Comments by "MRA" (@yassassin6425) on "" video.

Because he is projecting himself upwards at a different rate, whilst the regolith is largely moving in a forward trajectory. The dust has less momentum due to its smaller mass and this means that it settles on the surface quicker from a low height. The dust is also dispersed at a higher velocity, which means it reaches the highest point in its trajectory faster, causing it to start falling sooner and therefore it lands quicker. Why is it even necessary to explain this?
9
Fascinating, tell me more. Where was this 'film studio'?
3
Even in the 1/6th gravity of the moon, the Apollo A7Ls and PLSS combined were bulky, quite cumbersome, rigid top heavy with a awkward centre of gravity. Despite the fact that the combined weight was 14kgs on the moon, this was still cumbersome and they a mass of 81 kilograms / 180 lbs which was quite restrictive. You are also failing to factor in that in low gravity, none of your muscle memory works. Your sense of balance is completely shot. You essentially have to learn how to walk again, nearly from scratch, and while wearing that constrictive suit, with an unfamiliar top-heavy center of gravity. Such low gravity is deceptive in that while it feels like you are “only” carrying a 14 kg weight if you build up momentum in that, it will still act as an 80+ kg mass when you have to stop it from moving, or change direction. They did jump, and much higher than they would have been able to wearing the same gear on Earth, but they were unable to crouch or properly spring. What we see in the footage is entirely consistent with the physics of an astronaut on the lunar surface.
3
@theeraphatsunthornwit6266 And on your second point, what is it that you don't understand about appeal to authority? You'll also find on Quora "it's a semantic mess". Also in mathematical terms 1/6th eliminates the ambiguity. On the first point - you asked why an astronaut wasn't able to jump higher. The answer I provided is not "circumstantial", it is the reason why. Perhaps you should ask Quora about that too and see what the "experts" say? Don't forget to cherry pick the responses.
3
Incorrect. Even though they were only pressurised to 4.2psi, the suits by nature were still quite rigid and the centre of mass offset. The weight on the moon together with the PLSS would have been about 14kg. Also, you mean, 1/6th gravity, not "six times less".
3
As has been explained to you innumerable times, know science is not a question of 'belief'.
3
@luis-sophus-8227 I'll tell you what is hilarious - dumb online conspiracy believers who are unable to understand a flawed, crude, broken algorithm on the comments section of a video entertainment platform that a child could comprehend. Even funnier, the failure to grasp that it afflicts everyone that uses it indiscriminately and the fact that they are not special, nor is it confirmation of that their posts are in any way significant or censored. Who precisely are "they"?
2
Jeez, why don't you goons actually objectively read up on the layered construction of the A7Ls? You think that they used a YKK like your Levis?
2
@viktorm3840 No you didn't kiddo. You are merely another opinionated believer in dumb online conspiracy theory afflicted by a chronic case of the Dunning Kruger effect and a large helping of illusory superiority. If you actually believe the garbage you regurgitate then why are you frittering your time away poncing about on the comments section of You Tube? Take your supposed findings out there and challenge the entire space sector. Go ahead then
2
@theeraphatsunthornwit6266 "This concept does not forbid you to trust any and all authority. If one has authority but also has other merit for you to trust, then you can reasonably trust them." And what you fail to understand is the fact that it is not about the individual, nor trusting an individual per-se, nor is it about cherry picking your sources.
2
@luis-sophus-8227 "Haha, consume and regurgitate goes for you fellow" Said the gullible believer in dumb online conspiracy theory. I am irrelevant to this exchange. The scientific, technical, independent and third party evidence in support of the moon landings is axiomatic, manifest, and has a voice of its own. You can observe precisely the same effect here on Earth - that's what uneven terrain can do. And yes, this has been addressed, over and over and over and over and over again, most amusingly when David Percy was exposed for dishonestly cropping pictures. Do you have anything new or perhaps an original thought that you could share? I'm genuinely interested. Something other than diverging shadows, the Apollo 11 astronauts looked glum in the press conference, the flag moves, NASA forgot to add the stars or there should be a crater under the lunar module? Go ahead, I'm sure you can muster something relating to your own observations.
2
How You Not Able To Write English?
1
@columbuscolumbus65 The Apollo landing sites have been photographed by the LRO. In addition to this, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe has imaged the landing sites which have also been captured by India's Chadrayaan-2 orbiter which photographed the Apollo 11 Lunar Module Eagle descent stage (the orbiter's image of the Apollo landing site was released to the public on September 3, 2021). They were also confirmed by China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2. The best of those are LRO and Chandrayaan-2. Chandrayaan’s camera has a resolution of 0.25 m per pixel. LRO is at about 0.5 m per pixel.
1
@shirleypurvis2878 Said the gullible believer in dumb online conspiracy theory.
1
@shirleypurvis2878 Wrong. I don't subscribe to online conspiracy theory or 'belief' - and at no stage have I mentioned mine. That would be you. Furthermore, known science is not a question of 'belief'. If you wish to claim that the six Apollo moon landings were faked then as requested present your evidence. Commence with your singular most compelling, conclusive and persuasive piece. You will naturally wish to avoid the same old predictable obligatory consumed and regurgitated conspiracy theory that has mindlessly been parroted over and over and over again and comprehensively been debunked on innumerable and countless occasions. Do you have anything vaguely resembling your own thoughts or original observations? Go ahead then.
1
@deanhall6045 "VAB says no." The person that discovered them and and entire branch of science called physics says yes. Incidentally, they are belts, since there are two, in addition to a third that is transitory. You couldn't even parrot that correctly.
1
@luis-sophus-8227 The claims about divergent shadows have been addressed innumerable times - most amusingly, when David Percy was caught dishonestly cropping images. I'm curious though, instead of parroting the same old obligatory conspiracy theory that has been routinely debunked over and over and over and over again, do you have any original thoughts or observations of your own? Y'know, something other than NASA forgot to add the stars, or the astronauts looked glum and miserable at a press conference.
1
@luis-sophus-8227 Unfortunately, my comments were shadow banned.
1
@luis-sophus-8227 Nope, I replied. Unfortunately, my comment was shadow banned. It should be showing in your alerts though. A lesson on special needs would be a more apposite description of your posts. Divergent shadows? Seriously? This again? It's the same things over and over and over and over again. What next? The Apollo 11 astronauts looked glum in the press conference? NASA forgot to add the stars? They forgot about a crater under the LM - or how about NASA means deceive in Hebrew? The shadows have been addressed and debunked innumerable times, most amusingly when David Percy was exposed for dishonestly cropping images. I'm genuinely interested though. Do you have any original thoughts and observations of your own, instead of parroting the same old predictable, obligatory dumb online conspiracy theory? If so, I'd be most interested to hear them.
1
@luis-sophus-8227 There is ample Apollo footage of astronauts leaning forward, not that this was particularly necessary other than negotiating inclines. I don't need to cover anything whatsoever - least of all the same nonsensical conspiratorial claims that have been debunked innumerable times that you still nonetheless feel the need to gullibly consume and regurgitate.
1
@viktorm3840 Why? Because you said so? Ok then.
1
@viktorm3840 Why? Because you said so? Righto then.
1
@luis-sophus-8227 Would it? Because you said so? No, they are prone to moving awkwardly because of the rigid nature of the suits in 1/6th gravity. The muscle memory aspect refers to re-adaptation. You are also overlooking the fact that the suits and life support pack massed over eighty pounds. That’s not much weight on the moon, but it’s roughly the same inertia as having a sack of cement in a backpack. That upset the balance and made movement awkward. And they contrary to your claims, they did lean forward to compensate for the centre of mass. that does not mean that they couldn't also move in an upright position.
1
Or a dumb conspiracy video with Bart Sibrel in it.
1
@luis-sophus-8227 "The only thing Muscle Memory loss'd cause is accidental higher jumps, nothing else" Would it? Why? Because you said so? "not stumbling that looks as if they were attached to the Argos system" No, it looks like they are wearing cumbersome space suits in 1/6th gravity and a vacuum with an off-set centre of mass. "The bag was heavy" What bag? What the hell are you talking about now? "Basic balance if you ask me, But no one did, and no one will. "seems like you overlooked that." I suggest that you read my reply again.
1
Nothing gets past you genius.
1
@luis-sophus-8227 What "bags" are you talking about you complete dimwit? Presumably you mean the PLSS? "Actornauts" - seriously? How many times? Do you have an original thought of your own even occasionally entering your vacuous cranium?
1