I need some help with the analysis of acceleration

[Cosmored]

At the 2:00 time mark of this video...


...there's as formula that we're discussing on this page of another thread.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4862796&posted=1#post4862796

Look what this guy says in post #1930.

What we can do is use a very exaggerated time and height, using both variables that give the most favourable result for cosmored's theory.

We are aiming for the gravity to come out with as high a figure as possible, so that when we speed it up, the sped up figures give Earth gravity or close enough.



Now, let's look at this latest example...

Gravity = 2 x height/ time squared.

To get the most favourable result, you need your heighest height estimate and your lowest time estimate.

The highest height that dust goes up estimated by you is 5ft (no way can it be higher than that, it is level with the chest camera) = 1.5 metres.

Shortest time estimate is Time = 1.2 seconds squared = 1.44

Gravity = 3 / 1.44 =2.1m s^2

Lunar gravity is 1.62m s^2



Convert the speed of the film as per cosmored x1.5 and it should be close to Earth gravity

67% = 0.8 seconds, squared = 0.64

gravity = 3 / 0.64 = 4.69m s^2 gravity


Not even half of what it should be.

With David Percy plucked from his arse x2 it is still only 8.333m s^2, sounds close but it is a big difference in terms of visibility.

Does this make any sense to anyone here? This discussion started a few pages back.

My understanding is that if we know the time and the height, we can calculate the gravity. If we know the height and the gravity, we can calculate the time. If we know the time and the gravity, we can calculate the height. If rough estimates are used for the time and the height, I can't see how this shows us anything. Am I missing something here? Any help will be appreciated. My math is a little rusty.

 

[Betamax]

At the 2:00 time mark of this video...


...there's as formula that we're discussing on this page of another thread.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4862796&posted=1#post4862796

Look what this guy says in post #1930.

Does this make any sense to anyone here? This discussion started a few pages back.

My understanding is that if we know the time and the height, we can calculate the gravity. If we know the height and the gravity, we can calculate the time. If we know the time and the gravity, we can calculate the height. If rough estimates are used for the time and the height, I can't see how this shows us anything. Am I missing something here? Any help will be appreciated. My math is a little rusty.

Hi Cosmored,

It looks like the guy you are debating with is trying to disprove your theory.

You state that the footage was slowed down to 67% to simulate gravity on the Moon, but this is incorrect. The footage would need to be slowed down to 41% to do this.

For your theory to be correct, the measurements of gravity would need to be a figure that when sped up 1.5 times would equal 9.8 metres per second per second.

That would mean the video of all the Moon walks would need to show a gravity of 4.35 metres per second. The video you seem to be discussing shows motion consistent with Moon freefall speeds. For what it's worth I can't see how your theory can be correct.

On Earth a ball will drop 4.9 metres in one second.
t = √2h/g = 1

Now you want gravity to do that drop in 1.5 seconds.
G = 2h/t^2 = 9.8/2.25 = 4.35 metres per second per second.


Hope this helps.

 

[Cosmored]

You state that the footage was slowed down to 67% to simulate gravity on the Moon, but this is incorrect. The footage would need to be slowed down to 41% to do this.

To show actual moon gravity, you are probably right. I never said the moon footage showed actual moon gravity. There are some other anomalies such as these. This is an excerpt from post #1 of the thread I posted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's a noticeable difference in the body movements in these two clips.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11v.1101330.rm

What I hypothesize is that a fifty percent slow-motion was used in Apollo 11 to simulate lunar gravity. Later, they improved their methods of simulating lunar gravity and started using a combination of slow-motion and support wires. The slow-motion in the later missions might not have been exactly half-speed. It might have been sixty five or seventy percent of natural speed. It looked better but it was inconsistent with Apollo 11 footage. The inconsistency is apparent.

At around the 21 minute mark of this video the above footage from Apollo 11 can be seen played at double speed.
http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=4135126565081757736

It can also be seen in this video at around the 30 minute 40 second mark.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8455110982587487066#

(The above video "A funny thing happened on the way to the moon" keeps going on and off-line. If the above link is dead, click here)
http://video.google.es/videosearch?q=a+funny+thing+happened+on+the+way+to+the+moon&hl=es&emb=0&aq=1&oq=a+funny+thin#

It looks just like movement in Earth gravity.
--------------------------------
When the footage from this clip is doubled, the movements look unnaturally fast.


Here it is doubled.


When the Apollo 11 footage is doubled, the movements look natural. This makes it very clear that they used a simple fifty percent slow-motion to simulate lunar gravity in Apollo 11 and a faster slow-motion (around 67 percent according to Jarrah White's calculations)...


...combined with wire supports in the later missions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How do you explain the way the Apollo 11 footage looks when the speed is doubled? The theory is that it was shown at a 50% slow-motion which might fool the public, but not scientists as it wouldn't look like real moon gravity.
Also, how do you explain the way the movement from the later missions looks when the speed is doubled? When the Apollo 11 footage is doubled in speed, the movements look like normal Earth movements. When the footage from the later missions is doubled, the movements look unnaturally fast. Isn't this consistent with the theory that the Apollo 11 missions were faked with 50% slow-motion and the later missions were faked with 67% slow-motion?

Also, what do you think of what this guy says in post #1930 in that thread?
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487&page=75

What we can do is use a very exaggerated time and height, using both variables that give the most favourable result for cosmored's theory.

We are aiming for the gravity to come out with as high a figure as possible, so that when we speed it up, the sped up figures give Earth gravity or close enough.



Now, let's look at this latest example...

Gravity = 2 x height/ time squared.

To get the most favourable result, you need your heighest height estimate and your lowest time estimate.

The highest height that dust goes up estimated by you is 5ft (no way can it be higher than that, it is level with the chest camera) = 1.5 metres.

Shortest time estimate is Time = 1.2 seconds squared = 1.44

Gravity = 3 / 1.44 =2.1m s^2

Lunar gravity is 1.62m s^2



Convert the speed of the film as per cosmored x1.5 and it should be close to Earth gravity

67% = 0.8 seconds, squared = 0.64

gravity = 3 / 0.64 = 4.69m s^2 gravity


Not even half of what it should be.

With David Percy plucked from his arse x2 it is still only 8.333m s^2, sounds close but it is a big difference in terms of visibility.

Does this make any sense to you?

Thanks for answering. Any help is appreciated.

 

[Betamax]

To show actual moon gravity, you are probably right. I never said the moon footage showed actual moon gravity.
*snip*

Wowie, that's an awful lot of questions!

Firstly, I already answered your first post - the figures are correct. The guy seems to be attempting to show that the footage sped up does not show Earth gravity.

I have to agree with him. For the most part, any footage I have seen of the Moon missions looks pretty much as it would under 1/6th Earth gravity. I really don't want to get into a debate on whether you think it was a hoax, as that is just nonsense.

The only point I can address and will address in your list is the speeded up 2 times for Apollo 11.
Back to the math from my other post:-

On Earth a ball will drop 4.9 metres in one second.
t = √2h/g = 1

Now you want gravity to do that drop in 2.0 seconds.
G = 2h/t^2 = 9.8/4 = 2.45 metres per second per second.

If you want it to equal Moon gravity do that drop in 2.45 seconds.
G = 2h/t^2 = 9.8/6.0025 = 1.63 metres per second per second.

I guess if you want to prove Apollo 11 is half speed, you will need to show gravity of 2.45 metres per second per second.

 

[Cosmored]

I guess if you want to prove Apollo 11 is half speed, you will need to show gravity of 2.45 metres per second per second.

I don't know of any Apollo 11 footage that shows dropped objects. Also, how could we measure the distance precisely and time the drop precisely?

The last throw in this clip is the only one that we can see head on.


How could we get a precise measure of the distance and the speed?

Once we have the precise measurements, we could plug them into equations such as these.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/traj.html

 

[Betamax]

I don't know of any Apollo 11 footage that shows dropped objects. Also, how could we measure the distance precisely and time the drop precisely?

The last throw in this clip is the only one that we can see head on.


How could we get a precise measure of the distance and the speed?

If somebody asked me to do this as a project, I would first of all download the clips and put them into a player such as Windows Movie Maker. You then time the motion to or from apex. That would be pretty precise for the time.

The height is just going to be guesswork. Again if it were me, I would use the old friend Occam's razer. I would run the figures for Moon gravity and determine the height.

At this point you should be able to look at each piece of footage and determine whether the height from each equation is a good ball park figure, or whether it is significantly and provably wrong. If it looks fairly accurate, you would have to say the footage is filmed in a 1/6th gravity. If it wasn't, you would suspect a problem.

Just doing some rough figures on those clips, they look pretty consistent with Moon gravity.

One final thing I would suggest is that you speed the clip up 150% as you claim, and take your readings from that. According to your theory they should all be Earth freefall speeds.

I am totally biased since this conspiracy is one of the silliest I have ever seen, but those clips are not falling at Earth freefall even with the speed doubled. Now you may ask me how I can be so sure, the answer is on the same channel as the clip you showed:-

http://www.youtube.com/user/bertlapollo#p/u/1/ZnP2ek47KRI

That is not Earth freefall speed it is too slow, even visually. Case proven.

 

[Cosmored]

Thanks Betamax. This will give me something to analyze for a while. There's one more thing though–the proof in post #1.

I might be mistaken but I think there's a flaw in his calculations.

If I'm not mistaken, if you want to calculate the gravity with the 5 ft height figure, the time that it takes an object to fall 5 ft has to be measured very precisely. Then we plug the height and time figures into the gravity equation (Gravity equals height doubled divided by time squared).

If we want to calculate the gravity with the 1.2 time figure, we have to precisely measure an object falling for the first 1.2 seconds and then precisely calculate the distance it took. Then we have to plug those two figures into the gravity equation.

If I'm not mistaken, if you take to estimates that don't correspond to each other, it will yield a meaningless figure.

Am I right, about this? Do you think the work I posted in post #1 is valid?

 

[Cosmored]

You then time the motion to or from apex. That would be pretty precise for the time.

The height is just going to be guesswork. Again if it were me, I would use the old friend Occam's razer. I would run the figures for Moon gravity and determine the height.

I may be wrong but, if you're going to measure the time while assuming it's moon gravity, if it really is 67% slow-motion, won't the figure for time be wrong?

I want to thank you for being patient with me; it's been years since I did any serious math and I'm pretty rusty. Even then, I had a hard time visualizing things. When we did max-min problems, I could work out the equations with no problem but when I had to take a situation and form the equation, I could only do the simplest ones.

 

[Betamax]

Thanks Betamax. This will give me something to analyze for a while. There's one more thing though–the proof in post #1.

I might be mistaken but I think there's a flaw in his calculations.

If I'm not mistaken, if you want to calculate the gravity with the 5 ft height figure, the time that it takes an object to fall 5 ft has to be measured very precisely. Then we plug the height and time figures into the gravity equation (Gravity equals height doubled divided by time squared).

If we want to calculate the gravity with the 1.2 time figure, we have to precisely measure an object falling for the first 1.2 seconds and then precisely calculate the distance it took. Then we have to plug those two figures into the gravity equation.

If I'm not mistaken, if you take to estimates that don't correspond to each other, it will yield a meaningless figure.

Am I right, about this? Do you think the work I posted in post #1 is valid?

Hi Cosmored,

You are over thinking this. If the objective is to take accurate figures of freefall, you obviously need 2 components to be precise.

In the case you present, the object appears to be to obtain a figure that should represent your theory. The figures in your first post are accurate enough.

You have your theory that the footage has been filmed in Earth gravity, which as you know is 9.8m s^2. Now when you slow the footage by 67% to try to hoax Moon gravity, that isn't going to work. You are going to see 4.35m s^2 (I did the math in the post above).

Conversely if you take the footage as presented, it needs to show freefall of 4.35m s^2, so that when you speed the film up 150%, it becomes 9.8m s^2.

From what I can see of the exchange in that thread, your opponent is attempting to disprove your theory, by taking a range of figures and using the limits that give the highest possible gravity.

Taken from your quote in post#1:-

To get the most favourable result, you need your highest height estimate and your lowest time estimate.

I can confirm that statement as true. It basically puts the highest number (numerator) in the top of the division and the lowest one in the bottom (denominator). This gives the highest number.

Example:- 4/3 and 5/2 = 1.333 and 2.5 respectively.


I hope this helps.

 

[Betamax]

I may be wrong but, if you're going to measure the time while assuming it's moon gravity, if it really is 67% slow-motion, won't the figure for time be wrong?

You simply take the time and height from the footage presented, whatever speed it runs at.

If you want to work out the time when it is sped up you need to divide the time component by the factor you speed it up by.

Examples:-
Time normal is 1.5 seconds. Speed up 1.5 = 1.5/1.5 = 1
Time normal is 1 second. Speed up 1.5 = 1/1.5 = 0.666

 

[Cosmored]

To get the most favourable result, you need your highest height estimate and your lowest time estimate.
-----------------------
I can confirm that statement as true. It basically puts the highest number (numerator) in the top of the division and the lowest one in the bottom (denominator). This gives the highest number.

There's one thing I'd like to clarify.

Don't the figures have to be tested with figures that correspond to them? It seems to me that two rough estimates for height and time aren't going to correspond and are going to give a meaningless figure for gravity. To test whether the figure for height is valid, wouldn't we have to precisely measure the time it takes an object to fall that far in the footage and then plug those two figures into the gravity formula? And to test whether the figure for time is valid, wouldn't we have to precisely measure the distance covered in said time and then plug that and the time figure into the formula for gravity?

Maybe I'm missing something but I just can't visualize how plugging the rough estimations for height and time into the gravity formula is going to give a valid figure for gravity. My common sense tells me those two figures would have to be tested in separate equations–not the same equation.

I haven't done any serious math for years so I hope you'll be patient with me.

 

[Betamax]

There's one thing I'd like to clarify.

Don't the figures have to be tested with figures that correspond to them? It seems to me that two rough estimates for height and time aren't going to correspond and are going to give a meaningless figure for gravity. To test whether the figure for height is valid, wouldn't we have to precisely measure the time it takes an object to fall that far in the footage and then plug those two figures into the gravity formula? And to test whether the figure for time is valid, wouldn't we have to precisely measure the distance covered in said time and then plug that and the time figure into the formula for gravity?

Maybe I'm missing something but I just can't visualize how plugging the rough estimations for height and time into the gravity formula is going to give a valid figure for gravity. My common sense tells me those two figures would have to be tested in separate equations–not the same equation.

I haven't done any serious math for years so I hope you'll be patient with me.

Hi Cosmored,

You are getting confused with definitive gravity for the Moon or Earth and speculative figures from data ranges.

This is exactly how you determine a range of potential values, you look at highest and lowest variables then take combinations of equations accordingly. What you get is the highest value possible, and the lowest value possible.

If the objective was to take figures that correlate with Moon gravity, a certain height will require a certain time, and a certain time will require a certain height. But you don't want that when you are trying to find the highest figure attainable for gravity, from two ranges of figures.

I'm not sure what else I can say on this, it all seems fairly straightforward.

Best of luck

 

[Cosmored]

I appreciate all your help Betamax.

From what I can see of the exchange in that thread, your opponent is attempting to disprove your theory, by taking a range of figures and using the limits that give the highest possible gravity.

Do you think he has actually proven that the footage couldn't be Earth gravity slowed to 67%? This is from post #1983 on page 77.

If you plug in the heighest height and the lowest time that is the highest gravity you can obtain. If you plug the lowest height and the longest time in, that is the lowest gravity you can obtain.

All taken from Apollo footage. If you then convert the highest gravity you can get to your formula x1.5 (Jarrah White's actually), it is nowhere near Earth gravity.

Any combination of any of the heights or times between the ranges you gave will fall between the maximum it can be and the minimum it can be.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487&page=77

 

[Betamax]

I appreciate all your help Betamax.
Do you think he has actually proven that the footage couldn't be Earth gravity slowed to 67%?

Hi Cosmored,

I would have to say that based on the figures presented and the ranges that they produce, your theory of footage slowed down to 67% is untenable.

As I showed with a little math from post 1:-

On Earth a ball will drop 4.9 metres in one second.
t = √2h/g = 1

Now you want gravity to do that drop in 1.5 seconds.
G = 2h/t^2 = 9.8/2.25 = 4.35 metres per second per second.

For your theory to hold up, the gravity must be 4.35m s^2 in the visible footage, as when sped up 150% it then becomes 9.8m s^2. As I also said previously, most of the thrown items are roughly in the correct order of magnitude for Moon gravity.

Your goal is to find a piece of footage that shows that freefall speed of 4.35m s^2, otherwise I'm afraid your theory is unsupportable.

Best regards and a Happy New Year to you.

 

[Cosmored]

Thanks for your input. I've never seen any precise measurements for movements on the moon. There's one that looks easy to measure at the 9:00 time mark in this clip.


I don't know how to use Windows Movie Maker. I think this is up in the air until we can be sure that we have some precise measurements. I think the visual evidence in my second post pretty much shows fakery without doing any calculations anyway.

 

[Cosmored]

I appreciate your help Betamax. There's one thing on which I'm still not clear. This proof that I posted in post #1.

What we can do is use a very exaggerated time and height, using both variables that give the most favourable result for cosmored's theory.

We are aiming for the gravity to come out with as high a figure as possible, so that when we speed it up, the sped up figures give Earth gravity or close enough.



Now, let's look at this latest example...

Gravity = 2 x height/ time squared.

To get the most favourable result, you need your heighest height estimate and your lowest time estimate.

The highest height that dust goes up estimated by you is 5ft (no way can it be higher than that, it is level with the chest camera) = 1.5 metres.

Shortest time estimate is Time = 1.2 seconds squared = 1.44

Gravity = 3 / 1.44 =2.1m s^2

Lunar gravity is 1.62m s^2



Convert the speed of the film as per cosmored x1.5 and it should be close to Earth gravity

67% = 0.8 seconds, squared = 0.64

gravity = 3 / 0.64 = 4.69m s^2 gravity


Not even half of what it should be.

With David Percy plucked from his arse x2 it is still only 8.333m s^2, sounds close but it is a big difference in terms of visibility.

I thought this made no sense at all but you said this.

You are getting confused with definitive gravity for the Moon or Earth and speculative figures from data ranges.

I have to admit that I'm still confused. Do you think this person actually proved that the footage in this video...

(1:00 time mark)

... couldn't possible have been filmed on Earth and slowed to 67 percent slow-motion with the above proof? Also, in what math course is the idea of "Speculative figures from data ranges" in a situation such as this studied? I took algebra, trig, and the first semester of calculus thirty years ago and I don't recall ever seeing this. This is a whole new concept for me.

You seem to know your math. I hope this request isn't a lot of trouble.

Thanks

 

[Betamax]

I appreciate your help Betamax. There's one thing on which I'm still not clear. This proof that I posted in post #1.


I thought this made no sense at all but you said this.


I have to admit that I'm still confused. Do you think this person actually proved that the footage in this video...

(1:00 time mark)

... couldn't possible have been filmed on Earth and slowed to 67 percent slow-motion with the above proof? Also, in what math course is the idea of "Speculative figures from data ranges" in a situation such as this studied? I took algebra, trig, and the first semester of calculus thirty years ago and I don't recall ever seeing this. This is a whole new concept for me.

You seem to know your math. I hope this request isn't a lot of trouble.

Thanks

Hi Cosmored,

The figures quoted in your first post look very reasonable, and the math is correct.

Your opponent is doing what you yourself should do to prove your theory. He has taken the highest and lowest heights and times that could reasonably be deduced and taken the ones most likely to prove your case. They should equate to 4.35m s^2 or very close to that, so that when sped up by 150% they then equate to Earth's 9.8m s^2.

The "speculative" reference was in relation to the ranges of figures deduced by reasonable estimate, which in turn were used to produce a range of highest and lowest gravity readings obtainable.

As can clearly be seen they do not come close to that figure, so I would say your opponent has proven your theory is incorrect. Indeed, from my own perspective, the motion is entirely consistent with what one would expect on the Lunar surface.

 

[Cosmored]

Sorry to bother you again Betamax. I have to say that I still don't understand this method of verifying whether the height and speed of a falling object are consistent with moon gravity, or with Earth footage shown at 67% slow-motion. In what math course is this method covered. I don't remember having seen it used anywhere. The only way I can see to calculate on what planet an object is when it falls is to precisely measure the height and time and plug the figures into the gravity formula. If it's the moon, it will yield a figure of somewhere around 1.66. If it's 67% slow-motion of Earth footage, the figure will be around 4.37. I just can't visualize how taking the maximum possible height and the lowest possible time and plugging them into the gravity formula will tell us anything. Isn't the gravity formula only for calculating gravity with precisely measured heights and times?

 

[Betamax]

Sorry to bother you again Betamax. I have to say that I still don't understand this method of verifying whether the height and speed of a falling object are consistent with moon gravity, or with Earth footage shown at 67% slow-motion. In what math course is this method covered. I don't remember having seen it used anywhere. The only way I can see to calculate on what planet an object is when it falls is to precisely measure the height and time and plug the figures into the gravity formula. If it's the moon, it will yield a figure of somewhere around 1.66. If it's 67% slow-motion of Earth footage, the figure will be around 4.37. I just can't visualize how taking the maximum possible height and the lowest possible time and plugging them into the gravity formula will tell us anything. Isn't the gravity formula only for calculating gravity with precisely measured heights and times?

Hi Cosmored,

This is really just basic data analysis.

Imagine a math question that asks the following:-
"You are given the time ranges of 0.9 seconds to 1.6 seconds for an object falling from a fixed point. The height range falls between 1.4 metres and 2 metres.
Find the heighest and lowest gravitational forces possible with these ranges."

Now, there is a very easy way to do this. The highest height and shortest time will yield the highest gravity, and the shortest height and longest time will yield the lowest gravity.

I put together a quick graph showing how this works visually(yellow would support your theory, light blue would support Moon gravity, white is fairly inconclusive but can be argued if it is close:

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/bf807ccf7a.gif


It is the perfect way to demonstrate the range of gravities obtainable from a piece of footage. It is very easy to work out elapsed time for an event(or at least a fairly tight span). There are a number of ways to also pick a range of heights (I use IrfanView).

I'm really not sure what more I can say on this. The theory that 150% will make Earth freefall speeds is clearly a long way from being accurate.

 

[Cosmored]

I'm sorry to keep bugging you Betamax. I hope you don't mind giving me your opinion to this guy's analysis of this.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4879654&postcount=2054

Here's his analysis.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4880051&postcount=2055

I appreciate all your help.

 

[Cosmored]

One more thing. I have to say I'm still confused about post #19. If I'm not mistaken, it's necessary to take a precise measurement in order to use that chart. The guy who put forward that proof I posted in post #1 of this thread said that he could prove it wasn't Earth speed shown at 67% slow-motion with that proof without the exact figures.

I'm probably missing something. I hope you'll be patient with me as I haven't done any serious math for thirty years.

Thanks

 

[Betamax]

I'm sorry to keep bugging you Betamax. I hope you don't mind giving me your opinion to this guy's analysis of this.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4879654&postcount=2054

Here's his analysis.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4880051&postcount=2055

I appreciate all your help.

Hi Cosmored,

Just a quick summary. It looks like you are attempting to dispute the efficacy of the data analysis by taking a piece of footage from Earth, slowing it down to give 4.35m s^2, finding extremes and converting back to give a much higher gravity than Earth.

It actually does the opposite. It proves the process, because none of the footage filmed on the Moon will give such extreme ranges. The salient part of this process is not that the extremes of the footage will give extremes of gravity, but that from those extremes will be visibly the 4.35m s^2 you are looking for, and when sped up 9.8m s^2 equating to Earth.

Your opponents reply once again points this out. I have to agree with him, the vital difference is that visibly slowed down Earth footage would be obvious in your experiment, but not visible at all on the Apollo examples given.

I will download that footage and post as accurate an analysis as I can.

 

[Betamax]

One more thing. I have to say I'm still confused about post #19. If I'm not mistaken, it's necessary to take a precise measurement in order to use that chart. The guy who put forward that proof I posted in post #1 of this thread said that he could prove it wasn't Earth speed shown at 67% slow-motion with that proof without the exact figures.

I'm probably missing something. I hope you'll be patient with me as I haven't done any serious math for thirty years.

Thanks

No, you do not need precision to make a chart. You need to take the highest and lowest of each variable visible from the footage. Once you plot the highest and lowest you could get, in that range should occur the 4.35m s^2 you are looking for.

 

[Betamax]

I will download that footage and post as accurate an analysis as I can.

The footage I downloaded shows the following determinable parameters:-

The time is somewhere between 1.16 seconds and 1.32 seconds. Here are frames 29 and 33 of a 25fps sequence. I cannot say 100% exactly where the apex is, but I would put the figure between those two observable points.

[PLAIN]http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/8269/kickeddustframe0029.png
[PLAIN]http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/3079/kickeddustframe0033.png

The height appears to be level with the astronauts midriff area as indicated by the line.

[PLAIN]http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/2766/kickeddustframe0030.png

About 1.2 to 1.3 metres. I can't really get any more accurate than that, but I can say with a very strong degree of accuracy that the variables do not lie outside those ranges.

What this indicates, is that the footage indicates gravity between the two ranges 1.38 to 1.94m s^2

It is very conclusive that this could not have been slowed down by 66.66%, it is also close enough to be able to dismiss it being slowed down by 50%.

 

[Cosmored]

No, you do not need precision to make a chart. You need to take the highest and lowest of each variable visible from the footage. Once you plot the highest and lowest you could get, in that range should occur the 4.35m s^2 you are looking for.

This is easy enough to understand. The part I'm still having trouble visualizing is why taking the highest height estimate and the lowest time estimate and plugging those figures into the gravity equation will yield a figure that tells us that.

That's what this guy did here.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4857977&postcount=1930

I only see one figure. If two figures are needed, what's the other figure?

I would think we'd have to take the highest height estimate and estimate a time that looks consistent with that and plug those figures into the gravity formula and then take the lowest height estimate and estimate a time that looks consistent with that height and then plug those two figures into the gravity formula. That way there is an upper and a lower limit. I still can't see why this isn't the way to determine those two limits.

 

[Betamax]

This is easy enough to understand. The part I'm still having trouble visualizing is why taking the highest height estimate and the lowest time estimate and plugging those figures into the gravity equation will yield a figure that tells us that.

That's what this guy did here.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4857977&postcount=1930

I only see one figure. If two figures are needed, what's the other figure?

I would think we'd have to take the highest height estimate and estimate a time that looks consistent with that and plug those figures into the gravity formula and then take the lowest height estimate and estimate a time that looks consistent with that height and then plug those two figures into the gravity formula. That way there is an upper and a lower limit. I still can't see why this isn't the way to determine those two limits.

Hi Cosmored,

The process works as I have explained. I am not sure why you don't quite understand it, but it makes perfect sense.

Taking the limits of feasible measurements and determining highest and lowest gravity readings is exactly what this does. If you take one measurement and estimate the other variable, that is basically what you do when you take highest and lowest readings.

Example:-

If the upper and lower heights are 1.5 and 1.1 metres respectfully, and you say that it looks like the time is 1.3 seconds, you will get two figures. However if you take a lower and higher time such as 1.1 and 1.7 seconds and put both those in, you will still get two figures, and your example readings will fall within the high and low spans they produce.

You didn't comment on my analysis of the dust movement. It proves the 66.66% slowed theory is unworkable and you need to go back to the drawing board I'm afraid.

 

[Cosmored]

I've had a busy week and I haven't been able to focus on this. All I want to do is get at the truth.

There's something wrong somewhere because, as I pointed out in post #3...
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3060692&postcount=3

...when the Apollo 11 footage is compared to the footage of the later missions, there's a difference in body movements. Here's a thread from Clavius on which they tried to explain it.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1021&page=1

Also, when the Apollo 11 footage is doubled, the movements look like normal movements on earth. When the footage from the later missions is doubled, the movements look unnaturally fast. They did something differently. We just have to figure out exactly what it was.

 

[Cosmored]

I just took another look at this.
http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/300/ffr.mp4

If we consider the fact that he's on a slope, the height is closer to about three feet. If I calculated correctly, the fall time would be .4312 seconds on earth. Multiplied by 1.5 gives .646. If we plug three feet (.9144 meters) and .646 seconds into the gravity equation, it yields 4.3. I wonder if we'd get a figure close to .646 seconds if we measured the time precisely. It's really not that easy to tell.

 

[Betamax]

I've had a busy week and I haven't been able to focus on this. All I want to do is get at the truth.

There's something wrong somewhere because, as I pointed out in post #3...
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3060692&postcount=3

...when the Apollo 11 footage is compared to the footage of the later missions, there's a difference in body movements. Here's a thread from Clavius on which they tried to explain it.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1021&page=1

Also, when the Apollo 11 footage is doubled, the movements look like normal movements on earth. When the footage from the later missions is doubled, the movements look unnaturally fast. They did something differently. We just have to figure out exactly what it was.

Hi Cosmored,

I don't wish to comment on other forum diuscussions.

As for the footage, I see nothing wrong with it on any of the Moon missions. I would expect the first Moon landing to have very gentle movements and slower motion than later ones because it is the first time and the life support system was largely untested.

I am a bit surprised you say that the footage looks normal on Apollo 11 sped up. Have you watched the whole of the video you posted. There are a few instances where they move relatively fast that look very odd indeed.

This One -

 

[Betamax]

I just took another look at this.
http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/300/ffr.mp4

If we consider the fact that he's on a slope, the height is closer to about three feet. If I calculated correctly, the fall time would be .4312 seconds on earth. Multiplied by 1.5 gives .646. If we plug three feet (.9144 meters) and .646 seconds into the gravity equation, it yields 4.3. I wonder if we'd get a figure close to .646 seconds if we measured the time precisely. It's really not that easy to tell.

I refer you to the last frame above in post #24. I made the estimate from a point level with the apex and his foot, it is between 1.2 and 1.3 metres.

Your idea of 3 feet is level with his backside. That is clearly not correct by more than a foot.

I have already measured the time very accurately. I isolated two frames either side of the apex and placed the time at a very likely 1.24 seconds. It is nearly double 0.646 seconds, and I find it very surprising you could even think it was that quick.

You need to accept defeat on this theory, as it is clearly not viable.

 

[Cosmored]

I am a bit surprised you say that the footage looks normal on Apollo 11 sped up. Have you watched the whole of the video you posted. There are a few instances where they move relatively fast that look very odd indeed.

As far as I remember these two videos only show a few seconds of the Apollo 11 footage at double speed. I showed the time marks.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8455110982587487066#
(30:40 time mark)

http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=4135126565081757736#
(21:00 time mark)

What exactly were you referring to? Both of those sets of footage look exactly like Earth movements when shown at double speed to me.

If you're referring to the video made by the person who was defending Apollo, we have to consider the possiblility that he deliberately showed it at more than double speed and simply said it was double speed to take people in.

 

[Betamax]

As far as I remember these two videos only show a few seconds of the Apollo 11 footage at double speed. I showed the time marks.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8455110982587487066#
(30:40 time mark)

http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=4135126565081757736#
(21:00 time mark)

What exactly were you referring to? Both of those sets of footage look exactly like Earth movements when shown at double speed to me.

If you're referring to the video made by the person who was defending Apollo, we have to consider the possiblility that he deliberately showed it at more than double speed and simply said it was double speed to take people in.

I really don't want to get into a debate over who has the best visual accuity. It looks odd to me, and highly selective. If you take a continuous piece from the TV broadcasts it looks completely wrong.
As for your contention of fraud by the youtuber, it is your burden of proof. You must find the footage from the Apollo records and speed it up accordingly.

You haven't commented on my height and time analysis.

 

[Cosmored]

If your measurements are precise, the numbers obviously don't add up. There's so much other proof that they faked the moon missions though...
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=muktananda&aq=f

...that this still doesn't convince me that they didn't fake them. There's got to be an explanation for these speeds; I just haven't been able to figure out what it is.

I don't know how to measure the time precisely or change the speed of footage to see how it looks so I have to take everyone's word on the speeds.

If you take a continuous piece from the TV broadcasts it looks completely wrong.

I wish I could actually speed up some footage and watch it; all I have is what's available on the internet.

I'm going to try plugging some more figures into the equations to see what comes up.

I'll get back to you if I think of something else. I really appreciate your help on this.

 

[Cosmored]

This isn't exactly relevant to the topic but it's something to think about.

I was talking the the guy who made this YouTube video which we're discussing here in the comment section of the video.
http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments=1&v=hc7jIg7j544

I tried to get him talk about this issue.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4805924&postcount=1626

He wouldn't give me a straight answer and he started to delete my posts and he finally blocked all of my YouTube accounts. I run into this a lot when I talk about this subject.

 

[Betamax]

If your measurements are precise, the numbers obviously don't add up. There's so much other proof that they faked the moon missions though...
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=muktananda&aq=f

...that this still doesn't convince me that they didn't fake them. There's got to be an explanation for these speeds; I just haven't been able to figure out what it is.

I don't know how to measure the time precisely or change the speed of footage to see how it looks so I have to take everyone's word on the speeds.


I wish I could actually speed up some footage and watch it; all I have is what's available on the internet.

I'm going to try plugging some more figures into the equations to see what comes up.

I'll get back to you if I think of something else. I really appreciate your help on this.

Hi Cosmored,

There is an explanation to the figures. The footage was shot in 1/6th gravity. I know that would disappoint you as it is nice for some people to believe in conspiracies.
The Moon landings were most certainly not hoaxed. I don't know of any scientifically educated person who holds that view.

I have not seen a single thing, that doesn't have its roots in a lack of understanding of fundamental principles pertaining to it. I will tell you in advance that I am not going to get in an argument about this, I'm too long in the tooth for it, and I have seen many to and fro arguments about the so called anomalies. It just doesn't interest me enoiugh to argue about it.