use the facts wrote:
I Did The Math wrote:
It's almost like the anti-hoax believers don't want to find the data, even though it's right b4 them.
@ 30FPS (speed), the hammer might maybe move at (harder to tell with feather) at 59.46s.
But the lack of more movement at 59.49s makes it hard to say (there is glare change at the right side, so this really is a different frame).
I think 59.53s is the most likely frame of departure. By the next frame 59.56s the hammer has gone slightly down, and it seems the feather too. But it could be actually later (horizontal movement of hands prior to release).
Then we can count frames. One-by-one, we reach ground contact at 1:00.73s or 36 frames later. That's 1.2s, leading to shoulder height of only 1.17m, much shorter than expected. The astronaut holds the pose for an extended time period, if that's how they spliced in the 0.5x part with normal speed. The hammer topples over, but it's too hard to tell if this is "normal" in g/6 speed.
Conclusion, either NASA lied and this was originally less than 30 FPS, or the astronaut is much shorter than expected. Or the whole thing is a HOAX.
Apollo 15 was 20 FPS.
For Apollo 12 the scan converter was no longer used, as a more powerful transmitter on the Lunar Module, EIA standard frame sequential television was down linked from the moon. The colour was produced by means of a red, green, and blue colour wheel rotating at 20 frames per second in front of a black and white Westinghouse television camera used by the astronauts, which was then electronically converted at the tracking stations to the standard commercial broadcast signal, colour synchronised to the green field, before it was sent to line.
By Apollo 15 the television system was properly installed without ‘kluges’ and modifications, and from then on worked very well, though still using the colour wheel.”
If you calculate it you get about 9.5 m/s^2.
In general, the acceleration with such a general calculation of the defenders is quite lunar. On this the advocates stopped their reasoning, and, probably, not in vain. Otherwise, they would have to correct the value of the acceleration to a completely earthly magnitude.
In contrast, the skeptic [5] looked through the entire clip frame by frame and found that a significant number of frames in the clip in question are, so to speak, “dead,” that is, they repeat the same position of objects. On them, the "hammer" and "feather" do not move.
On ill.4. a continuous sequence of seven frames is shown (no intermediate frames are cut). Frame number 1 corresponds to the moment when the astronaut just opened his hand and released the hammer. The next two frames almost coincide with it. But this can be explained by the fact that the fall is just beginning, and the hammer is moving at low speed. But for the next four absolutely identical frames, this explanation no longer passes: on frame No. 4, the hammer makes a small jump down and freezes in this position for another three frames (No. 5.6.7).
Here is another continuous sequence: from frame No. 20 to frame No. 30 (ill. 5). Here, the hammer is completely invisible due to poor image quality, and we are watching a rainbow spot signifying a feather. Next to him the author put a white dot. After frame No. 20, the feather “jumps” down and then freezes by as much as six frames (from No. 21 to No. 26, inclusive). Then the pen jumps down again and freezes again for three frames (from # 27 to # 29 inclusive).
Thus, in a clip many frames-repeats are built in. As a result, the fall of objects looks more slowly than it actually was. And this is how the “lunar” acceleration of the fall is obtained. To determine the true acceleration of falling objects, it is necessary to take into account only “live” frames, excluding built-in frames from the calculation. This is exactly what the author [5] did and received as a result the most, that neither the earthly value of acceleration a = 10 m / s 2 .
The author of the book repeated such a calculation on "live" frames. Of the 36 shots of the episode, 15-18 shots were “alive”. The inaccuracy of the calculation is due to the terrible quality of the clip. So the true time of the fall of objects was (15-18) / 36 s or 0.4-0.5 s. Hence, by the formula a = 2 h / t 2 in full agreement with [5] it turns out quite earthly value a = (9.5 ± 2) m / s 2 .
Now I understand why the quality of the clip is so awful. Poor quality, more precisely, the lack of quality allows you to hide how the image of falling objects jerks because of the inserted dead frames.
YouTube of course has Censored a video showing the same effect in a London film studio.
http://veche.ru/press/show/138