an atmosphere - perhaps enough to make a flag wave.

Yar, Mars' atmosphere is considerably thinner than Earth's, but it certainly has winds, and I've even read about giant - perhaps global - sandstorms.

So, ya know, if Earth ever does get around to landing on Mars, it'll probably be more of a challenge of swat down the eventual hoax claims. On the other hand, they can't cry lack of stars during any day shots :lol:

And the gravity there is about 1/3 Earth's, so even jumping high wouldn't be quite as impressive. Dust would probably billow like on Earth when kicked up.

Mm, junk to look forward to..

Weltraum
2010-Feb-16, 12:39 AM
Then there would be the colour, Mars being red, and moon rock grey (mostly) ..... have to film in black and white ....

(But then what about "Hey! There's orange soil!")

Colour would be an interesting one. So far, I've seen kooks say a shot of Mars looks like places on Earth (this was from those refusing to believe there has been any form of mission, manned or otherwise, beyond LEO), meaning that still shots might easily be claimed to be doctored. Naturally, they'll completely ignore the lack of plants or animals in the shots (even Earth deserts often have some kind of plant life visible).

And with modern editing tools, it'd be easy to believe in colour-manipulated video, too, I expect. The more Earth-like the alien world, the less impressive photo and video evidence will become, sadly enough.

Cavorite
2010-Feb-16, 12:43 AM
Mars or perhaps Mercury might do in a pinch if the studio sets on the Moon happend to be fully booked.

There isn't really anywhere in the solar system that can pass as the moon. Mars is right out - wrong colour of both regolith and sky, gravity twice as high, and the occasional dust devil. Mercury would have a fairly similar regolith, but it actually has a smidgen higher surface gravity than Mars thanks to its density. Io is the closest in terms of gravity and vacuum, but with all the constant resurfacing you may be hard pressed to find similar regolith, not to mention the really, really big giveaway hanging in the sky and a radiation environment that actually would kill you in short order. The next closest would be Ganymede, but with a quite different surface composition (what's the ice version of "regolith"? Rego..cryo... I got nothing). Titan is right out.

No, if you're going to fake it, you would be better off doing it on an O'Neill style space habitat where you can tailor the conditions to your hearts content. Of course, then you'd have to deal with the upwards curvature...

Weltraum
2010-Feb-16, 12:49 AM
There isn't really anywhere in the solar system that can pass as the moon. Mars is right out - wrong colour of both regolith and sky, gravity twice as high, and the occasional dust devil. Mercury would have a fairly similar regolith, but it actually has a smidgen higher surface gravity than Mars thanks to its density. Io is the closest in terms of gravity and vacuum, but with all the constant resurfacing you may be hard pressed to find similar regolith, not to mention the really, really big giveaway hanging in the sky and a radiation environment that actually would kill you in short order. The next closest would be Ganymede, but with a quite different surface composition (what's the ice version of "regolith"? Rego..cryo... I got nothing). Titan is right out.

No, if you're going to fake it, you would be better off doing it on an O'Neill style space habitat where you can tailor the conditions to your hearts content. Of course, then you'd have to deal with the upwards curvature...

I'm guessing the proximity of the sun would also be really bad for visiting Mercury, no? Heat extremes and radiation would be considerably worse than on our moon.

Venus would make for a fun visit some day.. :whistle:

LaurelHS
2010-Feb-16, 01:00 AM
Venus would make for a fun visit some day.. :whistle:

But the astronauts might get possessed by murderous aliens and evil eyes might appear on their hands! :eek:

I probably shouldn't believe everything I read in Stephen King stories...

Tobin Dax
2010-Feb-16, 01:22 AM
The next closest would be Ganymede, but with a quite different surface composition (what's the ice version of "regolith"? Rego..cryo... I got nothing).
I'd suggest hydrolith (or maybe pagolith, if my internet searches are to be trusted) since it implies the combination of ice and rock.

Weltraum
2010-Feb-16, 01:39 AM
But the astronauts might get possessed by murderous aliens and evil eyes might appear on their hands! :eek:

I probably shouldn't believe everything I read in Stephen King stories...

Bah, that'd be a sign of life! People would love it. It's just the hot, heavy, acidic, nightmarish atmosphere that worries me.

Count Zero
2010-Feb-16, 01:57 AM
It's just the hot, heavy, acidic, nightmarish atmosphere that worries me.

What? The travel pamphlet I got says, "Let the warm air envelope you in its naturally exfoliating skin conditioners."

Starfury
2010-Feb-16, 02:14 AM
You would never have to exfoliate again. :lol:

mike alexander
2010-Feb-16, 02:17 AM
Or maybe

Let the sweet fresh breezes heal me
As they rove around the girth
Of our lovely mother planet
Of the cool, green hills of Earth.

Swift
2010-Feb-16, 03:06 AM
Folks, I'm not sure "derailed" even describes this thread any longer. I suspect Dimo will not be back, but lets not go completely nuts on this topic either. Please try to stick to posts that have something vaguely to do with the topic at hand.

Thanks,

peter eldergill
2010-Feb-16, 03:23 AM
I may have said this before, but the people I know in real life collect my aphorisms too, sometimes behind my back. When I left one job, my staff presented me with a hardcopy of the secret wiki they'd been keeping with all my memorable quotes in it.

I know this is off topic but...I'm sure I'm not the only one who wants to see this list. Jay, could you post that somewhere or at least PM it to people who want to read it?

My guess is that number one on the list: "Trying is the first step towards failure" :)

Pete

ravens_cry
2010-Feb-16, 06:53 PM
The irony is when they claim it was filmed at Area 51, assuming desert means dunes desert. Well, I've looked up pictures of the area, and it is covered in little bushes of scrub. While hardly verdant, there are plants everywhere (http://www.tellmewhereonearth.com/Web%20Pages/Aliens/Alien%20photos/aliens%20Groom%20Lake%20Rd.jpg). Wrong colour too.

NEOWatcher
2010-Feb-16, 06:58 PM
The irony is when they claim it was filmed at Area 51, assuming desert means dunes desert. Well, I've looked up pictures of the area, and it is covered in little bushes of scrub. While hardly verdant, there are plants everywhere (http://www.tellmewhereonearth.com/Web%20Pages/Aliens/Alien%20photos/aliens%20Groom%20Lake%20Rd.jpg). Wrong colour too.
They hardly look grown at all. Its obvious that they were planted since the 70's to throw you off. :rolleyes:

Weltraum
2010-Feb-16, 07:20 PM
They hardly look grown at all. Its obvious that they were planted since the 70's to throw you off. :rolleyes:

:lol: It never ceases to amaze me just how easy it is to be hoax believer!

Tedward
2010-Feb-16, 07:21 PM
Slight problem with other things in the desert even if they weeded the stuff out. Atmosphere and the Sun, among other things.

Swift
2010-Feb-16, 07:27 PM
Ok, since no one is talking about walking or jumping on the moon, this thread is closed. If you want to discuss the mechanics of faking the landings (such as film locations) pick one of our several past threads about this.

If anyone has a contribution about walking/jumping on the moon, or Dimo, if you return and want to continue the discussion, please report this post.