1/6 Gravity on The Moon -Astronaut's Jumps Should Be Faster up, Then Slowly Down -Apollo Video Always Shows Slower up & Down

true true, and a two hundred lb man would have a weight of only 33lbs there... how high could you jump if you only weighed 33lbs.

Are you people really this ignorant or is this a game?

How dare you call factual science a game, you heathen from the dark ages.

It appears there are no NASA trolls that can dispute the truthfulness of the science.

"1/6 Gravity on The Moon -Astronauts Jumps Should Be Faster up, Then Slowly Down -Apollo Video Always Shows Slower up & Down

With a 1/6 gravity on the Moon, when an astronaut jumps, he would be jumping at a lot faster speed upwards because of the lower gravity, and then falling slowly back down to the Moon ground because of the lower Moon gravity.

However in all of NASA's official Apollo Moon video files, all we see is the feet moving slowing up, then slowly down. When it should be faster up, then slowly back down."

At least some of the moon landings were hoaxed. However, we also have bases on mars right now. It's an odd version of reality the govt is expecting everyone to believe.

bases on mars right now

After the Apollo 16 CM capsule is dropped from a cargo plane, Astronaut John gives a good reply to your outlandish, and childish Disney fantasy claim.
"Whatever!, And pigs fly too!"

Moon Landing Hoax Apollo 16 : FX Stagehand Seen Using A Blowtorch To Simulate A Fireball of Re-Entry into Earth

This Video As You Hear & See it, From NASA's Public Domain Movie:
Apollo 16: Nothing So Hidden (1972)

Most mutants here can't even spell physics, much less
understand it.
All the tin foil made by Alcoa and Reynolds combined
couldn't produce enough hats.

Blowtorch?

Silly, gravity doesn't work that way. With no atmosphere, and therefore no terminal velocity, the speed with which an object leaves the ground is the same as the speed it has just before meeting the ground again. This is the same whether under Earth's gravity, 1/6th G, or 600 G.

That's not how ballistics works.

When I first heard of people saying we "never went to the Moon", I thought it was an idiotic, anti-American, thing to say.

The more I've just STARTED to look into it, there are serious doubts.

In fact I've ALWAYS wondered why the horizon in those moon surface views appears to be NOT many miles away as it should, but literally appears to be only 100 feet away. ( as if filmed in a studio )

There is no "depth" to the view, as there would be if you were standing on a barren area of Earth and looking toward the horizon.

At least when we see Mars Rover views, it is easy to tell that the horizon is VERY far in the distance. ( I know some of you think it's not really Mars at all, but somewhere in the Australian outback ).

All I know is: I havent set foot on the Moon, and I can not confirm nor deny that any other Human has either... :5:

Do the math. On the moon, the horizon is only a little over a mile and a half away for an eye-height of six feet.

On Mars, it's a little over two miles, and just a hair under three miles on Earth.

Does the horizon in the photo below look 1-1/2 miles away? The lunar module's shadow is within inches of the horizon!

[link to history.nasa.gov]

Sorry, but your numbers are all WAY too low.

Incorrect.

You are correct.

That photo is absolutely LAUGHABLE !!

That horizon might work if the Moon was about 75 feet in diameter.

Are you sure that's not just an Earth-based TRAINING photo /

I mean if that is SUPPOSED to me from on the Moon, it's the most obvious fake I've ever seen.

Fail

You can see 26+- miles before the curvature of the Earth/horizon.

That is not the horizon.

As this chart shows [link to upload.wikimedia.org]
5931 was shot from the Pan 4 position.
It shows there is the rim of a shallow crater in the background.
The camera is also slightly tilted down, no point in photographing the black sky.
Keep in mind the GROUND IS NOT LEVEL.

And of course the properties of the equipment used determine how reality ends up looking in a photograph.

Gees, some mighty leet investigator skillz you are demonstrating here.



He's considerably less off then you.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
You should know better then argue with a sailor about such things.
(5 klicks is a good rule of thumb.)


Last Edited by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on 05/01/2010 08:35 PM

Yes, yes, how can we possibly have flown to the moon when the earth is flat.

Yes this is because there is no atmosphere to refract any light. We use this on Earth to gauge distance since objects further away will have a slightly blue tint compared to objects closer. This is not the case on the moon for obvious reasons.

I've studied this too and every single hoax theory I've seen was later debunked with a little common sense, a little science, or a little but of both.

Example: I couldn't find the picture just now but there is a picture out there from the moon landing where you see the astronaut followed by a large rocky outcropping behind him, and another outcropping behind that. Now the shadow for one of these rocks was pointing in a different direction from the other one.

People cried out "LOOK SEE IT'S FAKE THAT MEANS THERE'S TWO LIGHT SOURCES" which is a titanically stupid thing to say since if there were two light sources every object would have two shadows. What this was is an optical effect known as parallax as these two outcroppings were actually quite far apart, but this wasn't apparent in the photo due to the lack of an atmosphere.

If viewed from above the shadows for these objects would be parallel but when viewing them head on they're angled differently. You observe the same effect on Earth but due to our atmosphere causing the effect I mentioned above it doesn't confuse you. However, when looking at a 2D picture taken on a world with no atmosphere you don't notice this and two objects that are far apart seem right next to each other.

And the moon being one/fourth the size of earth it should actually be 1/4 the gravity.

Great thread.

Good mind OP

LMAO -- that`s like saying you are able to jump at the rate free-fall, ha,ha,ha!

[link to moonpans.com]
Nice shot!!!

And although the Moon is 2159 miles in diameter no Horizon to be seen, you'd think you would see for hundreds and hundreds of miles. Also, notice the shadow of the Lunar module cast forward and to the right keep this in mind.




[link to upload.wikimedia.org]
This an opposite angle of the site, the shadow of Lunar module isn't leaning forward as much anymore, in any case, look at the Horizon in this angle, none, just more dark side of the Moon all around Apollo 11.




[link to static.flickr.com]
Yes, the money shot!!!

Here the astronaut is at the rear of the module where the luggage compartment is situated and the sun umbrella used to communicate 300 thousand kilometers back to earth without a break in communication, lol, and as you can see the shadow of the craft is leaning forward and to the right when facing it. In this visual you will note the shadow reaches the extremities of the lit-up surface of the Moon "that's a mighty long shadow" and again, no Horizon to be seen only more dark side of the Moon encircling the whole site. 360 degrees of darkness around the Apollo mission.

Oh ya, you can probably see that 3 mile Horizon in an airplane at 34,000 ft.

you jus never guna get it bro

Nonsense. The primary way that we perceive horizon distance from a photo is via changes in terrain and elevation. When we look at an outdoor scenery photo, we note grass nearby, then trees farther out, then hills and valleys still farther out, then perhaps mountains and a river in the distance. In contrast, we have greater difficulty judging distance in a photo of an expansive flat prairie or wheatfield.

You NASA fanboys are claiming that the obviously foreshortened horizon is due to changes in terrain (e.g., craters) and elevation. But it is precisely those differences in terrain and elevation that we ought to see in all the photos, and which should give us an impression of distance. But instead, we get ridiculous fakes like the infamous 5931:

[link to history.nasa.gov]

What part of THAT IS A HILL don't you understand?

Great thread OP. The nasa fanboys are obviously struggling with their desperate replies.

That video with the blowtorch is mind boggling.

That's impossible to tell from that perspective, but I'll play along. How do you know that shadow isn't one mile, two thousand six hundred thirty-nine feet and ten inches long? How do you know that's not a ridge a few hundred feet away, with the land sloping down again behind it?