Apollo 15 Hammer-Feather Drop 

😆

Not according to the Luddites on this site. They believe Cdr. Scott dropped the objects when instructed by Stanley Kubrick. Worse yet, Kubrick made Scott re-shoot the scene 132 times until he got the take he needed.

Eric Beer how many times were you dropped on your head?

@@ENB1968 You are Legally Insane, at least in my opinion. Dave Scott was a COLONEL in the US Air Force, and even Stanley Kubrick had no patience for the Conspiracy Insanity that said he was in on the "Moon Hoax."

Unfortunately for some, that requires a functional brain...

I guess none of you appreciate sarcasm. Too bad. For the record, I refer to him as "Commander" because he was mission (Apollo 15) commander. I am well aware commander is not an Air Force rank.

He was not on the Moon, that "demonstration" could be easily faked here on earth

@@wyqz-channel2829 What do you mean? Of course he is not on the moon decades later, this is a video from 1971, they returned home.

​@@MrBelles104 best answer ever

@@wyqz-channel2829 yeah ... he was in Trump's backyard praying to God Almighty to remove the COVID-19 virus and help him be re-elected in 2024 ... i was there myself and witnessed that with my own beautiful eyes! 😀

ATMAtim some person in the distant future will find it and it will return to Earth 🌏

@@razzolap2500 Maybe not. It has been degrading in the high UV sunlight and solar wind ever since. There might not be much left of it now, certainly it will be gone by that "distant future".

seems like it would be really hard and maybe risky to try and lean those suits over an dpick something up but maybe with the low grvity its not a big deal idk

Perhaps we (or someone!) will see an imprint in the lunar dust where the feather once was, and the layers of dust that covered it in the following centuries follow its contours and details like a fossil - but in dust instead of stone...? Or will whatever is left be diffused into the surroundings like a disappearing sandbar?

how convenient.

If they didn't hit the ground at the same time everything we knew about gravity would have broken, right then and there lol.

@@sicccstudios6595 Very true! Why, the coyote may have still been hanging off that cliff with his sign!! LOL

@@sicccstudios6595 When the feather drop experiment was being planned before the flight there were concerns that static electricity on the feather and Scott's spacesuit might cause the feather to fall at a different rate than the hammer. Some at NASA argued against the experiment for this reason but it was decided to do it anyway. Fortunately it worked out.

novelty

Yes, feel the same way

They won't! They will film in 480p

You don't need to go to the moon to perform this experiment. All you need is a vacuum chamber. You could perform the same experiment here on Earth. Here is an example : ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-E43-CfukEgs.html In fact, you don't even need a vacuum chamber here on Earth. You could take a thick book or something. Place a feather on top of the book. Drop a rock in one hand and the feather on top of the book in the other - - - at the same time, and the feather will fall right along with the book. This isn't some trick with suction or anything. The book is simply blocking the air from the feather, so it falls without much drag at all.

10 dollar that chinese make it first😂

But... first, he would have freaked out over the fact that they were on the Moon.

Come on man, its not just a guess. Its a calculation.

@@kircyclone I am glad you made that point. Yes, Galileo did *not* need to 'guess'. He based his result on careful experiment and careful thinking about it, including the math we now accomplish by "vector addition". Galileo did not live long enough to see it, but the scientific confirmation of his theory of motion and gravity came in Sir Isaac Newton's great work, the Principia, where he showed how gravity (and a few other laws of motion) describe the motion of *all* the planets and their visible moons.

I'd imagine his reaction would be similar to Van Gogh's in that Doctor Who episode

@@TheAlps36 I have never seen that show besides that clip on youtube months ago & thats exactly what i imagined as well.

that's a great point, I'm used to considering momentum only on earth

@@cardayz1391 - You also make a great point. Here on earth we often equate weight with mass but they aren't the same thing. In space or on the moon that relationship is not the same as down here.

very interesting

🤣🤣🤣🤣 the vacuum... feather and hammer fall at same rate yet they can bounce around 🤣🤣🤣 the fact that ppl believe this shit blows my mind at the lack of the ability to think for themselves

@@Brousey How did you get this far? Hopefully one day you learn to pay attention and study before making a buffoon out of yourself.

Williams Tipton was a Navy Frogman on one of those missions. On the recovery side i got too work wirh Tico Bill Tipton at a Recycling plant in Dixon Illinois

Very chill

“I guess one of the reasons we got here today” he says it like a casual stroll downtown, instead of an incredible endeavour with the help of hundreds of scientists and engineers

He'd been on it a few days by this point, this was at the end of the 3rd Eva.

Dave Scott was chill guy. He was with Armstrong on a Gemini that went out of control in orbit,but Armstrong being chill righted it and splashed down in the sea of Japan. Scott drove the first Lunar rover on Apollo 15. Some remarkable photos in the highest part of the moon. A true 'Good old Boy', Like Carpenter and Armstrong. 🇺🇸🖨📺📽🇺🇸

Really? Wouldn't that make landing difficult? How is this information found out, from the rover or the people who actually landed.

​@@mellowyellow2022at the speeds they were going for landing it basically doesn't matter. in any case, the moon has *some* atmosphere, because it has gravity, and a few air molecules will hang around because of it

​@@aemrt5745 Yep. I was able to get using the video played back at 29.97 fps a fall time of about 1.7 seconds (1.668 s if you want to use the actual value I used). I counted 50 frames for the hammer to hit the ground for those playing along at home. Using ImageJ and a quick look up of Scott's height (I used the highest value I could find of 6 feet five inches, but I found sources claiming he was anywhere between 6 feet and 6' 5'') I found the hammer was dropped at a distance of about 1.5 m (1.458 m). Plugging and chugging I found a predicted acceleration of 1.04 m/s^2 or somewhere like that. 35% error, but clearly no where near 9.8 m/s^2, I can't imagine the space suit adds all that much height so I ignored it. If anyone wants to figure out how much height the space suit does add feel free. But I think the major limiting factor is the frame rate of the original video (15 fps). We just don't have the resolution to accurately time the fall. But the results are in favor of being on the moon. Either they were on the moon or NASA has a way to turn down local gravity.

@@zenaku666 "in favor". Jesus motherfucking Christ...DEAL WITH IT, THEY WENT ON THE MOON. Period.

@@JohnDoe-dj3lw I know that I never implied to the contrary. Saying "x is in favor of y" is not casting shade on y. I'm saying that the evidence supports the fact. Period.

Or simply change the video speed

Thats easy for you to say!

Yes I recall at the time Apollo 14s pilot - Mitchel got into trouble from NASA for barn storming during the decent phase lol

Dave Scott got to do a lot of stuff. Even with Armstrong floating around Japan,when their Gemini ship went for a spin. Galileo dropped his of the Tower of Pisa.🇺🇲🇮🇹

I am showing this to my Physics students today. Hahaha.

@dennis pickard I did. All of them do, thankfully.

It's not even politics we're not even American or Russian. It's approved and accepted feat of humankind by the scientific community. So I teach it.

@Mitch Batten Advanced level of cinematography? In 1971 the Oscar went to....Fiddler on the Roof

@@micheleh5269 You're right, but you missed the point. US' classified military technology is always a couple years ahead of its time. Mitch Batten thinks NASA was using something that followed the same concept, which in a way isn't wrong, since they did win the race to thw moon.

And today we can't do it 😅 because gas prices is a interesting reason ... i mean statistically its a weird data about ewolution of science an ewolution of humanity and priorities and i think its interestin statistical data about evolution of intelligience.... if its true anyway...

"Space may be the final frontier but it's made in a Hollywood basement."

"And Cobain can you hear the spheres singing songs off Station To Station?"

@@pees2239 Three kinds of space. The space down here, the space up there, and the space between your ears.

I made the same calculation, this is one of the best proof that they are actually on the moon

CountArtha it would be frozen or molten out there if it's in a regular bottle

They don't need to go to the moon for that. It has been demonstrated multiple times from various space stations and shuttles, as well as from free-fall airplanes on earth.

@@sanzidhasan2 Well, frozen really. Being molten wouldn't really be a problem would it? Lots of molten water here on earth also.

@@agerven I need to step in here. The boiling temperature of water depends on the air pressure. Or the pressure in the bottle. With 1 bar pressure on a space station water will not boil at room temperature. Nor in free falling airplanes. Gravity doesn't come in to play.

@@markvanslooten5311 You are right. I confused boiling with the behavior of water droplets in near zero gravity conditions!

Ok we believe that NASA lost all the ingredients of secret formula. I can't imagine if we lost ingridents of fire too :) seems believable I mean you believe that NASA lost their best archiwements technical analysis logs/ research data. Then that clearly it's possible say we lost the technology for lasers microwaves transistors may be 😊

Air resistance* And still flat earther's and other hoaxers still won't believe.

Braden Salvador shut the fuck up

Braden Salvador why would they fake this?

Where on Earth? Anywhere, I supposed?

"It's obviously a sound stage that is under vacuum." Would most likely be a moon landing denier's reply.

I cant tell if youre saying feathers can't bounce or they're not bouncing properly??? There's clearly a slower descent here because its the moon. Also feathers can bend like rubber, they can potentially bounce

Are you sure? www.nasa.gov/image-article/worlds-largest-vacuum-chamber/#:~:text=The%20Space%20Power%20Facility%20at,exploration%20vehicle%20testing%20in%202010.

It's a vacuum chamber, not a 1/6g chamber. ​@@hitoall123

Yes but the problem is that a lot of people want to believe we didn't and no matter how much evidence you throw at them it doesn't change their minds.

@@joevignolor4u949 Yeah! Probably because of the common sense fallacy; because their unreliable common sense tells them the earth is flat, they see all evidence as hoax. They literally want to go to space themselves before they believe -- and even so, some still won't believe.

Not really, I thought there was no gravity in moon, right? How the fuck did they fall down without any pressure being applied to them?

@@Susnikas7931 There is gravity on the moon. But it is less than here on earth - about 1/6th earth's gravity. Evidence of this are the tidal changes, which are the result of the moon's gravity pulling on the earth's oceans.

Oh my god. Seriously?? You thought there was no gravity on the Moon? No gravity on another planetary body?? I almost feel sorry for you.

mass is not what make things bounce. Example on Earth a ball will bounce higher than a block of iron. It is how much flex the object has. Feathers have significant more flex in them than a hammer.

@Smee Self : but not with a feather. Just other objects of different mass

Why don't you put a fishing line on a hammer and see if it moves the same way it does in the footage.

@@John_marston19011 I have & it does, you just lower it at the speed required, it's easy. Are you a bit slow?🤔😂

​@@papalegba6796are you a bit slow calling everyone chatbots ......

Feathers bounce because they can slightly bend and there's no air resistance. What's your point. Also a fishing line wouldn't have been able to make the dust look like low gravity. No air resistance is impossible back then since large vacuum chambers weren't built. Even if it were a fishing line, the hammer would be moving side to side quick

@@articticcblu feathers don't bounce because they don't have enough mass though. And the dust didn't look like low gravity either. What's your point?

Elementary school kids would have a problem getting to the Moon, but yeah.

Because feathers are _flexible_ and it hit the ground with a higher speed than it would in an atmosphere. The same happens in a vacuum chamber on Earth: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-E43-CfukEgs.html

@@fromnorway643 Is one meter and 10 meter the same???Is the Earth's gravity and the Moon's gravity the same?and temperature??

@@user-fd5yo2mk1n A feather has a very low *_terminal velocity_* near sea level in the Earth's atmosphere, that is, it will reach a steady speed very soon after being dropped and not accelerate any further. When dropped in a vacuum - on the Earth or on the Moon - it will just keep accelerating until impact. It doesn't take much time (less than one second) for a falling feather in the vacuum on the Moon to exceed the terminal velocity it would have in the Earth's atmosphere despite the gravitational acceleration on the Moon being only 1/6 of Earth's. The terminal velocity for a falling human without a parachute in the lower part of the Earth's atmosphere is about 200 km/h. Any object on the Moon would exceed that speed if dropped from more than 950 metres above the ground. Jumping from that height on the Moon would thus be just as deadly with a - completely useless - parachute as doing it _without_ a parachute on the Earth. Anyway, as other commenters have pointed out, it seems that the feather _rolled over_ more than it bounced, so I don't see any problem here.

@@fromnorway643 The moon's gravitational acceleration is 1.6 ㎨ Earth's gravitational acceleration is 9.8 ㎨ So, let's calculate the speed of feathers on the moon. The height is approximately 1 meter. The fall time is about 1 second. V=gt=1.6㎨*1t =1.6 m/s =5.76 km/h =3.6 miles/h Do you still think feathers are fast?

@@user-fd5yo2mk1n I think the height was more like 1.2 metres. 1.2 = ½ x 1.62 x t² 1.2 = 0.81 x t² t² = 1.2 / 0.81 t = √ (1.2/0.81) = 1.22 sec v = 1.22 x 1.62 = 1.98 m/sec = 7.13 km/h Not very fast since the feather was dropped from such a small height, but it would have reached 200 km/h if dropped from 950 metres, just as the hammer or the astronaut himself would have done.

Their only type of "debunking" is crying FAKE!!!!

@@fromnorway643 Nah, they'd make 200 videos talking and discussing every single possibility of how they could've faked it, ignoring that it's easier to straight up do it on the moon than fake it on Earth 😂.

Yeah. The feather is not rigid like the hammer and will deflect and then spring back.

@@kitcanyon658 It sprung back quick when he bent it before dropping.😆

@@mellowyellow2022 What? So that confirms that the feather can bend and as bent have torsional stress to bounce back into shape. Thanks for that.

@@kitcanyon658 😆...I said no such thing, I said he bent it before he dropped it....and as you can see it flipped back pretty quick.😁

@@mellowyellow2022 :Thereby affirming that the feather bends back after experiencing a force. Duh....Thanks for confirming that basics of physics.

@@ymbhiojtukburtbuyt568 Those were WONDERFUL Days and Missions.

@@ymbhiojtukburtbuyt568 EXACTLY how I Feel about this. But it still took the Church until 1992 to Officially State that Galileo was in the Right and the Church was wrong. What Way and a Place to verify an experiment done some 500 years before.

thank you

People have been arguing they are right from the moment they don't understand why they are wrong. Like the old 'hare out-running an arrow' nonsense, or the one my grandad didn't know had been disproved over 2,000 years before he was born: 'a horse cannot take all of it's feet off the ground when galloping'. I can run with both feet off the ground, why not a horse. - and the Olympics still has a walking contest, in which the definition of walking is 'having some part of at least one foot on the ground all the time'. It's honestly bizarre the nonsense some people will hold to like a drowning man holds to a floating straw.

@jayvir jadeja And robots can do a much better job now than they could have done 50 years ago.

@@aemrt5745 mathematically %4=8x (1/2 ) so they can do it ower 8 years... and guess what if the technology is there they dont need the some amout of experimental research budget that used %4 of federal money. :P

@@ahmetmutlu348 also the technology isn't there anymore. after the original Saturn V engineers' contracts ran out decades ago, NASA back then made the mistake of not finding a way to replicate their design methods. So now, here in the present, we physically cannot create any more Saturn V rockets. We'd have to reverse engineer them, and there's only a few still in existence

@@jonahmiller5881 blah man... engineers and scirntists uses papers called blue prints :P thats what computers are doing %90 of the time. Taking notes :P so you mean the technology used for land man on moon was all stored inside indivodual researchers minds and nowhere else :P

​@@ahmetmutlu348 no, not quite what i meant. just mean that, well, it's been a LONG time since 1969. all of the assembly lines to create the individual pieces have been decommissioned & are no longer in existence. the memory banks for the rockets weren't manufactured, they were handwoven. and the saturn V was notorious in engineering circles for being a haphazard slapdash "if it works, it works" beast of a rocket...nowadays people wouldn't be too keen on having a hunk of metal covered in asbestos go flying overhead in the upper atmosphere. and most importantly, cost was crazy. the development alone cost over 6 billion dollars! and that was when NASA had 4% of the federal budget. there's a reason they switched to the shuttle program's reusable SRB system, even though the saturn V would have been way more powerful. we have to remember this is before the age of information. there's no internet to 'backup' your info, so yes, some information will die with the original inventors. and if you gave me a blueprint to a quantum computer right now, with no means to create the pieces for it, and no prior knowledge to help me... would I be able to truly understand what I was doing and successfully replicate it? surely not. hope this makes what i was trying to say more clear? let me know if it doesn't

I'm not a physicist but I think the very act of walking on the moon generates so much momentum that humans can easily overcome its gravitational pull and would fly about everywhere. The boots give that little bit of resistance so the astronauts can more or less move like they can on Earth. Because the feather and hammer are much lighter, they don't bounce off the surface and because all their force is downward they stop once essentially they can't go down any further

You're confusing several different concepts here. The astronauts are not wearing weighted boots, aside from the sense that like the rest of their gear they had to be heavily reinforced because lunar dirt is like powdered glass. The moon's gravity is much weaker than Earth's, but it's plenty strong enough to prevent you from just floating off into space. The feather does actually bounce a bit if you look closely- this, like when it flutters a little while he's holding it, is because feathers are soft and springy. In a vacuum there's no air resistance, so it wobbles with a bit more freedom than we're used to seeing feathers have, and bounces back like a spring when dropped. It's not springy enough (elastic enough) to bounce very high, especially on dirt, but it does rebound a little. The astronauts, on the other hand, are like the hammer in that they aren't significantly affected by air resistance or the lack thereof. They bounce because, being used to Earth's gravity, their learned intuitive sense of how mass and weight are related, and how quickly their own bodies should fall, is all screwed up. Trying to walk normally, they push too hard with one step, then overcorrect with another trying not to fall over. There's a reason they eventually all settled on using those little hops to get around- it was less awkward than staggering around like a drunk toddler.

Gravity and vacuum are not the same thing.

Voice and image are, of course, recorder separately. No biggie to speed up film during the fall.

@@Gabor123 Not so fast. People saw this live on air when it happened. So they had no chance to speed it up.

@@SpectatorAlius They could play it back live at a slower speed. But only if they filmed it on film. The important thing to note isn't that it was viewed live, but that it was viewed live without film grain or scratches. Which would have been impossible.

@@im.thatoneguy - Exactly! People forget how primitive FX was in the late 1960s and early 1970s, or the video tape technology of the day. This is a video exploring some of the finer points of that: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-_loUDS4c3Cs.html

What does one thing have to do with the other?

The Apollo missions were also launched eastward to take advantage of the Earth's rotation. They were launched into a temporary parking orbit at 170-180 km altitude before the rocket's third stage was restarted to send the spacecraft on its transfer orbit to the Moon.

Huh?

@@ENB1968 - google it

Tripod for the camera, like in family photos

The camera was mounted onto the lunar rover. You can see the back of the front fender on the left side of the vehicle.

About 1 km/sec in its orbit around the Earth, but it's also following the Earth at 30 km/sec in its orbit around the Sun.

они принесли это с земли

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-fo_eZuOTBNc.html

No copyright on scientific knowledge.

Didn't they bring back the hammer though 🤔

@@louisrobitaille5810 - What would be the point in bringing back the hammer without the feather?

@@louisrobitaille5810 Bringing back the hammer would have meant leaving rocks of equal weight behind. They didin;t go there to bring back hammers.

Spacesuits are not known for their flexibility. Anyway, why would they need to pick them up?

I can't tell if you're sarcastic or serious...

Are you referring to the strings attached to every single dust particle thrown up by the wheels of the lunar rover to give them beautiful, parabolic trajectories mimicking a vacuum in 1/6 g?

Random ignorant hoax-nut comment.

The gravity on the moon is 1/6th that of Earth, so it's obvious that objects fall slower on the moon than on Earth. Not to mention the fact that unlike on the moon, Earth has an atmosphere which creates drag on an object. A hammer might fall faster than a pencil on Earth only because the pencil is affected by drag more than the hammer, thus slowing it down. And again, it would make sense that they would hang at the peak of their jumps for longer than one would on Earth (yes, you do on Earth). The moon's gravity is lesser than Earth's, so it accelerates objects towards it at a slower rate and thus an object will stay up longer.

@@scorcherbrimstone8480 it is possible, but fake is also possible

@@polnoeceloe There's no possibility it's fake. With the technology at the time it would have been cheaper to actually go to the moon than to fake it. And that pesky Soviet Union. You know, the one that hated America's guts and everything it stood for, and wanted to prove that communism is better? The one that would jump in joy at the chance to out America for faking the landings? They confirmed it, along with multiple other third parties. But oh no, it's fake because you don't like how they did the experiment. :/

@@scorcherbrimstone8480 Of course, I do not like how the experiment was conducted, because it was conducted doubtfully. You turn to psychology. In the same way, we can say that Americans believe in flying to the moon because of patriotism, thinking that they are the best country in the world. This is a motive that prevents them from evaluating the facts soberly. You think deception is impossible, but deception is possible. Deception is often used in films and by the military to achieve their goals. That's quite possible. The United States is the best country, including the best in deception) There is no contradiction)

​@@polnoeceloe You said: "Of course, I do not like how the experiment was conducted, because it was conducted doubtfully." Doubtfully according to *you,* the same person who doesn't know that gravity on the lunar surface is weaker than Earth's. So what if they had done the things you said they should have done? I'd bet you'd still be crying fake. Billions of dollars spent on the Apollo program and you think they wouldn't have been able to make convincing props? You said: "You turn to psychology." No I did not. You said: "You think deception is impossible, but deception is possible." Just because *you* think it could be possible does not mean it happened. It's not necessarily that I think it's impossible the moon landings were faked (even though with the technology at the time it would have been way more expensive to fake it than to actually just do it), therefore they weren't faked, but it's the fact that there's no actual proof they *were* faked, and all the actual proof we *do* have points to them actually happening. And no, crack-pot hypotheses from people who don't even know the basics - such as gravity on the lunar surface being weaker than Earth's - does not count as proof.

On a first viewing it does look like it flutters from side to side. But if you slow the video down you can see that it actually falls directly downwards without fluttering. The fluttering appearance is caused by it going in and out of the light on its way straight down, and maybe also by our expectations about how a feather falls.

Hi DD, hope that you are well. The hammer and feather are behaving exactly as they should in an almost zero gas -resistance, low gravity (g = 1.6 m/s?2) environment. Take care.

@@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth Yes. Because they hanging on wires and motor is calibrated to release the wires at 1,6 ms. But feather bounce up from ground impact and hammer 🔨 handle slows down on the impact. This can be achieved only by wires and not in 1,6 ms native environment.

​@@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth And if we analyze deeper the footage clearly see how hammer and feather are pulled up slightly. And actor astronaut swirl few times hammer and feather to hook them to the wires. Then how actor evade and bypass hanging wires by moving backwards and around. And how he moving very low to surface. Small cautious steps. Low low to surface. Not high jumps. Why bypass backwards? Because is fiĺled with wires tight situation.

@@LORDVADER357 Hi dd, thank you for your reply. What you have written is simply conjecture. There is no evidence or even a hint of "wires" whatsoever. there are literally dozens of opportunities throughout the footage from the various Apollo missions where measurements can be taken and the value of the acceleration due to gravity calculated (falling objects, falling dust, swinging pendulum, oscillating backpack, jumping astronauts).These values are always congruent with the expected value for g on the Moon of 1.6 ms>-2. Take care.

@@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth You have to blind then. Or heavily paid by nasa. 6 times weaker gravity? Then how astronauts are close to surface? They should be able to jump over the Lunar module.

One astronaut is recorded as saying 'I like to skip along'. It works is why they do it.

...

Heard of storage?

@@DarkTheFailure They left the feather there 😝

Why not?

Your math is right, but your timing is not. Here are the primary problems: you are relying on your ability to record the time accurately to measure gravity. I can speak from personal experience in physics classes that measuring gravity without sophisticated tools or elaborate experiment is EXTREMELY difficult. Making an accurate calculation from this is near impossible, especially because the way you are timing it is also influenced by reaction time. In this event, reaction time causes a significant change in the time (it could easily account for the 0.2 second difference). The other problem is that this is a video play back, meaning it is altered by the low framerate and possibly different playback time. To do this correctly, you would have to count the number of frames the objects are in free fall, find out the frame rate of the camera (I know it was 10 fps on early missions and they later switched to 30 fps, not sure what this camera is). From this, you could figure out the precise amount of time free fall lasted. In order to count the number of frames, you may need additional software as it seems pretty hard to do otherwise.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Gucr_OfzQ6M.html check this video out that I want her right after replying to you. Here they count the frames and your math was right on

No, it does not "kind of fit" because they would have to run the audio at half speed too. And we *know* what Scott's voice really sounds like, it is clearly *not* being run at half speed.

Your timing was almost certainly off, and the frame-rate issues cited by cardayz1391 could also play a role. In addition, the moon's gravity varies significantly across its surface and could affect it. Our human reaction times are too slow to get accurate timings of something that happens that quickly, and a difference of only 0.1-0.3 seconds, when squared, can make a big difference in the calculated result. For example, if you use the accepted average acceleration due to gravity on the Moon of 1.625 m/s^2 = 5.331 ft/s^2 (Wikipedia from Hirt & Featherstone [2012]), then you get these heights for three timings: 1.00 sec --> 2.666 feet 1.18 sec (my timing) --> 3.712 feet 1.30 sec --> 4.505 feet Considering the average human reaction time is ~0.25-0.27 seconds (multiple sources), it is easy to see how your timing is probably the main issue here. Consider also that almost everyone would start their stopwatch timing late, because you cannot easily anticipate the exact moment he drops the objects (no verbal countdown or any other cues), therefore you start your timing a little late, but you CAN anticipate the moment when they will hit the surface while watching them, thereby stopping your timer more accurately, and thus shortening the actual time elapsed.

@@stephenhammond6059, thanks

Another misunderstanding: There is no atmosphere on the moon, therefore they weren't out in 270° heat. Only the surface gets hot! And why do you think they made the space suits reflective white? _So they wouldn't get too hot!_ There are answers to your questions.

@@Tim22222 Since it's the atmosphere that protects us on Earth from the heat of the Sun, please provide a link showing how the lack of atmosphere protected the astronauts on the moon from the heat of the Sun.

Also consider the fact that the lunar surface reaches 270° in the middle of the lunar day when the sun is directly overhead. The Apollo astronauts landed during the lunar morning when it was cooler, hence the long shadows

@@Tim22222 but still there is ground and well you are right it takes time to charge heat... so may be that part is not a proof they werent there... but its not the only light indicating it may not be real..

@@ahmetmutlu348 The sun *_was_* the only light.