Proof of Faked Apollo Footage?
October 28, 2002 by mr-freedom
Filed under Science
I believe I have found the most conclusive evidence to support the that the Apollo missions to the Moon were hoaxed; in fact, I have proved it. I detail this below.
I live in London and recently saw a documentary [watch it here] which showed the Apollo footage doubled in speed, giving the appearance of Earthlike gravity. Quite apart from demonstrating that NASA could have filmed on Earth and halved the speed, there is much more here.
To increase the speed by a factor of two and achieve the appearance of Earthlike gravity means the gravity on the Moon is one quater of that on Earth–but it is not; it is one sixth. Thus, to achieve Earthlike gravity would require increasing the speed of the footage by the square root of 6: aprox 2.45.
In order to prove that the videos were not shot on the Moon, you need to observe the footage from Apollo XV, where David Scott demonstrates the Galilean principle by dropping a hammer and an feather to the ground in a vacume, i.e., on the Moon. The hammer is in freefall for at most 1.1 seconds. The distance it would therefore travel is:
0.5 x gravity x time x time =
0.5 x (9.8/6) x 1.1 x 1.1 = 0.99
Thus the hammer could not have fallen a distance of more than 99 cm, or 0.99 m.
I have not been able to find David Scott’s height; however, looking at photographs, he is clearly taller than Armstrong, who is 5′11″, by several inches. David Scott is also wearing “Moon Boots”. The hammer is dropped by David Scott from sholder height, easily 150 cm, or 1.5 m. This is not possible. David Scott cannot have been standing on the Moon when he dropped that hammer.
However, if we assume that NASA did indeed film the action on Earth, then halved the film speed, the distance the hammer would travel is:
0.5 x 9.8 x 0.55 x 0.55 = 1.48 m = 148 cm.
I rest my case.
My calculations have been verified by several of my friends who are maths geeks like myself, and I hope you will also verify them. I look forward to hearing from you.
Mr Freedom [anonanon20071969@hotmail.com] (from NEXUS Magazine Oct-Nov 2002)
The video does’nt work.
Hello, I just wanted to say that the object is in freefall for not 1.1 seconds, but 1.2 seconds (36 frames in a 30FPS video downloaded from the Apollo Archive). This would result in a 1.17 meter figure for an “on the moon” scenario, and a 1.75 meter figure for a “faked on Earth” scenario.
Also just to say that gravity on the moon is much less then 9.8 (thats the acceleration due to gravity at the EARTH’S SURFACE)
Your calculations are correct, however, they are based upon a flawed value - resulting in you actually proving the video was taken on the moon, not on Earth.
Apollo XV landed near the Moon’s equator, where gravity is only 5.32 ft/sec^2 (1.622 m/sec^2), not the 9.8 ft/sec^2 you erroneously chose as gravity. That’s Earth gravity, and not even earth’s gravity in a vacuum.
1.1 seconds of freefall at 1.622 m/sec^2 means the hammer would fall for just shy of 1.8 meters. With his natural height and moon boots David Scott was easily two meters or more, so a shoulder level drop of ~1.8 meters is entirely plausible.
Nukem - did you do the calculation?
0.5x 1.622 x 1.1 x 1.1 (with all your ‘correct’ measurements
= 0.98 meters, on the moon.
The calculation that the original guy did using 9.8 meters per second was demonstrating the distance ON EARTH.
Interesting.
If we use 1.62 m/s accelaration, 1.2 seconds as the time for the drop, that yields 1.72 meters, or just over 3.8 feet for the height of the hammer.
It is NOT accurate to say the hammer is shoulder height. He could not get his arms fully straight, they are angled down slightly, and the head of the hammer is below his hand. The head of the hammer is at about bellybutton level. That is just about right.
Therefore - that was filmed in lunar gravity and you are a jackass.
Correction - I meant 1.16 meters, which is 3.8 feet.
1.72 meters is what you get for earth gravity at 1/2 speed - which would be much higher than the hammer head in the video.
there are no stars in any of the moon pictures patric moor said on tv that humans cant see stars due to no atmosphire rubbish any way if this is true y did neal armstrong say quote we calibrated our instruments by the aligment of the stars its a case of little lie big lie any way these people are highly educated scientists they shouldnt get basic physics wrong
if the luna surface is dust as fine as concrete dust no air 13rd gravity the thrust from the luna landing rockets both take off and landing should have blown up a very large amount of dust no dust fake landing what do u think ?
If the lunar landings were fake, and cost lots and lots of money, why did NASA have to do these manned lunar missions 6 times? I believe that the lunar landings are real.
I don’t think the multibillion dollar space program would fake the moon landing. I think you just don’t want to accept that the little human race is growing up and can develope techknowledgy that can get them somewhere other than earth. There is no conspiracy, the moon landing is real, and there is plenty of proof.