It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Proving the moon landing was a hoax - John Young is caught 'bare handed'.

page: 12
4
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 12:42 AM

originally posted by: turbonium1

The Cold War was made up, we are the fools who believe it, even now...

You obviously weren't around during it.

posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 01:52 AM
To the Mods: Thank you!!!

posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 02:56 AM

originally posted by: choos

my point here is to point out your ability (or should i say inability) to argue anything physics related..

given your post about using two apex points to calculate local gravity, need i say more?

You have nothing worth saying, so there's no need for you to say more of it.

Dust is not an object.

A particle of dust is an object.

A cloud of dust is not an object.

A cloud of dust is made up of many, many, little particles of dust, and each of those particles, is an object.

A cloud of dust has an 'apex', which is the highest point of the dust cloud. It is not an object, either. It consists of many objects, as many particles of dust make up the 'apex', the highest point of a dust cloud.

Attempting to measure the speed of falling dust -

Looking at dust in a poor quality video, taking its 'apex', to measure accurately its speed of fall, and calculating its gravity...

Cripes, get serious...

I could measure it exactly the same way your clip does it, and I can 'prove' that the dust falls at exactly the same rate as Earth gravity!

It is not proof, as yours is not proof, for the very same reasons.

The dust cannot be measured, for gravity, using this video clip.

An apex cannot be identified, there is nowhere near the definition in the clip to find it.

You seem to think an apex is where you see dust at its highest point in the video. This cannot be disputed, as you see where it is, so that's where it must be.

A thick line shows us that you, indeed, have found exactly where the 'apex' is..

Simple - the dust can 'prove' whatever you want, after you found everything else failed to hold up.

posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 03:37 AM

originally posted by: DJW001

Wow. Just wow. You really think that if the government announced that the KGB murdered JFK, the American people would have called BS? And just let it slide?

The government announced Oswald murdered JFK, end of story.

Most Americans didn't believe their own government, as we know.

If the government had blamed the USSR for it, instead of a 'lone nut', do you think everyone would have believed it?

Wrong.

Americans didn't believe the official story was true, not because of who was blamed for it. The USSR or Oswald, it would not matter at all.

Americans saw their government covering it up. It wouldn't be to cover up for Soviets, so why would Americans believe a story that blamed the USSR? No way.

Americans lost trust in their government, because they covered it up, which is very fishy.

The USSR would have talked, as an enemy, so JFK proved they were not enemies, by being silent.

posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 03:47 AM

Does the material disturbed on the lunar surface, either by the LM engines, astronaut feet or the LRV, behave in the same way as similarly disturbed material on Earth?

A simple yes or no will do.

I'l save you the time, the answer is no. The reason for this is because there is no atmosphere, which means that every single particle is free to follow an arc prescribed by the impact that disturbed it without impedance from air. There is no billowing and particles travel further and higher.

Individual particles may not be able to be analysed, but the aggregate behaviour of the entire volume of disturbed material can be examined.

If you are going to insist that such disturbed material can't be analysed, then anything you say about it is also invalid as a source of support for your claim. Which is it?

John Young: bare hand claim complete BS, yes or no?
edit on 12-9-2015 by onebigmonkey because: question mark

posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 03:49 AM
Back to the issue -

Why does NASA not have any footage of the Apollo spacesuit being pressurized?

That doesn't make any sense, because it would have to be filmed, at some point.

Just silly excuses, as always. Of course.

posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 04:27 AM

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Does the material disturbed on the lunar surface, either by the LM engines, astronaut feet or the LRV, behave in the same way as similarly disturbed material on Earth?

A simple yes or no will do.

I'l save you the time, the answer is no. The reason for this is because there is no atmosphere, which means that every single particle is free to follow an arc prescribed by the impact that disturbed it without impedance from air. There is no billowing and particles travel further and higher.

Individual particles may not be able to be analysed, but the aggregate behaviour of the entire volume of disturbed material can be examined.

The dust behaves exactly the same way on Earth. No difference at all.

Arcs behave the same way, clearly.

Dust would behave very differently in 1/6 g.

Why does dust go into an arc?

Will dust go into an arc, without an atmosphere?

See the flaw in your argument, now?

Dust goes up into the air, and arcs, due to the atmospheric resistance.

Without an atmosphere, like on the moon, for example, there is no resistance.

So the dust will not go into an arc on the moon, because the moon has no atmosphere, and it has no atmospheric resistance to create an arc.

posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 04:35 AM

Hi there and you are totally wrong.

WHY does any flying object (dust, paperplane, stone, etc.) without its own engine DROP in an ARC?

Because "In physics, the ballistic trajectory of a projectile is the path that a thrown or launched projectile or missile will take under the action of gravity, neglecting all other forces, such as friction from aerodynamic drag, without propulsion."
Source

in other words: It will be forced back to the ground by gravity.

posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 04:47 AM
The rover shows they are on Earth...

Dust goes into an arc. Dust can't arc without an atmosphere to create it, from the atmosphere's resistance.

posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 05:08 AM

originally posted by: ManFromEurope

Hi there and you are totally wrong.

WHY does any flying object (dust, paperplane, stone, etc.) without its own engine DROP in an ARC?

Because "In physics, the ballistic trajectory of a projectile is the path that a thrown or launched projectile or missile will take under the action of gravity, neglecting all other forces, such as friction from aerodynamic drag, without propulsion."
Source

in other words: It will be forced back to the ground by gravity.

But the moon has little gravity, so it cannot arc exactly like an arc in Earth's gravity, and yet it's the very same arcing

posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 06:08 AM

originally posted by: turbonium1
Dust goes up into the air, and arcs, due to the atmospheric resistance.

Without an atmosphere, like on the moon, for example, there is no resistance.

So the dust will not go into an arc on the moon, because the moon has no atmosphere, and it has no atmospheric resistance to create an arc.

Good grief, again you show your complete ignorance of physics!

So how about you tell us how dust will behave in a vacuum then.

posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 06:32 AM

originally posted by: turbonium1
The rover shows they are on Earth...

Dust goes into an arc. Dust can't arc without an atmosphere to create it, from the atmosphere's resistance.

What utter BS. Of course it arcs as the effect of the moons gravity pulls it downwards. It follows a well known projectile path. Even on earth dust would do this BUT because of the atmosphere the velocity of the dust is slowed and thus arcs downwards faster. It also arcs downwards faster on earth due to the higher gravity.

So dust arcs in both cases just differently.
edit on 12/9/2015 by yorkshirelad because: clarity

posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 06:35 AM

This is a quite staggering display of ignorance.

A ballistic arc is not a product of atmosphere, but atmosphere will influence the behaviour of particles moving through such an arc.

Particles moving through air will encounter tesustance. Where is that resistance demonstrable in the rover footage?

Is the arc going to be bigger or smaller in lower gravity?

edit on 12-9-2015 by onebigmonkey because: Tyops

posted on Sep, 12 2015 @ 07:56 PM

originally posted by: turbonium1

Attempting to measure the speed of falling dust -

Looking at dust in a poor quality video, taking its 'apex', to measure accurately its speed of fall, and calculating its gravity...

Cripes, get serious...

too bad you can see roughly the highest point that most of the dust reaches..

or do you want me to believe that that point was just one super large dust particle?

I could measure it exactly the same way your clip does it, and I can 'prove' that the dust falls at exactly the same rate as Earth gravity!

It is not proof, as yours is not proof, for the very same reasons.

actually if you done it properly and was able to show that it falls according to local earth gravity i would have shut up completely.. too bad for you that you simply dont understand what is happening.

The dust cannot be measured, for gravity, using this video clip.

it can be estimated quite accurately.. why?? because it is giving you an average, do you know what an average is?

An apex cannot be identified, there is nowhere near the definition in the clip to find it.

only to yourself and your fellow visually impaired friends.

You seem to think an apex is where you see dust at its highest point in the video. This cannot be disputed, as you see where it is, so that's where it must be.

that is the average height reached of several million lunar regolith particles.

so if you were to film one particle and eject it with forces varying a certain amount, several million times this is roughly what you would see.
but no.. averaging is not good enough for you.. you have to have a single particle.. in one single test..

A thick line shows us that you, indeed, have found exactly where the 'apex' is..

Simple - the dust can 'prove' whatever you want, after you found everything else failed to hold up.

"exactly" where the apex is?? you are wrong, it is roughly, if it was exactly then we would need the exact time, then we would be able to calculated local lunar gravity to the nth degree.. but we dont need to be that accurate, since lunar gravity and earths gravity are so different we are only comparing not working out local lunar gravity, even with your slowed theory the difference between the two figures will be too great to have it so "exact" as you put it.

if it can prove whatever i want then it can prove whatever you want.. except it cant.. use your magnificent "knowledge" to show me with calculations

also what happened to your other "thick apex line"??

you clearly posted earlier that you need two apex marks and the difference between them to calculate local gravity..

remember what i said about letting you prove to everyone that you are 100% completely incompetent when it comes to anything physics related??

Dust goes up into the air, and arcs, due to the atmospheric resistance.

Without an atmosphere, like on the moon, for example, there is no resistance.

So the dust will not go into an arc on the moon, because the moon has no atmosphere, and it has no atmospheric resistance to create an arc.

here you go again, spouting about something you have no clue about.
saved for a good laugh and reference, i really wish i saved the post you made about centrifugal force not existing without gravity.
edit on 12-9-2015 by choos because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 03:01 AM

What utter BS. Of course it arcs as the effect of the moons gravity pulls it downwards. It follows a well known projectile path. Even on earth dust would do this BUT because of the atmosphere the velocity of the dust is slowed and thus arcs downwards faster. It also arcs downwards faster on earth due to the higher gravity.

So dust arcs in both cases just differently.

That's ridiculous.

The Apollo dust is NO DIFFERENT than dust on Earth - becuase it IS on Earth.

The footage of the lunar rover is at 66.66% normal speed, that's why you think the dust is 'slower' than it is on Earth.

Put the footage up to 1.5x speed, and it 'miraculously' becomes normal, Earth speed! That goes for the rover, the DUST, and the astronauts' movements.

The Apollo dust arcs EXACTLY the same on Earth, too.

Compare it to dirt bike racing, or dune buggy racing, on a dirt track. This proves it is the very same as Apollo dust, at 1.5x speed.

Do you seriously believe dust, astronaut movement, rover movement, in 1/6g, with no atmosphere, would perfectly match dust, etc. in Earth's 1g, atmosphere environment, simply by speeding up the footage by (er, an exact) 1.5x speed?

Well, that's what you're arguing here, because you think they were on the moon.

Mythbusters' jump on Earth, using wires, somehow nearly matched Young's jump, supposedly done on the moon, simply by slowing doen Mythbusters' jump to 66.66% normal speed. Likewise, putting Young's jump to 1.5x speed matches the Mythbusters jump on Earth, within a fraction of a second.

And Mythbusters was not even TRYING to match it! They did so, while they were trying to prove the moon landings were real...very ironic, to say the least.

Btw, it is not by chance that 66.66% speed was used for the Apollo footage. Well, that was after after they first used 50% speed for Apollo 11. Which is also not by chance, either.

Putting film to half-speed was very simple, and that's why they did it...at first.

They decided it would be better to speed it up a bit more than half-speed, while still being slower than normal Earth speed.

The 66.66% speed is what they used, for all the later Apollo missions.

How come?

Andy Warhol, for example, showed how to do it..

Warhol made a film, which was over 2 hours long, before the Apollo moon landings.

He first shot his film in a camera running at 36 fps. He then put that film into another camera, which ran the film at 24 fps. 24 divided by 36, results in - you guessed it - a film running at 66.66% speed!

So now you know how they did it. You can see that it matches perfectly at 1.5x speed, because they slowed it down to 66.66% speed, originally. You know a 1/6g, atmosphere-less environment, does not, will not, CANNOT, perfectly simulate human movement, dust speed, etc, in Earth's environment, simply by putting it to 1.5 x speed.

You now know all this, yet you will try anything to excuse the plain, obvious reality, right in front of you..

posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 03:11 AM
Look at the Apollo 11 footage at 2x speed, and they're moving at normal, Earth speed.
Now, look at Apollo 15, or 16, footage, at 2x speed. They are moving FASTER than normal, Earth speed.

It can't be more obvious, but you'll again deny it. You'll insist it is normal speed, not any faster..

Living in denial, no matter what the evidence shows you.

posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 03:25 AM

originally posted by: turbonium1
Living in denial, no matter what the evidence shows you.

That is just a good description of yourself!!!

posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 09:51 PM

originally posted by: turbonium1

The footage of the lunar rover is at 66.66% normal speed, that's why you think the dust is 'slower' than it is on Earth.

another brilliant quote by the "genius"

The Apollo dust arcs EXACTLY the same on Earth, too.

exactly?? previously you tried to make it like it is impossible to measure dust.. and now you want to believe that the apollo dust arcs EXACTLY the same on Earth... you make it sound like you have been able to finally measure it..

p.s. only just realised where this thread now resides.
edit on 14-9-2015 by choos because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 07:40 PM

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

The footage of the lunar rover is at 66.66% normal speed, that's why you think the dust is 'slower' than it is on Earth.

another brilliant quote by the "genius"

No, I just understand the reality...

The Apollo dust arcs EXACTLY the same on Earth, too.

originally posted by: choos
exactly?? previously you tried to make it like it is impossible to measure dust.. and now you want to believe that the apollo dust arcs EXACTLY the same on Earth... you make it sound like you have been able to finally measure it..

You are trying to put words in my mouth, since I didn't say that, whatsoever.

originally posted by: choos
p.s. only just realised where this thread now resides.

The moon hoax issue is taboo, and no discussion of points will be worthwhile...

So it would appear to be here, sadly.

posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 02:49 AM

originally posted by: turbonium1

No, I just understand the reality...

reality huh??

this is a quote according to your reality
"So the dust will not go into an arc on the moon, because the moon has no atmosphere, and it has no atmospheric resistance to create an arc."

i know you dont see anything wrong with it, but nearly everyone else has, so im guessing all the people that pointed out how wrong you are have a different reality to you.

You are trying to put words in my mouth, since I didn't say that, whatsoever.

put what words?? saying that dust arcs exactly as they would on earth?? how can you confirm it arcs exactly the same as on earth without measuring?? or is your definition of exact not the same as everyone elses in your "reality"?

The moon hoax issue is taboo, and no discussion of points will be worthwhile...

So it would appear to be here, sadly.

its not taboo.. its just the "arguments" that are brought up are in general completely wrong and requires complete ignorance of scientific knowledge.

it just so happens that you feel that it is taboo because you come up with "arguments" such as dust only arcs when an atmosphere is present.. you just dont realise that this is a "face palm argument" and so you continually experience your discussions being put into the taboo category.. its not that no one is allowing it, its more that you yourself are sabotaging it with your "arguments" (you just dont realise it)

that is the sort of "arguments" that moon hoax theorists come up with.. such "arguments" are not arguments they almost are not even arguments based on ignorance.. its plain stupidity.
edit on 18-9-2015 by choos because: (no reason given)

top topics

4