I need some help with the analysis of acceleration

[Betamax]

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.

I have looked at the footage you discussed. It is shot in space, that is clear from the floating objects close by Michael Collins body.

I don't quite get your argument. The back and forth movement of the jacket is not actually an effect of gravity, it is an inertial force related to direction change. You can see this perfectly demonstrated if you hold a ribbon on a stick and wiggle it backwards and forwards or in a circular motion. Or by a small flag waved back and forth.

I can't comment on why people delete comments on youtube. I think it is a madhouse of anger, so anything goes I suppose.

 

[Cosmored]

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.

There are some anomalies for which I've never seen any satisfactory explanations such as this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr76qSQ9ZQQ&feature=PlayList&p=41BF9062EF97A674&index=0&playnext=1
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=moonfaker+flagging+the+dead+horses&aq=f

If any scientist who thought it was all faked wanted to come forward, he'd have a hard time getting the word out.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4731597&postcount=1090

 

[Betamax]

There are some anomalies for which I've never seen any satisfactory explanations such as this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr76qSQ9ZQQ&feature=PlayList&p=41BF9062EF97A674&index=0&playnext=1
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=moonfaker+flagging+the+dead+horses&aq=f

If any scientist who thought it was all faked wanted to come forward, he'd have a hard time getting the word out.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4731597&postcount=1090

Ok Cosmored, I think I am done with this for now. When somebody asserts flags are blowing in a breeze on the Moon, my alarm bell starts sounding and I have to remove myself.
It is a clearly exaggerated movement only associated with an absence of atmospheric dampening. I have no intention of spending time explaining this.

As for scientists afraid to go against official explanations, that is one of the most ludicrous statements I have ever heard. Many friends of mine are highly educated and would have no hesitation in exposing anything that flouted scientific credence. None of my educated friends dispute the Moon landings.

To suggest that because certain scientists disagree on some subjective data analysis therefore must discount all other agreed subjective data analysis, is quite frankly absurd.

As for the Apollo 15 flag videos, I have seen explanations for the movement, and I am perfectly satisfied with them. The flag has no atmospheric dampening and moves for a considerable time, it is clearly the astronaut brushing it with his arm.

 

[Mentallic]

There are some anomalies for which I've never seen any satisfactory explanations such as this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr76qSQ9ZQQ&feature=PlayList&p=41BF9062EF97A674&index=0&playnext=1
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=moonfaker+flagging+the+dead+horses&aq=f

If any scientist who thought it was all faked wanted to come forward, he'd have a hard time getting the word out.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4731597&postcount=1090

Cosmored, I took a look at the first video.
Firstly, are you familiar with Newton's three laws of motion? Anyway, at the 2:30 mark, while it may seem that as the astronaut runs passed the flag, it waves a bit because of moving wind that he generates - this is a quick conclusion made by conspiracy theorists because...
(not trying to be stereotypical here, but with all the debates I've had against debunkers, they generally seem to not have a clear grasp of the maths or physics involved - which is why the heated discussions can carry on for such long periods of time)
... it is what we would expect on Earth to happen. Earth has wind, and when you run passed a flag you would expect the flag to wave because of the moving wind that you're generating upon it. No one would refute this because they feel it happening all the time whenever someone runs passed them.

Anyway, to the point, let's assume it wasn't a hoax and the flag really were on the moon. This is true based on our assumption:
There is no wind, thus, in a vacuum objects in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by a force (this is one of Newton's Laws) - that is, without something to counteract your motion such as wind or something pushing/pulling you, you will keep traveling in a straight line at the same speed indefinitely.

You would agree that when you stomp on the ground, you create vibrations in the ground which can be felt by others around you. These vibrations travel out from their source and weaken as they get further away.

This is what would've happened in that video. The astronaut ran passed the flag and created vibrations which traveled through the ground, through the pole, and thus made it vibrate slightly. These vibrations would actually be very weak considering the astronaut is 6x lighter than on Earth but the flag waves quite noticeably simply because there is no wind to stop its movement. The flag itself is probably quite light so any small force on a small mass creates a reasonable acceleration by Newton's formula for force F=ma.

By the way, in this video I saw of the moon landing, as the spaceship touched down, the dirt that was being thrown outwards due to the thrust from the ship's exhaust followed a parabolic trajectory. This is expected in a vacuum environment and contrastingly, in a non-vacuum environment such as that on Earth, if you throw dirt horizontally it will slow down very quickly in the horizontal direction. However this is not what happens on the moon as seen in some video footage.

I hope this has helped.

 

[Cosmored]

At the 2:32 time mark there is some footage from Apollo 11 shown at what is said to be double speed.


The movements look unnaturally fast.

The videos I posted in post #31...
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3084003&postcount=31

...show some Apollo 11 footage which is said to be at double speed too and the movements look like natural movements on earth. I think we have to consider the possibility that the guy who made the pro-Apollo video deliberately showed the speed at more than double speed and simply said it was double speed to take people in.

At the 4:40 time mark of this video...


...the footage from a later Apollo mission is shown sped up 2.45 times. The footage looks unnaturally fast. I don't know how to speed up footage to check this. If the guy who made that video fudged the speed on the Apollo 11 footage, it makes me wonder if that particular footage in the first video wasn't slowed down to sixty seven percent but by the exact percentage that would make the figures match moon gravity and that, when he showed the footage at what he said was 245% speed, it was really faster to make the movements look faster than normal. This might turn out to be wrong, but I can't do it myself to check it.

Regarding the flag:

It looks like the flag started moving before the astronaut got close enough to touch it.

It is a clearly exaggerated movement only associated with an absence of atmospheric dampening. I have no intention of spending time explaining this.

If the fabric isn't light, it will move for a while within a narrow angle. I was able to make fabrics move in a similar way by hanging them from a ceiling light and testing to see how long they moved.

You would agree that when you stomp on the ground, you create vibrations in the ground which can be felt by others around you. These vibrations travel out from their source and weaken as they get further away.

This is what would've happened in that video. The astronaut ran passed the flag and created vibrations which traveled through the ground, through the pole, and thus made it vibrate slightly. These vibrations would actually be very weak considering the astronaut is 6x lighter than on Earth but the flag waves quite noticeably simply because there is no wind to stop its movement. The flag itself is probably quite light so any small force on a small mass creates a reasonable acceleration by Newton's formula for force F=ma.

There is no discernable movement of the pole or the rod. The movement of the flag doesn't begin at the top of the flag and move down the way it would if rod movement had caused it to move. The movement was consistent with its being hit by air. It happens at the exact time at which it's consistent with the atmosphere explanation.

I'd lke to hear your views on this issue.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4805924&postcount=1626

Thanks for your replies. All I want to do is get at the truth here. If I'm shown to be wrong about something, I'll say so right away.

 

[Betamax]

At the 2:32 time mark there is some footage from Apollo 11 shown at what is said to be double speed.


The movements look unnaturally fast.

The videos I posted in post #31...
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3084003&postcount=31

...show some Apollo 11 footage which is said to be at double speed too and the movements look like natural movements on earth. I think we have to consider the possibility that the guy who made the pro-Apollo video deliberately showed the speed at more than double speed and simply said it was double speed to take people in.

I have already addressed this issue, but I searched on youtube for "Apollo 11 speeded up" and found the piece of footage from your film:-



I can confirm from the elapsed time that the footage has been speeded up 200%. I would say this confirms your original youtuber as not fraudulently speeding up incorrectly.

At the 4:40 time mark of this video...


...the footage from a later Apollo mission is shown sped up 2.45 times. The footage looks unnaturally fast. I don't know how to speed up footage to check this. If the guy who made that video fudged the speed on the Apollo 11 footage, it makes me wonder if that particular footage in the first video wasn't slowed down to sixty seven percent but by the exact percentage that would make the figures match moon gravity and that, when he showed the footage at what he said was 245% speed, it was really faster to make the movements look faster than normal. This might turn out to be wrong, but I can't do it myself to check it.

I find it very strange that you prefer to suspect fraud without having the means to check this. I just downloaded that footage and slowed it down to 41% it looks fine to me. You need to do this yourself before you take a stance on something.

The reason it looks bizarre when speeded up, is that it was filmed in 1/6th gravity. Horizontal movement is not affected by gravity, so though vertical motion will now reflect Earth freefall speed the horizontal motion will look way too fast.

Regarding the flag:

It looks like the flag started moving before the astronaut got close enough to touch it.




If the fabric isn't light, it will move for a while within a narrow angle. I was able to make fabrics move in a similar way by hanging them from a ceiling light and testing to see how long they moved.

The fabric is very light, and see through (hence visibly bright through sunlight on both sides). The motion is clearly in a vacuum, without any discernible atmospheric dampening.

There is no discernable movement of the pole or the rod. The movement of the flag doesn't begin at the top of the flag and move down the way it would if rod movement had caused it to move. The movement was consistent with its being hit by air. It happens at the exact time at which it's consistent with the atmosphere explanation.

I will come back to this later today, I have to go out for a few hours.

I'd lke to hear your views on this issue.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4805924&postcount=1626

Thanks for your replies. All I want to do is get at the truth here. If I'm shown to be wrong about something, I'll say so right away.

I already addressed this:-
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3084740&postcount=36

It was definitely shot in zero gravity, and all movement is consistent with that.

 

[Cosmored]

The alleged lunar gravity speed in the video you posted looks a little slower than the lunar gravity clip in the videos in post #31. I don't see how we can be sure this hasn't been manipulated.

I find it very strange that you prefer to suspect fraud without having the means to check this. I just downloaded that footage and slowed it down to 41% it looks fine to me. You need to do this yourself before you take a stance on something.

I made it clear that I wasn't sure and only suspected it. I still haven't learned how to speed up and slow down footage.

The fabric is very light, and see through (hence visibly bright through sunlight on both sides). The motion is clearly in a vacuum, without any discernible atmospheric dampening.

We don't know how heavy the fabric was. If it's heavy enough, dampening will be negligible.

already addressed this:-
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3084740&postcount=36

I was able to exactly duplicate the movement of Collins' jacket corner by bouncing a light jacket on a hanger up and down. The corner goes up, stops, and goes back down the way it would in gravity. The fabric is not stiff enough to be pushed back down. The only identifiable force making it go back down is gravity.
I don't see any objects that exhibit zero-G behavior. Could you be more specific? Also, look at Armstrong and Collins' cuffs; they rest on the upper sides of their wrists as soon as they stop moving. Look at Collins' dogtags too.

If I could get some precise measurements, I'd plug the figures of the distance the dust travels in this clip...

(9:00 time mark)

...and the time it takes it to travel into the equations in this site to see if the distance and time are consistent with moon gravity.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/traj.html

We might also be able to do something with this.


The last of the six examples is a clear shot of something getting thrown.

 

[Betamax]

There is no discernable movement of the pole or the rod. The movement of the flag doesn't begin at the top of the flag and move down the way it would if rod movement had caused it to move. The movement was consistent with its being hit by air. It happens at the exact time at which it's consistent with the atmosphere explanation.

Hi Cosmored,

I just uploaded my first youtube video! Watch it full screen.



The mystery is very simple. The flag doesn't actually move at all. I have taken two frames either side of the movement, spliced them together and repeated several times.

You can clearly see the whole frame shift to the right, back and forth as the frames alternate. This is an effect of the colour wheel on the camera compensating for a sudden shift in contrast.

The explanation you suggested as being air is not even feasible. Air would be pushed sideways when an object moves forwards. A very small amount will precede it, but it certainly would not be many feet in front. A few inches at most.

The only time you would see any air being pushed forward, would be in a restricted space such as between walls or in a tunnel. You can easily verify this by placing a plastic bag on the edge of the sidewalk and watch for the start of movement when a car goes past. It will be as the vehicle passes, not before it arrives.

It was an interesting anomaly, but easily explained. The entire frame moves, not the flag.

 

[Betamax]

The alleged lunar gravity speed in the video you posted looks a little slower than the lunar gravity clip in the videos in post #31. I don't see how we can be sure this hasn't been manipulated.

With just a little piece of detective work, I found the clip in the Apollo journal:-

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/a11v.1111944.rm

It is quite correct.

I made it clear that I wasn't sure and only suspected it. I still haven't learned how to speed up and slow down footage.

Join the windows movie maker forum and ask for assistance. You will find it very easy to do after a few tries.

We don't know how heavy the fabric was. If it's heavy enough, dampening will be negligible.

It is a standard United States flag, lightweight as nothing un-necessarily heavy would be taken to the Moon. Heavy fabric or light fabric still show signs of dampening. The flag in the footage clearly does not.

I was able to exactly duplicate the movement of Collins' jacket corner by bouncing a light jacket on a hanger up and down. The corner goes up, stops, and goes back down the way it would in gravity. The fabric is not stiff enough to be pushed back down. The only identifiable force making it go back down is gravity.

Incorrect. The force making the jacket change direction is inertia acted on by the astronauts body changing direction from muscular energy.

I don't see any objects that exhibit zero-G behavior. Could you be more specific? Also, look at Armstrong and Collins' cuffs; they rest on the upper sides of their wrists as soon as they stop moving. Look at Collins' dogtags too.

There are many signs of clear floating. Sleeves, tubes, the motion of the jacket is just so loose it is clearly in a weightless environment. There is an object near his hips that floats around. If you think that it is in gravity, then that is your prerogative, but it most certainly is not.

If I could get some precise measurements, I'd plug the figures of the distance the dust travels in this clip...

(9:00 time mark)

...and the time it takes it to travel into the equations in this site to see if the distance and time are consistent with moon gravity.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/traj.html

I spent an hour doing that very thing for you in this post:-
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3075192&postcount=24

If you mean the horizontal distance, all that will give you is initial velocity. The height is the only variable that is important as regards measurement of gravity.

I will see if I can work out the initial velocity based on the angle from his boot.

We might also be able to do something with this.


The last of the six examples is a clear shot of something getting thrown.

I will take a look at this later tomorrow.

 

[Betamax]

I spent an hour doing that very thing for you in this post:-
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3075192&postcount=24

If you mean the horizontal distance, all that will give you is initial velocity. The height is the only variable that is important as regards measurement of gravity.

I will see if I can work out the initial velocity based on the angle from his boot.

Ok, this is very significant.

The distance of the dust using a grid alignment is 23 squares, compared to 13 high. This gives a hypotenuse of 26.4. Using a bit of trig, we get an angle of 29.4.

So let's round it to 30 degrees, which gives a SIN of 0.5.

Now using the equation v = g * t / (2 * sin(theta)) we get some really tell tale figures. Where t=1.24 seconds.

On the Moon, an initial velocity of 2.009 metres per second to make that height at that angle.

Now for the same action on Earth, it is a simply impossible 12.152 metres per second.

That is a complete and conclusive proof that the dust was kicked in 1/6th gravity.

 

[Cosmored]

Yes. I meant to say "Horizontal" distance.

So let's round it to 30 degrees

Don't we need precise measurements? When I look at it, it looks closer to 45 degrees. The path of trajectory starts moving away from the original angle as soon as an object is launched.

With just a little piece of detective work, I found the clip in the Apollo journal:-

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...11v.1111944.rm

It is quite correct.

This doesn't make the other footage go away though.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3084003&postcount=31

In those other two videos the movements look exactly like movements on Earth when the speed is doubled. We can't just ignore this.

If this double speed looks too fast, it may be in fact more than double speed.

It is a standard United States flag,

This may or may not be true. Anyway, we'd have to do an experiment with a standard flag before we could arrive at any conclusions.

Heavy fabric or light fabric still show signs of dampening. The flag in the footage clearly does not.

At that narrow angle of movement dampening is negligible if the fabric is not extremely light. I've experimented with several different fabrics. The super-light ones come to a stop almost immediately. The heavier they are, the longer they keep moving. Slow-motion would account for the length of time it moves and the speed at which it moves.

I was able to exactly duplicate the movement of Collins' jacket corner by bouncing a light jacket on a hanger up and down. The corner goes up, stops, and goes back down the way it would in gravity. The fabric is not stiff enough to be pushed back down. The only identifiable force making it go back down is gravity.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorrect. The force making the jacket change direction is inertia acted on by the astronauts body changing direction from muscular energy.

(00:54 time mark)

It falls to a hanging position exactly the way the corners of this guy's jacket do.


It has a clear tendency to go downward. The fabric is obviously too loose to be able to push the corner back down.

The conditions here are obviously very different.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4

I don't see any objects that exhibit zero-G behavior. Could you be more specific? Also, look at Armstrong and Collins' cuffs; they rest on the upper sides of their wrists as soon as they stop moving. Look at Collins' dogtags too.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are many signs of clear floating. Sleeves, tubes, the motion of the jacket is just so loose it is clearly in a weightless environment. There is an object near his hips that floats around. If you think that it is in gravity, then that is your prerogative, but it most certainly is not.

I don't see any object near his hip floating around. What is it exactly about the tube attached to his chest that makes you say it's zero-G? I don't see what you're referring to about the sleeves. As soon as Armstrong and Collins stop moving their arms, their cuffs immediately rest on the upper side of their wrists; that looks like behavior in gravity to me.

The mystery is very simple. The flag doesn't actually move at all. I have taken two frames either side of the movement, spliced them together and repeated several times.

I watched your video.


All you did was put forward an alternative explanation. This doesn't disprove the atmosphere explanation's being the correct one. Now we have two plausible explanations.

The movement is still consistent with the atmosphere explanation. The way it continues moving after the initial movement is consistent with the way it started moving. Are you saying the rest of the movement is caused by vibration as Mentallic said in post #29? The movement of the bottom of the flag is not consistent with its having been caused by movement from above as would be the case if vibration from the ground had caused the pole and rod to move. However, it is consistent with the atmophere explanation.

The explanation you suggested as being air is not even feasible. Air would be pushed sideways when an object moves forwards. A very small amount will precede it, but it certainly would not be many feet in front. A few inches at most.

If the flag was really at about a 40 degree angle the way it shows here at the 50 second time mark,...


...the air from a passing person will make it move the way it does in the Apollo footage. I tried it at home.

This video makes things pretty clear.


The flag moves away because of the pressure wave caused by the approaching astronaut. It then moves in the other direction to fill the void caused by his passing.

Look at the way the flag moves back after Jarrah White runs by it in this clip.

(9:38 time mark)

Here's something else. Look at the reflection of the sun in the astronaut's visor a the beginning of this clip.


Compare it to the reflection of the sun in this photo.
http://www.google.es/imgres?imgurl=...ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:11,s:40&biw=1280&bih=834

It looks like the reflection in the Apollo astronaut's visor is that of a gigantic light–not the sun.

 

[Betamax]

Yes. I meant to say "Horizontal" distance.


Don't we need precise measurements? When I look at it, it looks closer to 45 degrees. The path of trajectory starts moving away from the original angle as soon as an object is launched.

I just calculated the angle using trigonometry, you didn't and yet you say it looks "closer to 45 degrees". Now I find that kind of thing a little irritating. If you wish to disprove my figures, here is the graph I used:-
[PLAIN]http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/8438/gridq.jpg

A 45 degree angle is the same distance along as up, so it clearly isn't that.

This doesn't make the other footage go away though.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3084003&postcount=31

In those other two videos the movements look exactly like movements on Earth when the speed is doubled. We can't just ignore this.

Why would we need to ignore it? Why wouldn't double speed sometimes look normal on the astronaut when he is moving fairly slow. The actual factor is 2.45, so it is going to be close sometimes. If the surface is visible however, the dust won't look normal. This was Buzz Aldrin testing motion on the Lunar surface, and they have cherry picked bits that look reasonable. To me it still looks odd, the arms aren't moving right.

The point of the clips that don't look normal, is that whenever the astronaut moves a little quicker, the motion stops looking normal.If this double speed looks too fast, it may be in fact more than double speed.

Are you reading my posts? I analysed that clip, the time stamps match footage doubled in speed. If you think otherwise, then you need to prove it.

This may or may not be true. Anyway, we'd have to do an experiment with a standard flag before we could arrive at any conclusions.

Indeed. Yet you already have a conclusion, and I disagree with it at every level.

At that narrow angle of movement dampening is negligible if the fabric is not extremely light. I've experimented with several different fabrics. The super-light ones come to a stop almost immediately. The heavier they are, the longer they keep moving. Slow-motion would account for the length of time it moves and the speed at which it moves.

Do you have footage of your experiments? Do they use a telescopic pole and a replica United States Apollo flag? The motion has zero atmospheric dampening. Not slight, not a little, it has none. That only occurs in a vacuum. The time it takes to come to a full stop is excessive, even if you were to half the time.

It falls to a hanging position exactly the way the corners of this guy's jacket do.


It has a clear tendency to go downward. The fabric is obviously too loose to be able to push the corner back down.

The conditions here are obviously very different.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4

The movement is nothing to do with gravity. Just because you see it do that in gravity, does not mean gravity is the force, this is strawman arguing.

I don't see any object near his hip floating around.

I meant groin.

What is it exactly about the tube attached to his chest that makes you say it's zero-G?

The tube on the other astronaut.

I don't see what you're referring to about the sleeves. As soon as Armstrong and Collins stop moving their arms, their cuffs immediately rest on the upper side of their wrists; that looks like behavior in gravity to me.

There is no reason why it would or wouldn't. It largely depends on how tight it is and how it stretches and pulls at the elbow.

This whole gravity theory is an absurd contention, where did you get it from? You do realize that physics graduates all around the world view this and have no problem with it? I think your desire to believe in this phantom hoax is severely swaying your judgement.

I watched your video.


All you did was put forward an alternative explanation.

No, I showed clearly the whole flag shifting right in a unified motion.

This doesn't disprove the atmosphere explanation's being the correct one. Now we have two plausible explanations.

There is no atmosphere explanation. A body in motion will not push air in front of it to any degree, it pushes it mainly to the sides. If you know of some new science I am not aware of please cite some references for this.

The way it continues moving after the initial movement is consistent with the way it started moving.

No. The first apparent motion is the whole frame, the actual motion is a swinging to and fro of the corner only.

Are you saying the rest of the movement is caused by vibration as Mentallic said in post #29? The movement of the bottom of the flag is not consistent with its having been caused by movement from above as would be the case if vibration from the ground had caused the pole and rod to move. However, it is consistent with the atmophere explanation.

I already stated the astronaut brushed it with his arm, I have seen a few demonstrations of this. The camera is a wide angle lens, and distorts the perspective, he is much closer to the flag than it appears. The idea that the motion could be caused by ground vibration is a plausible alternative, but one I don't agree with. I do think that out of all the theories that abound as to the anomaly and movement, the "wall of air" in an Earth atmosphere is the one that is easily dismissed, since it is physically impossible.

...the air from a passing person will make it move the way it does in the Apollo footage. I tried it at home.

Emphasis on a "passing" person. There are numerous other instances where astronauts pass by flags with no movement. They walk all around the flag during Apollo 16, yet it doesn't show any "air" motion as they pass by.

This video makes things pretty clear.

Not as clear as my video showing not just only the corner move as has been suggested but the vertical part to the left of the flag as well, and by the same amount. The whole flag has the same movement.

The flag moves away because of the pressure wave caused by the approaching astronaut. It then moves in the other direction to fill the void caused by his passing.

I must insist you cite your references for this statement. Pressure wave, from a human being? It is neglible in the extreme.

Your two visor references. The ISS is a camera shot and the exposure is perfect. The Apollo references are shot on a TV camera and the bright light tends to bleech out.

When a camera is used on Apollo, the sun is the same as the ISS photo:-
[URL]http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a16/AS16-114-18388.jpg[/URL]

I want to make myself clear here. I am not the least bit interested in debating this ludicrous hoax theory. This post is it as far as I am concerned. I was happy to do some mathematics and film analysis. The end result being that your speeded theory is very much untenable.

I would remind you that this is a physics forum, not one of the many conspiracy sites where people with very little understanding exchange ideas without substance.

 

[Betamax]

I just calculated the angle using trigonometry, you didn't and yet you say it looks "closer to 45 degrees". Now I find that kind of thing a little irritating. If you wish to disprove my figures, here is the graph I used:-
[PLAIN]http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/8438/gridq.jpg

A 45 degree angle is the same distance along as up, so it clearly isn't that.

I have made a really basic error, and I apologise for my terse reply. My calculus was correct, but the initial projection angle is not the final angle. Whoops, that's old age for you.

I will recalculate and give the action a 45 degrees projectile angle:-

v = g * t / (2 * sin(theta)) we get some really tell tale figures. Where t=1.24 seconds and sin(theta) is now 0.707

The figures for initial velocity are now 1.42m per second on the Moon, and 8.59m per second on Earth.

It is still a completely impossible flick of the boot initial velocity.

Once again apologies for my error.

 

[Cosmored]

Thanks for your replies Betamax. I'm having a busy work week so I may not do much posting for a couple of days. As soon as I get some time, I'm going to plug some estimated figures into those equations and see what I get. I haven't had time to start doing that yet.

 

[Cosmored]

The moving flag issue-

There is no atmosphere explanation. A body in motion will not push air in front of it to any degree, it pushes it mainly to the sides. If you know of some new science I am not aware of please cite some references for this.

As I said before, I hanged a cloth from a ceiling light and ran by it at about a 40 degree angle the way it's shown to be here.

(00:50 time mark)

It moved the same way the flag in the Apollo footage moved; anyone can try this at home.

I think this video...


...makes it pretty clear that it had started moving before the astronaut got close enough to touch it and this explanation of yours...

The flag doesn't actually move at all. I have taken two frames either side of the movement, spliced them together and repeated several times.

You can clearly see the whole frame shift to the right, back and forth as the frames alternate. This is an effect of the colour wheel on the camera compensating for a sudden shift in contrast.

...clearly isn't the case.

Regarding the issue of the bouncing jacket corner-

(00:50 time mark)

What is it exactly about the tube attached to his chest that makes you say it's zero-G?
-------------------------------------------------------------

The tube on the other astronaut.

I just watched it again and the tube on Armstron't left shoulder is attached to him and I don't see how anyone could tell by looking at that whether it was in gravity, or zero-gravity.

I don't see any object near his hip floating around.
----------------------------------------------------------------

I meant groin.

I don't see anything at all around his groin. Please describe what it is that you see.

Also, please comment on the way the cuffs of both astronauts immediately rest on the upper part of their wrists the way they would in gravity as soon as they stop moving their arms.

Also, watch the dogtags around Collins' neck. They bounce up and down the way they would in gravty. Look at the dogtags around the astronaut's neck in this clip.

(01:49 time mark)

The conditions are obviously different.

I put some keys around my neck on a string and jogged in place. I was able to exactly duplicate the movement of Collins' dogtags simply by imparting a little extra forward motion to my upper body. Collins' feet can't be seen; he may be on some kind of exercise device that is causing the extra forward motion.

Are you saying it's possible to exactly duplicate the motion of the dogtags around Collins' neck here on earth?

 

[Betamax]

The moving flag issue-

...clearly isn't the case.

How so? You say "clearly isn't the case" because you have run past a few non descript pieces of material at home? My video shows the whole frame pushing right in one clear motion. It is full and concise an explanation as you can get. You previously acknowledged it as one of two possibilities alongside your air movement theory.

Cite your "wall of air/pressure wave" science and show me your calculations. I have already told you there is a negligible air wave in front of a human being moving in an unrestricted environment. Movement could occur as a body passes by something, or if very large or fast, in front of it. The astronaut is neither large nor fast.

Regarding the issue of the bouncing jacket corner

The motion is entirely consistent with a weightless environment. Your argument is a strawman, since you attribute the action to gravity when it is not. I have already pointed out the various signs of weightlessness, and am completely mystified how you could think that footage could possibly have been filmed on Earth. I have nothing further to say on the matter. Please do not raise this again. If you do not accept the obvious signs, there is nothing more to say. I suggest you buy the Apollo 11 Men on the Moon boxset, it is about $10 and has more footage than that in the video you refer to.

 

[Cosmored]

The motion is entirely consistent with a weightless environment. Your argument is a strawman, since you attribute the action to gravity when it is not. I have already pointed out the various signs of weightlessness, and am completely mystified how you could think that footage could possibly have been filmed on Earth. I have nothing further to say on the matter. Please do not raise this again. If you do not accept the obvious signs, there is nothing more to say. I suggest you buy the Apollo 11 Men on the Moon boxset, it is about $10 and has more footage than that in the video you refer to.

You're not being very sporting. The movement of the cuffs and the dogtags is very relevant to this issue. I think you should give your analysis of the movement as I'm still convinced that it shows gravity. Also, I think you should clarify the objects you say move the way they would move in zero-gravity. I still can't see what you're referring to. These are legitimate relevant questions. I don't see why you don't even want to address them if you only want the truth to prevail.

 

[Betamax]

You're not being very sporting. The movement of the cuffs and the dogtags is very relevant to this issue. I think you should give your analysis of the movement as I'm still convinced that it shows gravity. Also, I think you should clarify the objects you say move the way they would move in zero-gravity. I still can't see what you're referring to. These are legitimate relevant questions. I don't see why you don't even want to address them if you only want the truth to prevail.

Sporting? You can start by addressing the two issues you chose not to answer in my last post.

Then would you kindly explain your post at the original forum you referred me to. I checked back to see if you had fed back any of the information I had passed to you, and I see to my alarm that you appear to have ignored all the work I did analysing the very things you now claim to need.

You also still dispute the Apollo 11 footage despite me providing a link to where it had been sped up with timestamps, and the original footage.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4907288&postcount=2106


You have just basically cut and pasted from posts 40 and 42 from this thread and ignored my answers.

 

[Cosmored]

Sporting? You can start by addressing the two issues you chose not to answer in my last post.

I was eventually going to get to it. I wanted to tell you that I wanted some objective analyses of the movement of the cuffs and the dogtags and that I still couldn't identify the objects that you say moved the way they would in zero-gravity. I still want answers to these issues.

I said I'd tried an experiment at home and the fabric moved the way the flag moved in the video. Anyone can try this. I still don't know how to post footage but, as anyone can test this at home, it's not really necessary.

You don't seem to be considering this video.


I can't do precise measurements so I have no way to verify what you say you measured. I've linked to this forum several times on the other forum; I just assumed everybody was following our discussion.

You also still dispute the Apollo 11 footage despite me providing a link to where it had been sped up with timestamps, and the original footage.

That still doesn't prove that the part where the speed is supposedly doubled in this video...


...wasn't really more than doubled.

You don't seem to be putting any importance on the way the movements look in these two videos when it's said that the Apollo 11 footage was doubled in speed.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8455110982587487066#
(30:40 time mark)

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

Don't you think the movements look suspiciously like Earth movements?

I still want your analyses of the movement of the cuffs and dogtags in this video.

(00:50 time mark)