ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: najak on November 22, 2024, 05:58:39 AM
-
I have only begun to delve into this phenomenon. For sake of this debate, let's keep this limited to ONLY the case for Apollo 14 where the flag moves 8 times while the astronauts are inside.
As my thesis, I'll show the surely-famous clip from Jet Wintzer.
https://youtu.be/p_66cqMQsW4 (https://youtu.be/p_66cqMQsW4)
He seems to do a good job with this presentation, but I'm guessing it's flawed.
I've also read some debunking that suggests it was the result of "cabin depressurization" where the air was expelled close enough to move the flag.
However, I've not seen the proof of alignment of the Flight Journal aligned to these cases of flag motion to prove a feasible correlation.
Nor am I aware of any explanation for what would explain how force is PULLING the flag towards the LEM? For the majority of the time, this flag is offscreen, suggesting that it's "resting state" is offscreen to the right. And then some force PULLS it onto the screen, towards the LEM.
How do PNA's explain this motion?
(PNA = Pro-Nasa-Advocate -- is there a better term to use here. I assume my acronym here is HB - Hoax Believer)
-
The video is between EVA 1 and 2.
Given the horizontal bar of the flag pole could pivot freely, I doubt it would have taken a lot of pressure to cause the flag to rotate, once the expelled gasses from the depressurisation prior to the 2nd EVA reached the flag (while gas will expand in a vacuum, its main impulse will still be towards the flag, which was in front of the LM).
But you know what else happened either side if the footage? This picture, showing the flag pointing towards the LM, post EVA 1, and away from the LM post EVA 2.
Simple explanation, requiring no unsupported variables.
-
@TimberWolfAu - thank you for the contribution. I was aware of those two photos as well, and the way they have been used in attempt to fully debunk this flag motion on film.
Here's the fully unexplained issue - in the film we see it spend most of it's time off-screen, but 4 of it's 8 movements are TOWARDS the LEM??
Is it possible that they noticed the flag motion, and so adding those two photos of the before/after was "damage control"? How many such photos are there to demonstrate this before/after? I'm downloading the full gallery from Apollo 14 now, to see for myself these photos.
-
If "they" noticed the flag motion, why then publish it?
-
If "they" noticed the flag motion, why then publish it?
Good question, but with a good answer. In 1969, this was a 1-shot showing. People only got to see it once. So their "fixing of mistakes" only needed to be "easy" - no reason to reshoot everything or omit their "continuous footage" on account of something that probably not many would notice - and if they did - they'd be treated worse than HB's today... With no way to find a support group, etc...
Even today, lying or ignorant PNA's (Pro-NASA-Advocates) repeat the known-to-be-false claim that "the flag only moves when being touched", but not daring to mention these critical exceptions. This lying claim is mainstream -- it's all most people will ever hear. They've been denied access to the true MLH arguments that undermine the "Apollo Truth" defined by the system for us today.
So clearly, this "fix" was good enough to last 55 years, and PNA's are still clinging to it tight. So it worked. That's why they didn't need to reshoot the scene or omit this footage.. Just "add a few photos" that we can point to later, if needed.
I haven't fully researched this one. Am in the process of doing this now.
-
Did more research - downloaded all 680 photos from FLICKR for Apollo 14. There are only 3 shots (with a couple dupes) of the Flag in all.
In the two photos that PNA's (Pro-Nasa-Advocates) use as "evidence", it's blatantly clear that a LOT of activity happened right near this flag between these shots. (altering of foot prints + the equipment right next to it was moved).
So for PNAs to be smug about "look at our proof" while ignoring the likely hood that someone touched the flag during this activity - is silliness. I haven't dug into the video footage, but wouldn't be surprised if it's caught on camera them touching this flag, and PNA's ignore it. For all the accusations PNA's have against HB's for "ignoring evidence" - you might want to look in the mirror.
We have blatant evidence of flag motion that is fully unexplainable, even by this very weak (dishonest?) attempt here with these two photos.
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2017.0;attach=1178;image)
-
Here's the fully unexplained issue - in the film we see it spend most of it's time off-screen, but 4 of it's 8 movements are TOWARDS the LEM??
Is it possible that they noticed the flag motion, and so adding those two photos of the before/after was "damage control"? How many such photos are there to demonstrate this before/after? I'm downloading the full gallery from Apollo 14 now, to see for myself these photos.
Yes, half of the motion of a rotating object will be towards the LM, while the other half will be away from the LM, that's how rotation works.
And if you're convinced that the photos were staged AFTER the event, why don't you do the one thing no HB has ever done; have the original transparencies investigated. To date, every single claim of anomalies in the photographic record have been based on either digital scans (at different resolutions and loss rate) or on copies of copies (even to the point where people complain of anomalies in black and white photos that were originally taken in colour), and even to the extreme of complaining of anomalies in what is claimed to be a single photo when it is in fact a composite of several photos at different times.
-
Yes, half of the motion of a rotating object will be towards the LM, while the other half will be away from the LM, that's how rotation works.
And if you're convinced that the photos were staged AFTER the event...
The PNA theory is that they decompressed the cabin, and this is what hit the flag like a breeze... the flag can ONLY move AWAY from this breeze... if it tried to turn past 180 degrees, then this "breeze" would push it back from the other side - causing it to stabilize at 180 degrees AWAY. End result, if this were cabin pressure caused, is a flag pointing away about 180 degrees... once in this position, there would be NO WAY for decompression "breeze" to PULL IT BACK. This is the simplest type of physics here; why does this not register with you?
And no, I am NOT convinced it was AFTER (all else); but I was only suggesting it, as there were only about 6 of the 650 photos that showed the flag orientation, and the final one "luckily" (for NASA) showed up to give a (weak/invalid) excuse for the moving flag.. Since it was last, they may have simply noticed this before being done with all the shots, and so added it as a sort of "easy damage control" should anyone make note of the atmospheric drafts that moved this flag. As we can see, even a weak/invalid argument works even for smart people, when that argument helps confirm their beliefs.
@Allan Folmerson - promised me smart scientific minds here. So far, I'm not sensing it. Where are the good scientists here, who understand high school physics concepts, at minimum?
-
The really good ones can't really be arsed with your infantile blabber. You have NOTHING that hasn't been seen before, and dismissed as nonsense.
-
The really good ones can't really be arsed with your infantile blabber. You have NOTHING that hasn't been seen before, and dismissed as nonsense.
Then surely you can at least Parrot their previous answers. Let's hear it.
I think it's because they know they cannot refute this main issue -- "what would PULL the flag back towards the LEM?" This is simple physics here, and there is no viable answer in the context of "the moon with no atmosphere". It would be a losing battle for them, is my guess. Even the smartest person or the mightiest govt organization cannot break physics.
-
This is the simplest type of physics here; why does this not register with you?
Ah, that would be because you haven't provided any physics, only baseless claims. Surely you can provide the amount of force that the depressurisation would have applied to the flag? How long did this pressure apply for? Was there enough pressure to cause the flag to rotate on it's axis multiple times? Remember, this isn't Rasa's FB group, here you're expected to show your work to support your claim.
Remember, you're the one claiming there was a breeze (which only affected the flag), which would imply that this was filmed in a studio. Yet when we look at the photos and footage from Apollo 14, it would have to have been an extremely large studio, so where was it? Who filmed it? Who dressed the set? And, most improtantly, why have none of these people ever come forwards?
-
Did more research - downloaded all 680 photos from FLICKR for Apollo 14. There are only 3 shots (with a couple dupes) of the Flag in all.
You might have missed some.
In case it's of use, the Apollo 14 Lunar Surface Journal has sixteen photos that include all or part of the US Flag, and none of them are duplicates. The sequential photos are mostly parts of panoramas, which all have slightly different views of the lunar scenery. Below are the numbers of each photo which shows the flag:--
AS14-66-9231
AS14-66-9232
AS14-66-9233
AS14-66-9236
AS14-66-9255
AS14-66-9256
AS14-66-9257
AS14-66-9276
AS14-66-9277
AS14-66-9303
AS14-66-9304
AS14-66-9305
AS14-66-9324
AS14-66-9325
AS14-66-9338
AS14-66-9339
Please, when referring to Apollo lunar surface still photos, include their numbers, like the ones above. Most people would be reluctant to wade through hundreds of photos to find the ones you're talking about. Each photo is described in the Image Library in the Lunar Surface Journal for each mission -- many with up to half a page or more of information.
PS And please use the correct abbreviation for the Lunar Module, which is LM, and usually pronounced Lem. In the planning stage it was originally called the Lunar Excursion Module, but that was eventually dropped in favour of a shorter version of Astronymish, maybe because somebody realised that it wasn't going to do any excurdging on the lunar surface.
-
The really good ones can't really be arsed with your infantile blabber. You have NOTHING that hasn't been seen before, and dismissed as nonsense.
Allan: Most of we ApolloHoax long-termers don't talk like that to HBs, which is a fairly rare thing that I've appreciated about his forum for a little over 20 years. (This is about the third or fourth incarnation of the forum, so most membership durations refer to this incarnation only.)
Newer members have recently lowered the standard of debate, and it's a pity that grown-ups would do that. Additionally, the quote at the bottom of your posts implies that you shouldn't talk like that either. If you need a good example, read some of JayUtah's posts. He vigorously attacks erroneous claims about Apollo, but he never uses bad language and never insults other members. That's something we should all do.
-
Yeah, you're right, I'm sorry. It's just that he's from a forum where that speech has been directed at me a lot.
-
Surely you can provide the amount of force that the depressurisation would have applied to the flag? How long did this pressure apply for? Was there enough pressure to cause the flag to rotate on it's axis multiple times?
Although I cringe at some things Jett Wintzer has shown in his videos, I think he did a good job with Moon Hoax Now 2017, regarding this Apollo 14 Flag motion, here's the spot where analyzes the resulting pressure from the depressurization.
https://youtu.be/p_66cqMQsW4?t=737 (https://youtu.be/p_66cqMQsW4?t=737)
Jett says "shouldn't move the flag at all".
But let's assume he's wrong, and it was enough to not only make the flag move, but also rotate the pole.... given it's a steady pressure from one direction - this would operate like a constant breeze... so the flag pole, once turned AWAY from the LM, could NOT keep spinning -- because as soon as it did, the SAME steady breeze would stop the spin -- in the end it would point like a weather vane -- AWAY from the LM.
So this theory of these 8 movements being caused by the small amount (maybe miniscule?) pressure from the LM valve -- is simply IMPOSSIBLE.... proven by simple high school physics logic. On this forum, I wouldn't expect this to need to be explained. It's "Weather Vane" physics -- when even 4th graders can understand.
The way I see this Flag moving, requires a force coming TOWARDS the LM... and to me, appears as a steady draft breeze, and once it subsides, the flag goes back offscreen, hanging straight down. I believe the flag is "just barely offscreen the whole time" and that the pole isn't rotating. If you look at the top of the flag, there's a SLANT -- indicating the force of a breeze -- pushing the flag, but not the pole.
Does ANYONE here have a FEASIBLE proposal for what would cause the Flag to be pushed TOWARDS the LM???
-
Yeah, you're right, I'm sorry. It's just that he's from a forum where that speech has been directed at me a lot.
He speaks the truth. I give him oooodles of grace. He's a victim of abuse. :)
-
given it's a steady pressure from one direction
Says who?
-
1. You might have missed some......
2. Please, when referring to Apollo lunar surface still photos...
3. PS And please use the correct abbreviation for the Lunar Module, which is LM....
Kiwi - you are like a breath of fresh air. Thank you for speaking up.. I wonder if you'll be able to answer my question about "what on the moon could possibly cause this flag to move TOWARDS the LM?" For me, this is a smoking gun.... It breaks Physics.
Regarding your comments above:
1. I should have clarified -- I was talking about "Flags shown next to LM, that could be uses as evidence for the direction of the Flag relative to the LM". I guess I could have included MORE of these, where it showed the LM "shadow" (or dish shadow) -- as these could be used to calculate direction. My point was in relation to saying, that I think they *may* have added the final convenient photo showing the "turned pole" as simple/lazy "damage control"... this is nothing but a potential guess.
2. Refer to photos by ID -- will do -- thanks.
3. LM - THANKS! Looks like I started learning LEM from the start ("Excursion") - and nobody else has ever corrected me, despite saying it 100's of times. So thank you. LM is better.
-
given it's a steady pressure from one direction
Says who?
Says physics. How could it be anything else? They open a nozzle, and it reaches a statistical steady state of dispersion. We aren't dealing with "weather/wind", but only a "single source of particles" (TRILLIONS) -- and with so many particles, steady state would result in a NEARLY CONSTANT steady flow. Just like a Light Bulb radiates light with some chaos... yet it delivers a very steady constant light source.
Why would you think it would be non-steady? Or worse -- why would it EVER blow it back TOWARDS the LEM? (and not just once, but 4X)
Also -- if you look at the Flag when onscreen, you'll notice the SLANT at the top, which indicates the flag cloth is being blown, but the pole is resisting/steady.
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2017.0;attach=1183;image)
-
Says physics.
Wrong.
You made two assumptions:
First - you assumed the flow rate was constant. Why? It would tail off to a point where it would not move the flag.
Second - you assumed the rotational inertia of the flag is constant in all orientations. Wrong again.
-
You made two assumptions:
First - you assumed the flow rate was constant. Why? It would tail off to a point where it would not move the flag.
Second - you assumed the rotational inertia of the flag is constant in all orientations. Wrong again.
What reason have you to believe that valve pressure would be strong enough to move the pole EVER? I'm guessing you think it would have an initial burst of pressure, like a garden hose?
"Rotational Inertia - constant in all directions" -- are you implying that it rotates one direction easier than the other?
You speak as if you have a "feasible theory" in mind. Please do share.
-
are you implying that it rotates one direction easier than the other?
No. I'm saying there may a position where the bearing or pivot is stickier than anywhere else. And when the flag reached that position the flow had decreased to a point where it could no longer move the flag.
-
I think he did a good job with Moon Hoax Now 2017, regarding this Apollo 14 Flag motion, here's the spot where analyzes the resulting pressure from the depressurization.
https://youtu.be/p_66cqMQsW4?t=737 (https://youtu.be/p_66cqMQsW4?t=737)
Jett says "shouldn't move the flag at all".
But let's assume he's wrong, and it was enough to not only make the flag move, but also rotate the pole.... given it's a steady pressure from one direction - this would operate like a constant breeze... so the flag pole, once turned AWAY from the LM, could NOT keep spinning -- because as soon as it did, the SAME steady breeze would stop the spin -- in the end it would point like a weather vane -- AWAY from the LM.
So this theory of these 8 movements being caused by the small amount (maybe miniscule?) pressure from the LM valve -- is simply IMPOSSIBLE.... proven by simple high school physics logic. On this forum, I wouldn't expect this to need to be explained. It's "Weather Vane" physics -- when even 4th graders can understand.
The way I see this Flag moving, requires a force coming TOWARDS the LM... and to me, appears as a steady draft breeze, and once it subsides, the flag goes back offscreen, hanging straight down. I believe the flag is "just barely offscreen the whole time" and that the pole isn't rotating. If you look at the top of the flag, there's a SLANT -- indicating the force of a breeze -- pushing the flag, but not the pole.
Does ANYONE here have a FEASIBLE proposal for what would cause the Flag to be pushed TOWARDS the LM???
And both yourself and Jett have overlooked a minor detail; the flag is about 8m away from the LM, while the ALSEP package is some 180m away from the LM. Now, this could just be my ignorance speaking, but I'm pretty sure the pressure from the escaping gas of the LM will be higher 8m away than at 180m, and neglecting to mention that the CCGE was deliberately deployed so that the LM was outside it's field of view, yet it still picked up the pressure changes.
But now it seems you are arguing for multiple breezes? And these breezes went unnoticed by all involved? And again, if there were breezes, then this implies being filmed in a studio, so where is the evidence of a studio setting and where was it filmed? Who filmed it?
-
are you implying that it rotates one direction easier than the other?
No. I'm saying there may a position where the bearing or pivot is stickier than anywhere else. And when the flag reached that position the flow had decreased to a point where it could no longer move the flag.
How does this help the PNA theory at all? The flag moved on/off the screen 8X -- where four times it was pulled TOWARDS the LM. So if the pole's rotation got "stuck" - that wouldn't allow it to rotate either.
I'm not sensing any "secret wisdom" yet. Your logic skills seem insufficient for this debate.
-
And both yourself and Jett have overlooked a minor detail; the flag is about 8m away from the LM, while the ALSEP package is some 180m away from the LM. Now, this could just be my ignorance speaking, but I'm pretty sure the pressure from the escaping gas of the LM will be higher 8m away than at 180m, and neglecting to mention that the CCGE was deliberately deployed so that the LM was outside it's field of view, yet it still picked up the pressure changes.
But now it seems you are arguing for multiple breezes? And these breezes went unnoticed by all involved? And again, if there were breezes, then this implies being filmed in a studio, so where is the evidence of a studio setting and where was it filmed? Who filmed it?
What does ALSEP have to do with my theory or yours? Your theory is that the flag pole was ROTATED 180 deg? or what?
Mine is simply that the flag was "very close offscreen" (just barely).. a subtle draft occurred that went unnoticed, only strong enough to push the flag on screen for brief periods of time. This is supported by the "slant" at the top, where it's pulling away from the top pole.... as you'd expect from a draft. When the draft subsides, the flag falls back down straight, and goes off camera again. This happens a total of 4x... That's it.
Is there ANY PNA theory that can explain how this flag might have been pushed TOWARDS the LM??? Please do share the details.
-
And both yourself and Jett have overlooked a minor detail; the flag is about 8m away from the LM, while the ALSEP package is some 180m away from the LM. Now, this could just be my ignorance speaking, but I'm pretty sure the pressure from the escaping gas of the LM will be higher 8m away than at 180m, and neglecting to mention that the CCGE was deliberately deployed so that the LM was outside it's field of view, yet it still picked up the pressure changes.
But now it seems you are arguing for multiple breezes? And these breezes went unnoticed by all involved? And again, if there were breezes, then this implies being filmed in a studio, so where is the evidence of a studio setting and where was it filmed? Who filmed it?
What does ALSEP have to do with my theory or yours? Your theory is that the flag pole was ROTATED 180 deg? or what?
Mine is simply that the flag was "very close offscreen" (just barely).. a subtle draft occurred that went unnoticed, only strong enough to push the flag on screen for brief periods of time. This is supported by the "slant" at the top, where it's pulling away from the top pole.... as you'd expect from a draft. When the draft subsides, the flag falls back down straight, and goes off camera again. This happens a total of 4x... That's it.
Is there ANY PNA theory that can explain how this flag might have been pushed TOWARDS the LM??? Please do share the details.
I did already, just physics and momentum.
-
I did already, just physics and momentum.
Can you summon someone with a sufficient science background? I really feel like I came knocking at the door, and the children have answered the door. I just want to say "can you go get your dad for me?"
I'm assuming you do not realize just how bad of an argument you are making here. Awful.
So if you insist on responding to my posts, please get more specific. Here's a link to the video starting at 3:37, just before the flag comes on, then off screen twice in a row. Do you seriously think this is what it would look like if the flag were being blown in 360 circles???
https://youtu.be/p_66cqMQsW4?t=217 (https://youtu.be/p_66cqMQsW4?t=217)
I really really want to talk with someone who's qualified for this debate. You simply aren't it. It's ok -- most aren't. I'm hoping that someone here is qualified. Please summon them.
-
What does ALSEP have to do with my theory or yours? Your theory is that the flag pole was ROTATED 180 deg? or what?
Mine is simply that the flag was "very close offscreen" (just barely).. a subtle draft occurred that went unnoticed, only strong enough to push the flag on screen for brief periods of time. This is supported by the "slant" at the top, where it's pulling away from the top pole.... as you'd expect from a draft. When the draft subsides, the flag falls back down straight, and goes off camera again. This happens a total of 4x... That's it.
Is there ANY PNA theory that can explain how this flag might have been pushed TOWARDS the LM??? Please do share the details.
You brought up Jett's "analysis" of the pressure changes. Pressure changes that were recorded by the CCGE 180m away from the LM. Did you forget already?
And perhaps, just perhaps, if you want people whom you consider to be "qualified" to respond, how about you post something that they haven't seen, and addressed/discussed already in the last 10 years, show that you are "qualified" yourself and should be taken seriously. All you're currently doing is regurgitating arguments that have been around for 10 or more years, and you haven't even put a nice new coat of paint on any of them.
Go through all the old posts, you'll probably find plenty of threads for everything you post here.
-
You brought up Jett's "analysis" of the pressure changes. Pressure changes that were recorded by the CCGE 180m away from the LM. Did you forget already?
Please show me the evidence that the CCGE 180 meters away detected a Pressure change correlating to cabin depressurization, and what level of pressure fluctuation did it record?
NASA site reports that Cabin Depressurization phase was 8 minutes long... to promote the PNA theory, lets say it was done over 4 minutes instead. Does NASA ever tell us for sure how long they took to depressurize?
The LM cabin is 235 cubic feet at 4.8 PSI, released into a volumetric vacuum surrounding the LM over a 4 minute period. And this was detected 180 meters away?
(at 4.8 PSI, this gas weighs about 7 lb total, releasing less than 2 lb per minute)
Please confirm and provide some sources.
Link showing Cabin Depressurization phase as 8 minutes:
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a14/a14mr10.htm (https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a14/a14mr10.htm)
-
And perhaps, just perhaps, if you want people whom you consider to be "qualified" to respond, how about you post something that they haven't seen, and addressed/discussed already in the last 10 years, show that you are "qualified" yourself and should be taken seriously. All you're currently doing is regurgitating arguments that have been around for 10 or more years, and you haven't even put a nice new coat of paint on any of them.
Go through all the old posts, you'll probably find plenty of threads for everything you post here.
I have searched various debunking sites, that specialize in debunking, and there is NOTHING that I've seen which offers an explanation for how the Flag would be pushed TOWARDS the LM.
Anyone proposing that the flag pole was spinning circles -- isn't correlating it with the actual footage, where clearly, this is just not the case.
Jet's calculation of expected Pascals of pressure by the time this reaches the flag is miniscule - not enough to budget the flag.... and much less "cause it to spin circles".
Is there anyone here who think there is any integrity in defending this "spun circles" explanation? We can put an "I suck at physics" dunce cap on them.
Other than that -- what else has ever been proposed? This is one of the most difficult challenges to the Lunar Landings - so surely nearly ALL PNA's should be aware of a valid defense here... or the lack thereof.
I'm telling you, it does not exist. The smartest guys will avoid me, because they don't want to fight this losing battle. They can't defend Apollo Breaking Physics.
-
Jet's calculation of expected Pascals of pressure by the time this reaches the flag is miniscule - not enough to budget the flag.... and much less "cause it to spin circles".
Jett's "calculations" are based on the data from the CCGE, 180 metres away! Sacred feth, it's almost like you don't actually look at anything you cite. Jett references the chart from the CCGE as the basis for his "calculations", the CCGE was 180m away.
The smartest guys will avoid me, because they don't want to fight this losing battle. They can't defend Apollo Breaking Physics.
Someone's got tickets on themselves.
-
Jett's "calculations" are based on the data from the CCGE, 180 metres away! Sacred feth, it's almost like you don't actually look at anything you cite. Jett references the chart from the CCGE as the basis for his "calculations", the CCGE was 180m away.
THANK YOU FOR THE CORRECTION! Jet Wintzer - LOSES AGAIN. I should have double-checked his logic, so thank you for pointing this out. He doesn't account for the distance difference - because he's worse at physics than most of the people responding to me. Well, he's batting about 0%. I thought that maybe his 2017 MHN was "accurate" -- nope!
OK, so I'll fix his math, and see where it lands. Assuming NASA's readout claims are accurate, we see a spike to 0.0000006 Torr == 80e-6 Pascals.
At most, the pressure felt by objects closer to the LM would vary by the inverse of the Distance Cubed (this ignores the impact of gravity which pulls the particles downward, not letting them go up as far, and also that the ground blocks the bottom half of expansion. So this math will assume we are in an empty vacuum with no moon nor gravity... and then the pressure would vary by Cube-of-Distance.
180 / 8 = 22.5 => CUBED ==> 11,390 x higher pressure at the flag (8 meters away).
11390 * 80e-6 ==> 0.911 Pascals.
This equates to about 0.2 lbs per square meter, or about 0.33 lbs on the whole flag (1.67 sq-meters). The average moment arm would be 2.5'.
So the max force on this flag is 0.33 lbs exerted at 2.5' moment from the vertical pole. (5.3 ounces).
Questions:
1. So is this enough force to overcome friction and turn the pole at all? [Perhaps.]
2. Is this enough to cause the flag to move so fast that it does a 360?? [Not Bloody Likely.]
3. If it were enough to do a 360, as it passed the 180 deg AWAY mark and started to rotate back towards the LM -- wouldn't this same "breeze" push BACK ON IT!?? Thus stopping it from doing the 360? [YES.]
4. Are the readings of this CCGE even "reasonable" or does it appear to be a cheap attempt by NASA at damage control? (by saying it was the MINIMUM reading that could have explained some flag motion?)
Is 6e-7 torr "reasonable" at 180 meters away. Should this is 7 lbs of oxygen released over a 5-8 minute time period, produce that level of pressure?
Sanity check -- we've got 7 lbs of Oxygen TOTAL, released over 4 minutes minimum... < 2 lbs/min released... expanding unconstrained... yet somehow, 0.33 lbs of it (16% of the minute's amount in terms of mass) is supposedly pressing against this flag? Not Bloody Likely.
The issue with Apollo's lies, is that mainstream scientists are forced to accept Apollo's claims as "true", which then screws with real science.
===
SO - THANKS For the correction! 2 points for you. I should have double-checked Jet's claim.
But the conclusion is fully unchanged. There is still NO EXPLANATION from PNA's on what could cause the Flag to move TOWARDS the LM, 4X, as it did.
-
I gave you the explanation and you just attempted to hand wave it off/away, very sad that you are not intelligent to understand physics.
-
I gave you the explanation and you just attempted to hand wave it off/away, very sad that you are not intelligent to understand physics.
:( I hope you have other talents.
-
I gave you the explanation and you just attempted to hand wave it off/away, very sad that you are not intelligent to understand physics.
:( I hope you have other talents.
You have demonstrated tht you don' have any talents.
-
Boys, play nicely please. This isn't a primary school yard.
-
Can ANYONE provide a valid explanation of how on the moon, the flag was pushed TOWARDS the LM??
Anyone??
@JayUtah, what say you?
-
@JayUtah, what say you?
I say no Gish gallop for you.
-
I say no Gish gallop for you.
So far, you always do a dance to avoid giving what should be EASY answers for a veteran like you. Your lack of response supports my theory that there exists NO valid rebuttal for this flag motion.
Can ANYONE here present a valid rebuttal???
<crickets...>
-
So far, you always do a dance to avoid giving what should be EASY answers for a veteran like you.
What makes me a veteran is not falling for the Gish gallop approach.
-
Can ANYONE provide a valid explanation of how on the moon, the flag was pushed TOWARDS the LM??
Anyone??
@JayUtah, what say you?
Yup, the flag rotated on its vertical axis during/after depressurisation of the LM for EVA 2. Hell, it doesn't even need to rotate once, just a half revolution will do. You can account for multiple movements by the initial forces applied to the flag, being enough to ruffle the 'free' edge of the flag in the initial purge (since in the absence of an atmosphere, only the materials 'stiffness' and local gravity will cause the motion to cease, thus creating longer and larger motion than we would be used to seeing), then the full depressurisation turning the flag away from the LM (as shown by later photos).
And yes, I'm well aware you don't agree, but I've stopped caring at this point. This lines up with the timeframe of what was occurring at the time, and has the added bonus of not requiring any unnecessary confounding variables, such as a multi-decade, multi-country, multi-government conspiracy that has never leaked, which you have yet to support.
-
Yup, the flag rotated on its vertical axis during/after depressurisation of the LM for EVA 2. Hell, it doesn't even need to rotate once, just a half revolution will do. You can account for multiple movements by the initial forces applied to the flag, being enough to ruffle the 'free' edge of the flag in the initial purge (since in the absence of an atmosphere, only the materials 'stiffness' and local gravity will cause the motion to cease, thus creating longer and larger motion than we would be used to seeing), then the full depressurisation turning the flag away from the LM (as shown by later photos).
So your belief is the following?
1. 7 lbs of oxygen was emitted during an 8 minute "depressurization phase" from 8 meters away. 1-2 lbs of oxygen per minute... 1 ounce per second, max.
2. This 1 ounce per second of air, which spreads out evenly in all directions... hit this flag with enough force to move it 180 degrees?
When it comes on screen, we can see the "slant" at the top of the flag, showing it's attachment to the horizontal pole off-screen.
This slant is very telling -- indicating a force pushing the flag TOWARDS the LM, steadily for seconds at a time.
The pendulum like oscillations which can occur, are only 2.4x slower than on earth... in case you were suggesting that this on-screen time was part of this pendulum action, made extra-extra slow by low gravity.
After reviewing it, do you really think your explanation here holds water? How do you explain the slanting of the flag as it's pushed TOWARDS the LM?
(NOTE: this flag has 6 white stripes.. the top one is almost entirely offscreen... the bottom 5 are all on screen)
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2017.0;attach=1206)
-
What makes me a veteran is not falling for the Gish gallop approach.
My specific claim here is the one part of the "Flag moving claim" that remains fully unrefuted by any scientifically founded rebuttal.
If I were throwing at you a bunch of "already debunked" claims -- this would be Gish gallop. I'm limiting my claims to the parts that have not been legitimately refuted.
It seems to me that you are dancing, because I'm bringing to the table the aspects of MLH theory that have no valid scientific refutation.
-
Yup, the flag rotated on its vertical axis during/after depressurisation of the LM for EVA 2. Hell, it doesn't even need to rotate once, just a half revolution will do. You can account for multiple movements by the initial forces applied to the flag, being enough to ruffle the 'free' edge of the flag in the initial purge (since in the absence of an atmosphere, only the materials 'stiffness' and local gravity will cause the motion to cease, thus creating longer and larger motion than we would be used to seeing), then the full depressurisation turning the flag away from the LM (as shown by later photos).
So your belief is the following?
1. 7 lbs of oxygen was emitted during an 8 minute "depressurization phase" from 8 meters away. 1-2 lbs of oxygen per minute... 1 ounce per second, max.
2. This 1 ounce per second of air, which spreads out evenly in all directions... hit this flag with enough force to move it 180 degrees?
When it comes on screen, we can see the "slant" at the top of the flag, showing it's attachment to the horizontal pole off-screen.
This slant is very telling -- indicating a force pushing the flag TOWARDS the LM, steadily for seconds at a time.
The pendulum like oscillations which can occur, are only 2.4x slower than on earth... in case you were suggesting that this on-screen time was part of this pendulum action, made extra-extra slow by low gravity.
After reviewing it, do you really think your explanation here holds water? How do you explain the slanting of the flag as it's pushed TOWARDS the LM?
(NOTE: this flag has 6 white stripes.. the top one is almost entirely offscreen... the bottom 5 are all on screen)
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2017.0;attach=1206)
I already gave you this scenario many posts back. Look at it like this dynamic energy stored as static energy that must be released to come to equilibrium and the flag oscillates. There is no gravity function other than the flag hanging down from the cross bar. You really are bad at this. Yes this explanation is much better than your blowing toward the LM.
-
I already gave you this scenario many posts back. Look at it like this dynamic energy stored as static energy that must be released to come to equilibrium and the flag oscillates. There is no gravity function other than the flag hanging down from the cross bar. You really are bad at this. Yes this explanation is much better than your blowing toward the LM.
I'd like to know if ANYONE else reading this agrees with your scientific explanation. Your apparent understanding of physics doesn't seem on par with the understanding of many other members here.
-
TimberWolf seems to agree with it. Your physics lacks in depth as has been seen by all, so the pot should not call the kettle black.
-
TimberWolf seems to agree with it. Your physics lacks in depth as has been seen by all, so the pot should not call the kettle black.
@TimberWolfAu, what say you? Do you agree with his logic?
===
His last statement was:
"I already gave you this scenario many posts back. Look at it like this dynamic energy stored as static energy that must be released to come to equilibrium and the flag oscillates. There is no gravity function other than the flag hanging down from the cross bar. "
===
I don't even understand what he's trying to say here. Maybe it's just above my head, and I really don't understand physics as well as @bknight.
-
A few observations.
Firstly, depressurisation did not take 8 minutes. The 8 minutes in the table refers to a phase in the EVA between the commencement of depressurisation and physically leaving the cabin. The LMP depressurisarion phase is given as 13 minutes. Actual depressurisarion was much shorter.
Secondly, you seem to be arguing that a directional air movement was more than capable of either rotating the flag completely on its pole or making it oscillate back and forth. Why is such a thing not possible with directional air movement from a depressurising LM? An air movement coinciding precisely with the LM depressurising, and with recordings made elsewhere on the landing site.
Finally, movement of the flag independent of human contact was observed numerous times after RCS hot fires. The only difference is that the actual movement was not recorded, just the 'before and after' parts.
-
The LMP depressurisarion phase is given as 13 minutes. Actual depressurisarion was much shorter.
Secondly, you seem to be arguing that a directional air movement was more than capable of either rotating the flag completely on its pole or making it oscillate back and forth. Why is such a thing not possible with directional air movement from a depressurising LM? An air movement coinciding precisely with the LM depressurising, and with recordings made elsewhere on the landing site.
Finally, movement of the flag independent of human contact was observed numerous times after RCS hot fires. The only difference is that the actual movement was not recorded, just the 'before and after' parts.
How long was the cabin depressurization? Do they ever say?
My math assumed 7 lbs (112 ounces) expelled over 112 seconds, just under 2 minutes. 1 oz/sec of Oxygen emitted at 5 PSI from 8 meters away doesn't seem to have enough mass to move a flag, and much less the whole pole - -and even less - to make the pole have so much momentum that it does a 360 (thus comes back) - has enough momentum to turn the last 180 degrees all by itself?? (and against the breeze?)
===
MLH theory does not require moving the pole at all.. the flag is just BARELY OFFSCREEN - for many minutes, you can see the smallest scant sliver of it. And then for fairly brief durations we see this flag cloth PUSHED TOWARDS the LM, and then it subsides back to just barely offscreen.
Here's Jet Wintzer's link to the footage, as the footage that should be there from NASA's Surface Journal is conveniently (for NASA) missing.
https://youtu.be/p_66cqMQsW4?t=207 (https://youtu.be/p_66cqMQsW4?t=207)
As you can see here, starting at 3:27 - top right side, you can see the tiniest sliver of flag for quite some time before it "blows on screen".
When it blows on screen, note the slant at top (that makes the top white strip mostly hidden).. this is an indicator that the flag is blowing away from the horizontal pole.
This is all there is to the MLH theory here -- slight steady draft - barely moves flag. But since it's barely off screen, it highlights the motion for us very well.
The PNA theory of "spinning a 360" or "pendulum motion" are non-sense.
The first 2 instances occur here, at 1:29 mark:
https://youtu.be/p_66cqMQsW4?t=87 (https://youtu.be/p_66cqMQsW4?t=207)
(this first one is clearly not a pendulum action)
(the 2nd one cannot possibly be 360 full rotation action)
This is a REAL STUMPER for Pro-Apollo Faith. There exists No Legitimate Way to explain this one away.
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2017.0;attach=1206)
-
How long was the cabin depressurization? Do they ever say?
Go fetch.
My math assumed 7 lbs (112 ounces) expelled over 112 seconds, just under 2 minutes. 1 oz/sec of Oxygen emitted at 5 PSI from 8 meters away doesn't seem to have enough mass to move a flag, and much less the whole pole - -and even less - to make the pole have so much momentum that it does a 360 (thus comes back) - has enough momentum to turn the last 180 degrees all by itself?? (and against the breeze?)
I would say your math is correct. It's enough to maybe jiggle it about. So there must be something else doing it, yes?
The first thing anyone should do when looking at Apollo "anomalies" is watch the whole thing. You haven't done that at all. I must confess I hadn't seen this 180 degree flag direction before. But luckily I have a great method to work it out.
Watch the bloody footage:
Clear as day, they are tossing out the second PLSS and lo and behold 10:17:50 it hits the flag pole and we see the flag turn accordingly.
We're done.
MLH theory does not require ....
Looking at the bloody footage!
This is a REAL STUMPER for Pro-Apollo Faith. There exists No Legitimate Way to explain this one away.
Run along now, fully explained.
End of thread.
-
Clear as day, they are tossing out the second PLSS and lo and behold 10:17:50 it hits the flag pole and we see the flag turn accordingly.
We're done.
I'm not so sure about that.
AS14-66-9338 shows the resting place of the PLSS and it is not near the flagpole. You can also see the track marks in the regolith where the PLSS tumbled. It shows that the PLSS path didn't take it near the pole.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/5742/21657503116_ec7998a1f4_o.jpg)
-
I'm not so sure about that.
AS14-66-9338 shows the resting place of the PLSS and it is not near the flagpole. You can also see the track marks in the regolith where the PLSS tumbled. It shows that the PLSS path didn't take it near the pole.
Zakalwe, you are my new favorite PNA. (Pro-Nasa-Advocate) Love seeing PNA's police the bad logic of other PNA's. That's a great sign of integrity.
@Mag40 - your tone was ironic, with the absolute certainty you had here, with no real evidence. You made a blind assumption of hitting the flag, and called it a "conclusive win".
Is this an indicator of your Confirmation Bias, or your skillset - which lead you to such an easy-to-see erroneous conclusion with so much certainty. Confirmation Bias can make us dumb and blind.
I'll forgive your mistake here, because I cherish your involvement, but perhaps you can tone it down a bit on your "certainty".
====
I suppose this means that the "Impossibility of the Flag moving towards the LM, remains 100% unrefuted". It's still King of this Hill. Try again.
It's been 20 years, so why hasn't this already been long-debunked by now? We're got 20 year veterans who keep telling me that they've already heard and debunked every-single-MLH argument.
-
So your belief is the following?
1. 7 lbs of oxygen was emitted during an 8 minute "depressurization phase" from 8 meters away. 1-2 lbs of oxygen per minute... 1 ounce per second, max.
2. This 1 ounce per second of air, which spreads out evenly in all directions... hit this flag with enough force to move it 180 degrees?
I have no "beliefs" in regards to Apollo. I accept the historical record of Apollo.
Regards, the flag movement, again, no beliefs here. All I have is an untested hypothesis.
Quick update though, looking at the Apollo 14 transcripts, and the EMU related events, it looks like the time between the dump valve being opened, and the pressure reducing to the point where the hatch could be opened (less than 0.2psi) was around 1 minute 51 seconds for EVA 1, EVA 2 drops about a pound of pressure in about 22 seconds, then a further three pounds in about 1 minute 31 seconds. For the PLSS dump, there is about 3 minutes 50 seconds between the final confirmation of being ready to start the dump and Shepherds comment that they are "going to jettison now", but no actual call outs on dump valves being opened or the hatch being opened.
An interesting comment is made by Ed Mitchell in the debrief concerning their 'clean up' after EVA 2;
"A lot of that dust, I believe, kind of got whipped outside when we did our dump repress. The cabin dust kind of swirled around. A lot of that went out through the relief valve at that point, which might have reduced it somewhat ."
So it would seem that more than just the internal atmosphere was ejected, but physical dust as well.
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a14/a14.html
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a14/a14tecdbrf.html
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a14/A14HistorclEMUAccnt.pdf
-
Quick update though, looking at the Apollo 14 transcripts, and the EMU related events, it looks like the time between the dump valve being opened, and the pressure reducing to the point where the hatch could be opened (less than 0.2psi) was around 1 minute 51 seconds for EVA 1, EVA 2 drops about a pound of pressure in about 22 seconds, then a further three pounds in about 1 minute 31 seconds. For the PLSS dump, there is about 3 minutes 50 seconds between the final confirmation of being ready to start the dump and Shepherds comment that they are "going to jettison now", but no actual call outs on dump valves being opened or the hatch being opened.
An interesting comment is made by Ed Mitchell in the debrief concerning their 'clean up' after EVA 2;
"A lot of that dust, I believe, kind of got whipped outside when we did our dump repress. The cabin dust kind of swirled around. A lot of that went out through the relief valve at that point, which might have reduced it somewhat ."
So it would seem that more than just the internal atmosphere was ejected, but physical dust as well.
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a14/a14.html
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a14/a14tecdbrf.html
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a14/A14HistorclEMUAccnt.pdf
THANK YOU FOR THIS! This is good info to add to the KB, related to this "Decompression of Cabin" claim.
Do you know how to figure out the exact timing of this footage? If this guy is now supposed to be the "official repo" for these videos, it seems he should add in the comment the "Mission time stamp - start/end"
(https://youtu.be/HpXQBYohV9Q)
-
I'm not so sure about that.
AS14-66-9338 shows the resting place of the PLSS and it is not near the flagpole. You can also see the track marks in the regolith where the PLSS tumbled. It shows that the PLSS path didn't take it near the pole.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/5742/21657503116_ec7998a1f4_o.jpg)
That will teach me :o The issue remains though. Clearly the moment the PLSS hits the lunar surface, the flag pole jolts enough for it to swing around. I'm ok with ground impact vibration. What is that, a 30lb (1/6th) object coming down onto a compacted surface from about 12ft?
It also begs the question that it is easy to see, so if it was damning why would they leave it visible in the first place? It's always this same scenario. NASA are amazing at constructing this hyper-unrealistic hoax to such extreme levels of intricacy but miss totally obvious things like this. It just doesn't make any logical sense.
-
It's always this same scenario. NASA are amazing at constructing this hyper-unrealistic hoax to such extreme levels of intricacy but miss totally obvious things like this. It just doesn't make any logical sense.
MLH theory is that NASA was NOT awesome at creating a physics-correct simulation - but it was "Good enough", clearly as it's been 55 years.
NASA's main defense of this "flawed simulation" was:
1. that until post-2000, no one could easily obtain, replay, and analyze NASA photos, videos, PDF's, transcripts. Their simulation was "good enough" for the 1970's where you "saw it once" and done. And in that era of "celebrating success" to be a denier would be like standing up in a Fundamentalist Christian church and trying to convince the congregation that "the bible is flawed/corrupted" - no matter how strong your arguments, and how intelligent the congregation - they will disbelieve you, and you'll become the lonely object of scorn.
Additionally, if you were a denier -- it was near impossible back then to find others "like minded" -- all deniers operated in a lonely vacuum with NO SOURCES to question, as they couldn't view the photos, documents, nor video footage.
So pulling off the hoax, didn't require "physics perfection" - most mistakes would never be noticed -- until post-2000.
2. NASA made MANY mistakes... but only some of them are EASY TO PROVE. (this flag waving mistake is one of them)
3. The parts that were HARD TO FAKE-- NASA destroyed (or "Lost") - such as the entire set of Apollo source video footage and telemetry data! And 99%+ of the LM/AM design/tech documents!
This is the MLH theory. NASA messed up a lot -- but this was "GOOD ENOUGH" -- clearly.
Now, the defense of Apollo is shouldered mostly by Google/YouTube/etc - which classify MLH as Misinformation and so suppresses the pro-MLH articles/videos, except for the bad ones (like Sibrel, he's easy to find, and those who latch onto his flawed arguments end up looking like fools) -- so casually curious "very smart" people who dare to question Apollo - spend a few hours researching it, but the ONLY things they find are "Moon Hoax Debunked" articles and videos -- 100's of them. But Google/Youtube shows them NO LINKS to the good arguments. They spend a few hours, and thus become convinced that Moon Hoax believers also must think the world is flat, and are stupid.
Easy-peasy.
-
MLH theory is that NASA was NOT awesome at creating a physics-correct simulation - but it was "Good enough", clearly as it's been 55 years.
It's perfect for all industry experts. Fringe HBs don't count.
NASA's main defense of this "flawed simulation" was
It is neither flawed or a simulation. You simply have no critical thinking skills, no logic and there also appears to be an integrity vacuum you are drawing around in every denial post.
1. that until post-2000, no one could easily obtain, replay, and analyze NASA photos, videos, PDF's, transcripts. Their simulation was "good enough" for the 1970's where you "saw it once" and done. And in that era of "celebrating success" to be a denier would be like standing up in a Fundamentalist Christian church and trying to convince the congregation that "the bible is flawed/corrupted" - no matter how strong your arguments, and how intelligent the congregation - they will disbelieve you, and you'll become the lonely object of scorn.
Complete bollocks. They released it all in box sets, numerous formats of memorabilia, copies of the processed images and transparencies etc.
Additionally, if you were a denier -- it was near impossible back then to find others "like minded" -- all deniers operated in a lonely vacuum with NO SOURCES to question, as they couldn't view the photos, documents, nor video footage.
Not finding other equally mistaken individuals is actually a positive.
So pulling off the hoax, didn't require "physics perfection" - most mistakes would never be noticed -- until post-2000.
There was no hoax and no mistakes. The endless claims have all been debunked to the satisfaction of honest, critical thinking and objective people.
2. NASA made MANY mistakes... but only some of them are EASY TO PROVE. (this flag waving mistake is one of them)
They made no mistakes and you have proven nothing.
The issue remains though. Clearly the moment the PLSS hits the lunar surface, the flag pole jolts enough for it to swing around. I'm ok with ground impact vibration. What is that, a 30lb (1/6th) object coming down onto a compacted surface from about 12ft?
This is what is visible on the footage. The PLSS impacts and the flag does a clear ripple.
3. The parts that were HARD TO FAKE-- NASA destroyed (or "Lost") - such as the entire set of Apollo source video footage and telemetry data! And 99%+ of the LM/AM design/tech documents!
Oh dear, you appear to be regurgitating a claim without checking it. All the telemetry exits in other formats. And lying about the LM design when you have been told specifically that a group of people have built a perfect replica from design documents.
This is the MLH theory.
It sucks.
They spend a few hours, and thus become convinced that Moon Hoax believers also must think the world is flat, and are stupid.
Most of them do.
Easy-peasy.
Your evasion is very telling.
-
#1. They released it all in box sets, numerous formats of memorabilia, copies of the processed images and transparencies etc.
#2:
3. The parts that were HARD TO FAKE-- NASA destroyed (or "Lost") - such as the entire set of Apollo source video footage and telemetry data! And 99%+ of the LM/AM design/tech documents!
Oh dear, you appear to be regurgitating a claim without checking it. All the telemetry exits in other formats. And lying about the LM design when you have been told specifically that a group of people have built a perfect replica from design documents.
#3: Your evasion is very telling.
#1 - True, and thanks. My claim was overstated. The widespread tech in homes to digitize these videos and analyze them frame-by-frame mostly happened post-2000, for mainstream. Also post-2000 was the rise of FB and social media, where like-minded MLH theorist could start to find each other, rather than working within a vacuum. My core claim here is that for 1970's, imperfections/mistakes could easily go unchallenged. Perfection not required.
#2: Correct? I'm a rookie, and am susceptible to putting too much stock in things I've heard, that might be exaggerated or even false. Can you show me any links that substantiate your claim here? I'm doing the same among the MLH group as well, so that I can witness the evidence from both sides, and see which one is more compelling. If you are correct -- THANK YOU.. I will adjust my claim to reflect the objective truth as best as I can.
#3: Never evading truth here. I'm here inside the PNA forum, because I want to meet Truth head-on, which is best done in the presence of sincere/serious opposition. I do find your skillset at providing "serious" opposition to be lacking. Your inclination is to jump to "certainty" based on far too little evidence, while ignoring some key concepts. You seem to accept weak evidence as "certain proof" far too readily.
Please show some math and more detailed science to explain how a 30 lbs PLSS landing 12' away would justify causing the "flag to do a 180", which is your theory, right?
-
#1 - True, and thanks. My claim was overstated. The widespread tech in homes to digitize these videos and analyze them frame-by-frame mostly happened post-2000, for mainstream. Also post-2000 was the rise of FB and social media, where like-minded MLH theorist could start to find each other, rather than working within a vacuum. My core claim here is that for 1970's, imperfections/mistakes could easily go unchallenged. Perfection not required.
It's still bollocks. HBs think they are the only ones able to discern things when there are probably a million physics experts worldwide who have no problem with any of it. Replace "physics experts" with rocket engineers / specialists in orbital mechanics / astrophysicists / engineers.
#2: Correct? I'm a rookie, and am susceptible to putting too much stock in things I've heard, that might be exaggerated or even false. Can you show me any links that substantiate your claim here? I'm doing the same among the MLH group as well, so that I can witness the evidence from both sides, and see which one is more compelling. If you are correct -- THANK YOU.. I will adjust my claim to reflect the objective truth as best as I can.
I told you this crap is years old. I don't know how you can fail to find this yourself. Google is fairly easy to use, as is the search function on this forum:
https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1528.0
Post 7 is fairly succinct.
And just to press home on your observational skills. On THIS very page of the forum is this thread:
https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2010.0
#3: Never evading truth here. I'm here inside the PNA forum, because I want to meet Truth head-on, which is best done in the presence of sincere/serious opposition. I do find your skillset at providing "serious" opposition to be lacking. Your inclination is to jump to "certainty" based on far too little evidence, while ignoring some key concepts. You seem to accept weak evidence as "certain proof" far too readily.
Some serious double standards going on right there.
Take a flag changing position. Before you have even explored any explanations you had concluded that it proved the entire program as faked. That is ridiculous in the extreme.
Please show some math and more detailed science to explain how a 30 lbs PLSS landing 12' away would justify causing the "flag to do a 180", which is your theory, right?
Show me where the flag was pointing before it hit the ground. I've looked at every piece of footage and images and the varying angles of cameras make it a little vague.Needed, a timeline of position based on time of video, time of image etc. The DAC footage, for example ends with the flag close to five o'clock relative to the LM. That makes the movement 105 degrees (ish).
Major ground vibration on compacted regolith and the pole simply moves slightly. There's no air resistance and it doesn't take much to move a piece of nylon. I saw the PLSS and wrongly assumed it struck the pole, it didn't. But it happened at that split second. So either some clumsy stagehand wandered on and moved it, or the PLSS impact did. There isn't any middle ground here that isn't bullshit supposition.
All you are doing is saying look the flag moved therefore x. It moved the second the PLSS hit the ground. What does that suggest? I would say there isn't enough quantitive data to do any accurate maths. Unknown density of the ground. Exact distance to flagpole unknown. Status of upright within the support, co-efficient of friction between pole and support unknown. I'm suggesting it as a possibility and pointing out that logic suggests any other cause as being unlikely given the timing of it.
-
I told you this crap is years old. I don't know how you can fail to find this yourself. Google is fairly easy to use, as is the search function on this forum:
https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1528.0
Post 7 is fairly succinct.
Thank you for this link. I have noted it in the KB article on "source tapes" that I'm drafting now.
Note - what's more important than words from Jay, are direct NASA statements. For meaning, we need some NASA direct quotes, or even some quotes tied to larger institutions that value their integrity, also helps. Got any direct quotes from a larger institution? (e.g. NASA)
Show me where the flag was pointing before it hit the ground. I've looked at every piece of footage and images and the varying angles of cameras make it a little vague.Needed, a timeline of position based on time of video, time of image etc. The DAC footage, for example ends with the flag close to five o'clock relative to the LM. That makes the movement 105 degrees (ish).
If you look at the before/after photos, which are spaced in time very far apart... you'll see the removal of equipment that was right next to it... do we have the footage of this equipment being moved -- as it would be a very likely time for the flag to be "touched".
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2017.0;attach=1178)
Major ground vibration on compacted regolith and the pole simply moves slightly. There's no air resistance and it doesn't take much to move a piece of nylon. I saw the PLSS and wrongly assumed it struck the pole, it didn't. But it happened at that split second. So either some clumsy stagehand wandered on and moved it, or the PLSS impact did. There isn't any middle ground here that isn't bullshit supposition.
What is your theory for how the flag pole turned 180 deg? And then how would it then COME BACK ON SCREEN 4x total? You have to explain 4 separate appearances of the flag.
What is your theory? Spell it out.
All you are doing is saying look the flag moved therefore x. It moved the second the PLSS hit the ground. What does that suggest?
Well if there were atmosphere, this explains the motion more than anything? (it creates a wind burst which propagates EASILY, vs. a ground reverb)
[/quote]
But I'm not seeing ANY flag motion at the time the PLSS is tossed, are you? On this NASA footage link here, the flag waving starts at 13:50 and is done 15 seconds later... The PLSS isn't thrown for another One Minute! And the flag has already long been offscreen.
Please lay out your theory here, and why you are trying to associate this tossed PLSS with ANY flag motion at all?
https://youtu.be/HpXQBYohV9Q?t=828 (https://youtu.be/HpXQBYohV9Q?t=828)
-
Can you sort out quotes on that last post
-
Can you sort out quotes on that last post
ooops, done.
-
Note - what's more important than words from Jay, are direct NASA statements. For meaning, we need some NASA direct quotes, or even some quotes tied to larger institutions that value their integrity, also helps. Got any direct quotes from a larger institution? (e.g. NASA)
Not interested. It's a Gish gallup that anyone with google-fu could resolve. Besides.... Jay Windley is a renowned expert on Apollo amongst other things.
If you look at the before/after photos, which are spaced in time very far apart... you'll see the removal of equipment that was right next to it... do we have the footage of this equipment being moved -- as it would be a very likely time for the flag to be "touched".
Not my problem. Go fetch.
What is your theory for how the flag pole turned 180 deg? And then how would it then COME BACK ON SCREEN 4x total? You have to explain 4 separate appearances of the flag.
You've had this explained to you already. Cabin depressurisation. I really could not care less what maths you think you have performed to suggest that isn't the case. In a vacuum, any force will cause motion.
Well if there were atmosphere, this explains the motion more than anything? (it creates a wind burst which propagates EASILY, vs. a ground reverb)
Begging the question. I'm seeing a "wind burst" but not in the way you think.
But I'm not seeing ANY flag motion at the time the PLSS is tossed, are you?
Are you blind? It happens the split second the second PLSS is tossed.
On this NASA footage link here, the flag waving starts at 13:50 and is done 15 seconds later.
Depressurisation.
The PLSS isn't thrown for another One Minute! And the flag has already long been offscreen.
You make that sound significant. My retort is so what?
Please lay out your theory here, and why you are trying to associate this tossed PLSS with ANY flag motion at all?
That YouTube link of yours.... 16:24 second PLSS lands and immediately the flag flutters. Where is your logic? Ground vibration. It's a rock hard surface it only needs a small vibration. Low gravity, less friction. Obviously same inertia but if that moves the pole just a little, why not the flag?
The other alternative is that the split second the second PLSS impacted something else moved it. Again, where is your logic?
-
Please lay out your theory here, and why you are trying to associate this tossed PLSS with ANY flag motion at all?
That YouTube link of yours.... 16:24 second PLSS lands and immediately the flag flutters. Where is your logic? Ground vibration. It's a rock hard surface it only needs a small vibration. Low gravity, less friction. Obviously same inertia but if that moves the pole just a little, why not the flag?
So your flag flutter is just a few pixels that appear to be the end of the horizontal pole for a split-second. I see it now (pictured below).
I think this could be a possible tiny-jolt to the pole. This seems feasible. But a jolt of this nature would not then cause a 180 degree turn away, which seems to be your thesis.
You've established that "the exhaust didn't move the pole" but think it was this PLSS thrown, somehow causing significant rotational acceleration of the vertical pole. Yes?
If so - that's fine with me. It doesn't address my main contention. For now, I'll accept this thesis. The PLSS landed, and somehow caused the flag to rotate 180 deg.
THE MAIN CONTENTION REMAINS:
So then how do you propose the Exhaust PULLED the flag TOWARDS IT? (4X) -- all prior to the PLSS landing.
This is the part that remains FULLY UNREFUTED.
-
So your flag flutter is just a few pixels that appear to be the end of the horizontal pole for a split-second. I see it now (pictured below).
It occurs at that exact point.
I think this could be a possible tiny-jolt to the pole. This seems feasible. But a jolt of this nature would not then cause a 180 degree turn away, which seems to be your thesis.
I asked you to prove this 180 degree thing. I have been through the record and the various camera views are very different and it's difficult to determine what level of movement occurred. The depressurisation caused some changes, so how do you confirm it as 180 degrees (even if previous to this process it was)?
You've established that "the exhaust didn't move the pole" but think it was this PLSS thrown, somehow causing significant rotational acceleration of the vertical pole. Yes?
It fits the visible evidence and is most certainly not impossible on a rock hard surface and an indeterminable stablity of the pole support.
THE MAIN CONTENTION REMAINS:
So then how do you propose the Exhaust PULLED the flag TOWARDS IT? (4X) -- all prior to the PLSS landing.
This is the part that remains FULLY UNREFUTED.
Where is your logic? All it needs to do is send it away gently and pendulum action rocks it back. How is that not perfectly explained by what is happening?
-
NASA's main defense of this "flawed simulation" was:
1. that until post-2000, no one could easily obtain, replay, and analyze NASA photos, videos, PDF's, transcripts.
And you think it makes perfect logical sense to believe that NASA would provide all of that to the public so that they could closely analyze it and potentially expose the hoax?
-
NASA's main defense of this "flawed simulation" was:
1. that until post-2000, no one could easily obtain, replay, and analyze NASA photos, videos, PDF's, transcripts.
And you think it makes perfect logical sense to believe that NASA would provide all of that to the public so that they could closely analyze it and potentially expose the hoax?
Which is more amusing when I have PDF copies of the Apollo 11 photo guide and order forms that were issued at the end of 1969 IIRC.
-
So then how do you propose the Exhaust PULLED the flag TOWARDS IT? (4X) -- all prior to the PLSS landing.
Where is your logic? All it needs to do is send it away gently and pendulum action rocks it back. How is that not perfectly explained by what is happening?
One of the motions stays onscreen for many many seconds, very still. Are you explaining this as Pendulum?
=== ALERT ====
I just noticed that recently NASA modified this footage to cut off about 10 pixels from the right side, thus cropping out the majority of the flag. Unbelievable.
NASA has been doing this to us for decades. This is just the latest example of it. Here is the image of BEFORE(top) and AFTER (bottom).
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2017.0;attach=1218)
-
And you think it makes perfect logical sense to believe that NASA would provide all of that to the public so that they could closely analyze it and potentially expose the hoax?
"Perfect" is an overstatement. Most things are muddied.
With most things that might be conspiracy, they "go away" - e.g. JFK assassination. The older it gets, the more irrelevant it becomes.
But Apollo is different. They are "holding back science", and very soon we're going to find out the Lie, because GenX/Y/Z will NOT dirty their hands with the Lies of the Boomers. That's what I believe will happen, and hope will happen.
So what to do? One thing they've done is mostly distance themselves from ongoing Lies. For example the ISRO Chandrayaan hi-resolution images that supposedly show Apollo 11/12 (and weren't modified) - neither ISRO nor NASA sites/galleries show these images... no press announcements. Nothing. The only confirmations made for these images are from 3rd parties, not part of either organization.
ISRO/NASA operate collaboratively, starting with a framework signed by 2009... NASA even sometimes retrieves the images from Chandrayaan, and is integrated into the pipeline for reception and processing. Yet 3rd Party Apollogists (ok to use this term?) - are claiming "Victory" and also framing it as "Why would India lie for the USA?" A gross overstatement and misrepresentation of the situation, ignoring the collaborative partnership that exists here, and by conflating ISRO with "all of India".
Both organizations are SILENT about the recent Chandrayaan hi-res images. Why? I believe it's because SpaceX is about to deliver "the news" -- within the next few years. And so NASA/ISRO are "distanced from this new lie"... it's on their server, and they "aren't sure how the photos got modified.." (an undetected security breach?) ...
Do you find this SILENCE suspicious at all?
Also starting in 2019, China's moon pictures started showing more saturation, to reveal a mostly brownish moon, not true gray as depicted by Apollo. In 2024, the latest China photos are even more saturated -- revealing more brown tones... This is only a suspicion here, but looks to me like "China may be done protecting USA lies". Guessing 2024 was a deadline they agreed to.. as we were supposed to be on the moon by now -- at which point SpaceX could officially break the news.
Why would China protect them at all? We have $Trillion-dollar trade deal... And all economies are now interdependent -- if China hurts us, it hurts them.
===
So - I don't know what all thought went into putting all materials online 20+ years ago. Maybe they simply didn't realize all of mistakes that would be noticed... until it was too late.. And it's been proven that they've done damage control, changing sources, removing content, etc... now it's scrubbed, and everyone takes NASA's "current renditions as Original, gold-standard, the true source".
So it's concerning to me that PNA's are not bothered by this - mostly just because they like their current world view, even if it might be false. Apollo operates very much like a very widespread Universalist (No Hell) Religion. ... but the Lie is holding back science. If we go to the moon, and want to be honest this time -- we gotta expose Apollo's hoax.
-
Which is more amusing when I have PDF copies of the Apollo 11 photo guide and order forms that were issued at the end of 1969 IIRC.
Got a link? Do you have records of how many copies of stuff they sent out to requesters in the 1970's? Not "how many applications", but "how much was sent out"? Did they charge for it? What all would they send you?
Once they made it free/instant via internet -- this changed everything. Now combine that with online forums/groups/chats -- and when you found "an issue" you now could post it to the group, who could also have instant access to the photo, etc, etc..
Pre-internet, if some lone SMART guy happened to spend 100+ hrs investigating stuff- and found out "this looks faked" - who would believe him? Without internet, how would he fish for a support group? After a while of being scorned and outcast - he'll drop it. Where is his GAIN? There is none, only cost and tedious work.
So in short-- there was a LOT MORE INVESTIGATION GOING ON POST 2000, then before. The other thing that helped was the advancement of photo viewing/analysis, and video analysis. You could start extracting frames... where as in the 1990's, most people hadn't a clue.
Also 1990's was a time of dial-up internet.
Post 2000 -- in come high speed internet-- increasing the convenience of downloading entire ALBUMS of NASA imagery.
When NASA decided to put this stuff online, - they may have simply not predicted the result. As it was developments AFTER they posted stuff that made it worse for them.
-
So what to do? One thing they've done is mostly distance themselves from ongoing Lies. For example the ISRO Chandrayaan hi-resolution images that supposedly show Apollo 11/12 (and weren't modified) - neither ISRO nor NASA sites/galleries show these images... no press announcements. Nothing. The only confirmations made for these images are from 3rd parties, not part of either organization.
ISRO/NASA operate collaboratively, starting with a framework signed by 2009... NASA even sometimes retrieves the images from Chandrayaan, and is integrated into the pipeline for reception and processing. Yet 3rd Party Apollogists (ok to use this term?) - are claiming "Victory" and also framing it as "Why would India lie for the USA?" A gross overstatement and misrepresentation of the situation, ignoring the collaborative partnership that exists here, and by conflating ISRO with "all of India".
Both organizations are SILENT about the recent Chandrayaan hi-res images. Why? I believe it's because SpaceX is about to deliver "the news" -- within the next few years. And so NASA/ISRO are "distanced from this new lie"... it's on their server, and they "aren't sure how the photos got modified.." (an undetected security breach?) ...
Do you find this SILENCE suspicious at all?
So this web presentation in June 2021 is silent?
That was just two months after Apollo 11 & 12 were imaged by their OHRC on Chandrayaan-2. The files themselves were released to on their public website in January 2022. As someone who checks their site daily I was one of the first people to downbload, process and publish their images of the site outside that presentation and the one in September that year.
So what?
Your attitude towards it is just a variation on "if I ran the zoo", namely "If there wasn't a press release it didn't happen". The fact is that the Apollo landings are of minor interest to a small community of people. ISRO's lunar missions are not dedicated to finding proof of Apollo, nor are they obliged to conduct their public business to satisfy people who would still "nuh-uh" their way through any offical press releases they might have made. None of that has stopped the terrain mapping cameras on Chandrayaan 1 & 2 imaging evidence of human activity (and hardware) at the Apollo sites. If you have evidence of any kind of doctoring of those images, feel free to provide it. Yes, NASA helps dowblaod the images, because they (along with other spavce agencies) help provide complete global coverage. The Apollo 11 & 12 OHRC images were not downloaded by NASA, they were downloaded by ISOR's DSN at Bangalore. You can check all this yourself.
Also starting in 2019, China's moon pictures started showing more saturation, to reveal a mostly brownish moon, not true gray as depicted by Apollo. In 2024, the latest China photos are even more saturated -- revealing more brown tones... This is only a suspicion here, but looks to me like "China may be done protecting USA lies". Guessing 2024 was a deadline they agreed to.. as we were supposed to be on the moon by now -- at which point SpaceX could officially break the news.
Why would China protect them at all? We have $Trillion-dollar trade deal... And all economies are now interdependent -- if China hurts us, it hurts them.
Citation required.
China's images are all available online in two different formats: the large TIFF images available on their WebGIS server, and the smaller individual strips in a proprietry format from which those much larger tiles are compiled. Both sets of images look pretty grey to me, including the ones that show evidence of human activity at the Apollo sites. Feel free to proivide images that contradict that.
What I suggest you do is go to Google Scholar and search for Chandrayaan-2 and/or Chang'e-2 with Apollo. You will get hundreds of returns where both space agencies reference Apollo data (and NASA data generally) as a benchmark for their own reaearch, because Apollo hardware and data provide ground truth for orbital datra iun terms of the physical parameters of the things they are researching and the precise location of the equipment left there by people.
-
Which is more amusing when I have PDF copies of the Apollo 11 photo guide and order forms that were issued at the end of 1969 IIRC.
Got a link? Do you have records of how many copies of stuff they sent out to requesters in the 1970's? Not "how many applications", but "how much was sent out"? Did they charge for it? What all would they send you?
Once they made it free/instant via internet -- this changed everything. Now combine that with online forums/groups/chats -- and when you found "an issue" you now could post it to the group, who could also have instant access to the photo, etc, etc..
Pre-internet, if some lone SMART guy happened to spend 100+ hrs investigating stuff- and found out "this looks faked" - who would believe him? Without internet, how would he fish for a support group? After a while of being scorned and outcast - he'll drop it. Where is his GAIN? There is none, only cost and tedious work.
So in short-- there was a LOT MORE INVESTIGATION GOING ON POST 2000, then before. The other thing that helped was the advancement of photo viewing/analysis, and video analysis. You could start extracting frames... where as in the 1990's, most people hadn't a clue.
Also 1990's was a time of dial-up internet.
Post 2000 -- in come high speed internet-- increasing the convenience of downloading entire ALBUMS of NASA imagery.
When NASA decided to put this stuff online, - they may have simply not predicted the result. As it was developments AFTER they posted stuff that made it worse for them.
NASA put this online because it deserves to be online, and as a taxpayer funded body they have an obligation to give their funders what they paid for.
Prior to that it was all available as hard copy. All you needed to do was ask for it. The images were mostyl sent out as 'packs' of images, but you could also get complete volumes of every photo taken. I have my own copies of the volumes for Apollos 8, 10 and 12. Volumes for Apollo 11, 13 and 14 were also produced. The online versions aren't hard to find.
Most of these tended to end up with researchers at Universities - my copies of that kind of report, and the preliminary science reports I own, were in college libraries. Smart guys examining these records would not have concluded they were faked - had they done so they would not, by definition, have been smart.
The photos were widely published in books, popular magazines, professional magazines and scientific papers. You can find many examples that I own here:
https://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/ephemera/ephemera.html
-
Do you find this SILENCE suspicious at all?
So this web presentation in June 2021 is silent?
First off, my observations of China's Brown moon are a bit viral. I'm waiting to see how it turns out. Just noting it as a potential "sign" for now. So won't argue the case.
Regarding your SILENCE dispute, I have covered the ISRO case in this document:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xpYHdfFNGjDRbIVIKnoVFSpIb657gNTUtHH1b_79N6U/edit?usp=drive_link (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xpYHdfFNGjDRbIVIKnoVFSpIb657gNTUtHH1b_79N6U/edit?usp=drive_link)
I'd be pleased to have you look over it, and give feedback/corrections.
Your specific counter-claim to SILENCE is addressed on page 7, like this:
===
Lone Anomaly: Low-Level ISRO Employee Presents the Image, buried in Webinar:
Here is the link which shows the imagery for 133 seconds, buried midway into a 3.2 hour webinar targeted at hiring new employees. The presenter has 1.7 yrs of tech school, and no stated degree (so maybe an Associate’s degree at best?).
Here is the presenter’s info, Amitabh.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Amitabh-Amitabh
===
Given that ISRO's high-res coverage of the moon is < 1% of the surface area so far - and that of this < 1%, both Apollo 11 and 12 were targeted... but never mentioned anywhere on their public sites.
It's not even shown in the Chandrayaan gallery -- lots of ordinary shots in there, but showing the FIRST EVER HIGH RESOLUTION IMAGES of Apollo 11/12 (contested/disbelieved by 100's of millions worldwide) -- DID NOT MAKE THE CUT?
It would have taken them 1 hr to post these.. Not worth their time?
Or are they distancing themselves?
I realize the image was labeled as received by India - fine. It would look more suspicious otherwise. However, NASA is a TRUSTED partner. How hard would it be for them to get ahold of this 1 GB of source data, modify it, and then save overtop the existing image? All ISRO would have to do is "be a little negligent" - after all, they "trust" NASA, so why would they be guarding against foulplay by a single NASA agent equipped with a little knowledge about how to conduct the edits?
That's my running hypothesis on this.
Meanwhile, the dishonest Apollogists will continue to frame this as "India Validated Apollo!" (when it 's ISRO, not India, and a tight collaborator with NASA, not independent, and neither organization will even announce or show in their gallery these images)
If NASA comes out in a year to state, "we think Apollo never landed humans on the moon", how would you react?
You have a whole site entrenched in defending NASA's truth. What would you do if you found out that it was at least partly a Lie (i.e. just the landing on the moon part, perhaps)
-
The photos were widely published in books, popular magazines, professional magazines and scientific papers. You can find many examples that I own here:
https://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/ephemera/ephemera.html
Love your site. This is the first I've seen it. Robust, with lots of info. Nice.
Before I bring up new "MLH zingers", I'll check your site to see how you've dealt with it so far.
Thank you for chiming in and contribution here. I am honored by your time.
-
The photos were widely published in books, popular magazines, professional magazines and scientific papers. You can find many examples that I own here:
https://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/ephemera/ephemera.html
I checked your site, and didn't see this "Flag Waving" for Apollo 14 covered.
Would you weigh in here, to give me a theory as to how you might explain these 8 flag movements?
So far, this one seem irrefutable.
-
Got a link? Do you have records of how many copies of stuff they sent out to requesters in the 1970's? Not "how many applications", but "how much was sent out"? Did they charge for it? What all would they send you?
The Lunar Surface Journal and Flight Journal pages have a wealth of documents, reports, interviews, and such.
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/main.html
https://www.nasa.gov/history/afj/
-
I checked your site, and didn't see this "Flag Waving" for Apollo 14 covered.
Would you weigh in here, to give me a theory as to how you might explain these 8 flag movements?
So far, this one seem irrefutable.
When you reject anything that is provided to you, then sure, I imagine it would seem irrefutable.
In the end, all we have is a flag that has moved. The reason for the move is speculative at best, both 'sides' consider theirs the correct explanation, but in the end, we simply don't have enough information to account for all the confounding variables (mainly the details on the flag/flag pole itself), and so ar eleft with basic speculation. Of course, one option requires manned flight to the moon, while the other requires a multi-decade, multi-country, multi-governmental conspiracy, that is still adding conspirators to this date, never having 'suffered' any leaks, if HB's are to be believed.
I believe there might be one or two Razors that apply here, hmmm?
-
Soon after reading Najak's first few posts here I trotted off to the Apollo 14 Lunar Surface Journal, went past the links to the Journal, paged down to Background Material, and clicked on the fourth link, Image Library, did a quick search for "flag", and got 25 hits.
Plain text below has their full details and a lot of information, such as the azimuth the US flag points to.
Usually I would include links, so I apologise to other members for not including them, but I'm trying to encourage Najak to do his own research. Just like I did. :-)
Hits 1 to 7 are in training photos before the mission and the remainder are on the moon, but hit 25 is not of the US flag, it's the little red geophone/thumper anchor flag at the ALSEP site. So the most useful hits are numbers 8 to 24, and the handy thing about them is that all the photos are on roll 66.
Note that below we are told five times to look at the discussion following 131:09:18 in the Journal. It's good advice, because it has 11 paragraphs about flag azimuth changes, depressurisations and all sorts of other fascinating stuff. The link in the Image Library sends us direct to 131:09:18 but the discussion is a little further down between 131:09:46 and 131:10:48.
Hit 1
S70-46153 ( 237k or 989k)
Al Shepard photographs Ed Mitchell and the flag during indoor EVA training. The S-band antenna is just beyond Ed. July 1970. Research by J.L. Pickering.
Hits 2 & 3
70-H-1119 ( 128k )
Al Shepard pulls the top of the U.S. flag taut. The top of the flag has a hem shown on so that it will slip onto a telescoping crossbar that will hold it out on the airless moon. Al may checking to make sure the crossbar is fully extended. Note the dirt-filled box at the lower right into which Shepard will plant the staff. 28 August 1970. Scan by J.L Pickering.
Hit 4
S70-53483 ( 148k )
Al Shepard practices the flag deployment in the KC-135. 4 November 1970. Scan by J.L. Pickering.
Hits 5 & 6
KSC-70P-503 ( 136k )
Ed Mitchell (left) pushes the lower section of the flagstaff into some lunar soil simulant inside the Training Building at the Cape. Al Shepard (right) walks toward him, apparently completing extension of the telescoping crossbar at the top of the flag. The MET can be seen in the plus-Y footpad beyond the S-Band antenna. 8 December 1970. Scan by Kipp Teague.
Hit 7
APOLLO14-KSC-NOID ( 120k )
Ed Mitchell (left) goes toward the LM mockup while Al Shepard works with the telescoping crossbar at the top of the flag. Scan by J. L. Pickering.
Hit 8
AS14-66-9231 (OF300) ( 88k or 720k )
114:44:02 Down-Sun Al at the U.S. flag. S-Band antenna shadow, Ed's shadow, the LM shadow. Al's OPS antenna is up.
Hits 9-11
AS14-66-9232 (OF300) ( 85k or 707k )
114:44:39 This is one of two tourist pictures of Al Shepard taken after deployment of the U.S. flag. Before taking this series, they turned the flag so that it was face on to the 16-mm DAC mounted on the MET. After they finished taking these three tourist pictures, they turned the flag so it was face on to the TV camera. See a discussion following 131:09:18.
At this point Ed passed the camera to Al Shepard. Note that unlike on Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 there are no pictures of the LMP descending the ladder.
Hit 12
AS14-66-9233 (OF300) ( 89k or 732k )
114:45:46 Down-Sun portrait of Ed at the U.S. flag. Note that the top flap of the strap-on pocket on his left thigh is open and we can see the Velcro strips on the inside suface that mate with corresponding strips on the front of the pocket to keep the top flap secure.
Hits 13 & 14
AS14-66-9257 (OF300) ( 96k or 806k )
Looking west-southwest, the last picture in this pan shows the S-Band antenna and the flag directly behind it. Towards the right side of the picture, the glare of the Sun at its zero phase point washes out many of the details of the surface. The flag is pointing on a azimuth of about 120. See a discussion following 131:09:18.
Hits 15 & 16
AS14-66-9276 (OF300) ( 172k or 900k )
Rightward of 9275, LM shadow, ladder, U.S. flag, S-Band antenna shadow. The LRRR (Laser Ranging Retro-Reflector) is in the west footpad, waiting for Al to carry it out to the ALSEP deployment site. By illuminating the LRRR with laser pulses and measuring the time of return, experimenters on Earth can accurately measure the distance between their telescope and the LRRR and, over time, do such marvelous things as test Einstein's theory of General Relativity and look for evidence of crustal motions in the Moon. To the right of the LRRR, we see a second ALSEP package. Notice the craters to the West and North that Al narrowly avoided. The flag is full face to the TV camera, pointing on an azimuth of about 120. See a discussion following 131:09:18.
Hit 17
AS14-66-9303 (OF300) ( 86k or 659k )
Rightward of 9302, showing Ed, the U.S. flag, the S-Band antenna.
Hit 18
AS14-66-9304 (OF300) ( 136k or 917k )
Up-Sun, but without a great deal of glare, perhaps because part of the LM shadow may be falling on Al's camera lens. Without the sun glare, we can see some detail on the Cone Crater ridge. Flag, S-Band antenna, ladder, the LRRR in the west footpad.
Hit 19
AS14-66-9305 (OF300) ( 125k or 881k )
114:57:20 Similar to 9304. Up-Sun from Al's 12 o'clock pan taken near the LM at the start of EVA-1. There is relatively little glare, perhaps because part of the LM shadow may be falling on Al's camera lens. Without the Sun glare, we can see some detail on the Cone-Crater ridge. Flag, S-Band antenna, ladder, the LRRR in the west footpad.
Hits 20 & 21
AS14-66-9324 (OF300) ( 181k or 1102k )
119:42:01 Leftward from 9323. This frame was taken out Ed's window between the two EVAs at about 20:45 GMT/UTC on 5 February 1971, and shows the flag and the MET at the LM between the EVAs. Note that, in addition to parking the MET in the shadow of the S-Band antenna, as per checklist they have put the S-Band cover on it. Good footprint and tire track definition. The flag is face-on to the TV camera, pointing on an azimuth of about 120. The Sun's elevation was about 16.4 degrees. See a discussion following 131:09:18.
Hits 22-24
AS14-66-9338 (OF300) ( 115k or 759k )
Ed Mitchell took this splendid picture after he and Al Shepard jettisoned the PLSSs in preparation for launch. Of particular interest are the tracks made by the crew and the MET during the traverse to the ALSEP deployment site and during the return to the LM. Apollo 17 astronaut Jack Schmitt speculates that the descent plume sweeps away the fine particles of soil, leaving a surface dominated by small rock fragments that reflect sunlight from the down-Sun direction and make the surface look lighter in color than normal. In places where the surface is disturbed, the normal reflectivity of the surface is restored. Whatever the detailed explanation for this phenomenon, it is related to the fact that, from orbit, the area immediately surrounding a LM looks noticeably lighter in color. The ALSEP Central Station is about 180m from the LM. Note the excursions the crew made around the rimless crater in the foreground and the large depression in the middle distance that they traversed in both directions. Without the visual clues provided by the tracks, the depression is not easy to pick out in this down-Sun photo. Note that the flag is now pointing on an azimuth of about 335 and undoubtedly moved from it prior pointing of about 120 as a result of the cabin depressurization done for the jettison. See a discussion following 131:09:18.
Journal Contributor Yuri Krasilnikov has created a comparison between 9338, a 16-mm frame taken before the pre-launch RCS hot-fire check and a frame following the hot-fire check. Although the orientation of the first two images are different because of camera mounting, the flag orientation relative to, say, the PLSS, is the same. The final frame shows the result of the large flag motion during the hot-fire check. Krasilnikov also calls attention a difference in the orientation of the access flap on the flap shown as it was before the hot-fire check, closeest to the LM in a detail from 9338.
Hit 25
AS14-67-9376 (OF300) ( 190k or 1233k )
117:24:33 Geophone/thumper anchor flag, mortar pack, Central Station, CPLEE, and assorted packing material.
-
And you think it makes perfect logical sense to believe that NASA would provide all of that to the public so that they could closely analyze it and potentially expose the hoax?
"Perfect" is an overstatement. Most things are muddied.
You respond to a simple question with a whole lot of words that didn't come close to answering it.
If Apollo was faked, it would make zero sense for NASA to provide all of it's photographic & video footage online for free so that desk chair detectives like you can expose them. They would make it as difficult as possible to get ahold of that information, if not outright impossible.
The fact that they have made all of that available to the world tells me that they are confident that it verifies Apollo's authenticity.
With most things that might be conspiracy, they "go away" - e.g. JFK assassination. The older it gets, the more irrelevant it becomes.
That's the thing about the Apollo hoax that doesn't make sense. They couldn't have just faked it in 1969 and then let it be. They would have had to maintain the lie forever in order to avoid the disastrous embarrassment on the world stage. It would be impossible to maintain that lie for very long.
But Apollo is different. They are "holding back science", and very soon we're going to find out the Lie, because GenX/Y/Z will NOT dirty their hands with the Lies of the Boomers. That's what I believe will happen, and hope will happen.
It's precisely why they wouldn't have committed a hoax in the first place. They could not have guaranteed that future generations would go along with it. Why do something that would destroy the reputation of the United States forever once discovered? If going to the Moon was impossible, it would be easier to just say so... there is nothing to be gained from faking it.
So what to do? One thing they've done is mostly distance themselves from ongoing Lies.
By publishing every photo, video, audio, and technical document for the world to see?
For example the ISRO Chandrayaan hi-resolution images that supposedly show Apollo 11/12 (and weren't modified) - neither ISRO nor NASA sites/galleries show these images... no press announcements. Nothing.
Nonsense. You are trying to rewrite history. We know about those photographs because they made press announcements at the time.
ISRO/NASA operate collaboratively, starting with a framework signed by 2009... NASA even sometimes retrieves the images from Chandrayaan, and is integrated into the pipeline for reception and processing. Yet 3rd Party Apollogists (ok to use this term?) - are claiming "Victory" and also framing it as "Why would India lie for the USA?" A gross overstatement and misrepresentation of the situation, ignoring the collaborative partnership that exists here, and by conflating ISRO with "all of India".
And what is stopping a hostile foreign government, a private company, or even an individual from building a lunar probe to photograph the Apollo landing sites at some point? Like I said, this isn't something they could have faked in 1969 and then ignored... the landing sites are going to be there pretty much forever. Eventually technology will be so capable that the government won't be able to prevent amateurs from sending cameras to the Moon, and at that point the hoax would be exposed.
So why fake something if you are 100% guaranteed to get caught and be embarrassed globally forever?
I believe it's because SpaceX is about to deliver "the news" -- within the next few years.
Oh... Elon to save the day again! Because he never lies... right?
Do you find this SILENCE suspicious at all?
What silence? All I see is your willful ignorance. You close your eyes & ears to any information that contradicts your beliefs, and then say the information doesn't exist.
I don't know what all thought went into putting all materials online 20+ years ago. Maybe they simply didn't realize all of mistakes that would be noticed... until it was too late.. And it's been proven that they've done damage control, changing sources, removing content, etc... now it's scrubbed, and everyone takes NASA's "current renditions as Original, gold-standard, the true source".
More nonsense. If Apollo was faked the last thing NASA would want to do is publish thousands of photographs, hours of video and audio, and tons of documents for the world to scrutinize. You are clearly incapable of thinking logically.
-
Would you weigh in here, to give me a theory as to how you might explain these 8 flag movements?
So far, this one seem irrefutable.
The thing has been explained to you and here you are still acting the goat. It's not "irrefutable" at all. You haven't defined any alternative or feasible explanation for why the depressurisation and PLSS impact aren't the simple reasons.
The footage is showing all sorts of "shifting around" artefacts. This could even just be related to how the camera recorded it. You are showing no objectivity or logic and exhibiting classic HB behaviour. It still evades the issue that NASA freely releases this without checking it. It's the worst footage of any mission by far and it just doesn't make any sense for them not to have checked it.
Your comments about the edge of the video being different are just classic HB posturing and question begging. Numerous versions of the footage were made available without any restriction. What a certain type of software does to the display is not NASA's fault.
-
The photos were widely published in books, popular magazines, professional magazines and scientific papers. You can find many examples that I own here:
https://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/ephemera/ephemera.html
I checked your site, and didn't see this "Flag Waving" for Apollo 14 covered.
Would you weigh in here, to give me a theory as to how you might explain these 8 flag movements?
So far, this one seem irrefutable.
Why should I cover it? I deal with things as I see fit.
You've already had my explanation, it's the same as everyone else's. Here it is again.
A directional air current from the LM causes the flag to move from one position to a point where air stops it moving. It oscillates back to a point where it can be influenced by it again.
There is plenty covereing it here:
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a14/a14.eva2prep.html
Your position is identical, with the exception that you can't explain why there is a directional air current in a studio, where that studio is, who is operating it, how the studio replicates details of the lunar surface that were not known about prior to Apollo, and how the evidence of human activity on the surface can be seen in lunar rpobes sent be several different countries. That, and your refusal to accept the real explanation no matter how many times it's presented to you in words of one syllable.
-
Do you find this SILENCE suspicious at all?
So this web presentation in June 2021 is silent?
First off, my observations of China's Brown moon are a bit viral. I'm waiting to see how it turns out. Just noting it as a potential "sign" for now. So won't argue the case.
Viral does not mean valid. Download the images yourself and see what colour they are.
Regarding your SILENCE dispute, I have covered the ISRO case in this document:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xpYHdfFNGjDRbIVIKnoVFSpIb657gNTUtHH1b_79N6U/edit?usp=drive_link (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xpYHdfFNGjDRbIVIKnoVFSpIb657gNTUtHH1b_79N6U/edit?usp=drive_link)
I'd be pleased to have you look over it, and give feedback/corrections.
Your specific counter-claim to SILENCE is addressed on page 7, like this:
===
Lone Anomaly: Low-Level ISRO Employee Presents the Image, buried in Webinar:
Here is the link which shows the imagery for 133 seconds, buried midway into a 3.2 hour webinar targeted at hiring new employees. The presenter has 1.7 yrs of tech school, and no stated degree (so maybe an Associate’s degree at best?).
Here is the presenter’s info, Amitabh.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Amitabh-Amitabh
===
Again, ISRO made two presentations showing Apollo 11 & 12 sites imaged by ISRO. Your disappointment at them not proclaiming it from the highest mountain tops does not invalidate the information in those images. They do not have to do things the way you want. The presenter is an expert in those images, he's happy with what's in them. I'm willing to bet he doesn't care about your view of them. Does a lack of formal qualification mean lack of knowledge and capability to comment on a subject? Don't his masters degress count? What are your qualifications in the subject? If you don't have a masters degree and 20+ years experience in image processing in the space sector, maybe you should keep quiet.
Given that ISRO's high-res coverage of the moon is < 1% of the surface area so far - and that of this < 1%, both Apollo 11 and 12 were targeted... but never mentioned anywhere on their public sites.
It's not even shown in the Chandrayaan gallery -- lots of ordinary shots in there, but showing the FIRST EVER HIGH RESOLUTION IMAGES of Apollo 11/12 (contested/disbelieved by 100's of millions worldwide) -- DID NOT MAKE THE CUT?
It would have taken them 1 hr to post these.. Not worth their time?
Or are they distancing themselves?
Again, ISRO don't have to do things the way you want.
I realize the image was labeled as received by India - fine. It would look more suspicious otherwise. However, NASA is a TRUSTED partner. How hard would it be for them to get ahold of this 1 GB of source data, modify it, and then save overtop the existing image?
Very hard. Prove me wrong.
All ISRO would have to do is "be a little negligent" - after all, they "trust" NASA, so why would they be guarding against foulplay by a single NASA agent equipped with a little knowledge about how to conduct the edits?
That's my running hypothesis on this.
Then provide some evidence that this happened. Do some research for yourself. Download the images for yourself and figure it out. Here. this is how you do it:
Meanwhile, the dishonest Apollogists will continue to frame this as "India Validated Apollo!" (when it 's ISRO, not India, and a tight collaborator with NASA, not independent, and neither organization will even announce or show in their gallery these images)
Dishonest? Really? Prove there's dishonesty. As far as I'm concerned the ISRO images validate Apollo because every detail in them matches the Apollo photographic record. For me to to be dishonest I would have to be saying that knowing it not to be true. Don't be accusing me of being a liar.
But India haven't validated Apollo, have they - at least as far as you're concerned. They haven't come out and made a big deal over the images. NASA make a big deal over their own images via the LRO, so are those ones genuine?
If NASA comes out in a year to state, "we think Apollo never landed humans on the moon", how would you react?
Moot point. Not going to happen, because Apollo did land humans on the moon.
You have a whole site entrenched in defending NASA's truth. What would you do if you found out that it was at least partly a Lie (i.e. just the landing on the moon part, perhaps)
And you have absolutely nothing that can discredit the information on there.
If NASA comes out and says that, I will delete everything I have ever put on the web about it. Never going to happen.
-
(Flag Waving)
You've already had my explanation, it's the same as everyone else's. Here it is again.
A directional air current from the LM causes the flag to move from one position to a point where air stops it moving. It oscillates back to a point where it can be influenced by it again.
I am honored by your involvement here. My beliefs are sincere, and I appreciate you.
In your rationale, when the flag is "at rest" (not impacted by an air current) - is that resting position on-screen or off-screen?
In my mind, "at rest" is off-screen, until a draft blows "towards the LM" which then brings it on screen. But this could only happen on earth, with an atmosphere.
I believe your theory requires that "at rest" is ON screen, until the "LM depressurization exhaust" pushes it OFF-screen, correct?
The major contenders against your theory are:
1. It's off-screen far more than on-screen.. and many say the decompression was "fast" (2 minutes?)... and this doesn't provide enough time to account for your theory.
2. When it's onscreen (in your theory, "at Rest") - the top white stripe is bent and almost gone -- and the top part is SLANTED towards offscreen, where it attaches to the horizontal pole. It's clear from this slant that "on screen" is NOT "at-rest" but is in a state of "being pushed by something -- towards the LM". In short it can't be "At Rest" when on screen.
The "slant" gives it away. Shows it is "being pushed" on-screen. Do you disagree? If so, how?
===
Drafts inside of a 1200' x 300' hanger are possible.
1. Air leaks... wind outside blows, goes through the leaks, and causes a draft. A huge hangar probably isn't so air tight.
2. Someone has a door open, or worse a door on both sides open. Maybe then wanted some ventilation.
3. Central AC.. can cause drafts.
Sound feasible?
While on the moon, an air current going TOWARDS the LM - isn't explainable.
Unless you can defend "At Rest" being "on Screen" - your current theory Fails. And this "Flag pushed towards LM" theory stands unrefuted.
-
1: The fact that they have made all of that available to the world tells me that they are confident that it verifies Apollo's authenticity.
2: (Chandrayaan) Nonsense. You are trying to rewrite history. We know about those photographs because they made press announcements at the time.
3: And what is stopping a hostile foreign government, a private company, or even an individual from building a lunar probe to photograph the Apollo landing sites at some point?
4: So why fake something if you are 100% guaranteed to get caught and be embarrassed globally forever?
1. I have ideas. But it's muddy. 30 years afterwards, those who were "in power" (who decided to fake the landing) were dead or feeble by then -- Johnson, Nixon, other leaders.
I don't think the "faking" was common knowledge at NASA at all... they all held to the Apollogy, and weren't paid to question it, nor motivated to do so. There's no personal gain in what I'm doing now; only cost.
2. Chandrayaan - Can you find any "Press Announcements FROM ISRO or NASA officials?" Show me the best you can find. This was a HUGE DEAL - the FIRST EVER HI-RES images of Man's Greatest Achievement! ... and they aren't even in the Chandrayaan photo gallery! No where on any of their public site!
And YES, I downloaded the 500MB imagery from their data site that requires login. I saw the imagery first hand. Easy to photoshop this... if just ISRO looked the other way while a single NASA agent did this work. What hurts NASA, hurts ISRO - they are collaborators. Interdependent.
3. SpaceX will beat them to the punch. It's not about "Elon is honest" -- although he seems considerably more honest than most at-the-top.... it's that GenX/Y/Z will NOT dirty their hands in this Lie, and are going to come clean within the next few years, IMO. They'll present it as "we were suspicious, but still surprised to find this out."
4. "Forever" -- those who made this decision were only thinking about their own lifetime, or their "career time"... Relatively short-sighted. And it worked fine -- everyone Loves Apollo. And it's easy to sell ANYTHING if the audience "Loves the thought of it". Apollo is a religion with no Hell -- only the good stuff.
===
I will continue to focus on my area of most strength -- Physics, Science, Logic.
My focus will be to show the various ways where "Apollo did the Impossible" and repeatedly "the Highly Improbable".
I'm doing this for Thomas Baron, and the other unheard of Whistleblowers... as Baron himself only became known to us because Apollo 1 killed the crew. If that hadn't happened, the media had ALREADY dismissed him as a crank... a liar. But then... Apollo 1-- now he's got the floor -- for a few months, until he gets killed late at night with no witnesses by a fast moving one car train... and his 500-page report with other witness names and detailed incidents -- went MISSING -- even the one he submitted to Congress.
After Baron was out-of-the-way -- NASA resumed by cutting a full YEAR out of their schedule, skipping steps, and cramming... magically "it worked". This was "Plan B" -- gonna have to fake it.
-
2. Chandrayaan - Can you find any "Press Announcements FROM ISRO or NASA officials?" Show me the best you can find. This was a HUGE DEAL - the FIRST EVER HI-RES images of Man's Greatest Achievement! ... and they aren't even in the Chandrayaan photo gallery! No where on any of their public site!
And YES, I downloaded the 500MB imagery from their data site that requires login. I saw the imagery first hand. Easy to photoshop this... if just ISRO looked the other way while a single NASA agent did this work. What hurts NASA, hurts ISRO - they are collaborators. Interdependent.
Then photoshop one. Photoshop a RAW file, without trace. Let's see it.
Show us the Apollo 11 and 12 sites without the hardware on.
ISRO's images of Apollo 11 and 12 are not the first high resolution images of the Apollo sites, they are the highest resolution of two sites. If all that's required for you to accept their validity is publicity, then I guess the Korean and LRO images of the Apollo sites are absolutely genuine.
Like all other space agencies, their lunar probes imaged Apollo sites because it allows them to check how their own equipment is performing. They know what's there, how big the equipment is, and they know the physical parameters of the ground thanks to the samples returned. They are not doing it to prove Apollo, they are doing it to validate their own equipment, and they certainly aren't doing it to appease some cranks.
-
(Flag Waving)
You've already had my explanation, it's the same as everyone else's. Here it is again.
A directional air current from the LM causes the flag to move from one position to a point where air stops it moving. It oscillates back to a point where it can be influenced by it again.
I am honored by your involvement here. My beliefs are sincere, and I appreciate you.
In your rationale, when the flag is "at rest" (not impacted by an air current) - is that resting position on-screen or off-screen?
In my mind, "at rest" is off-screen, until a draft blows "towards the LM" which then brings it on screen. But this could only happen on earth, with an atmosphere.
I believe your theory requires that "at rest" is ON screen, until the "LM depressurization exhaust" pushes it OFF-screen, correct?
The major contenders against your theory are:
1. It's off-screen far more than on-screen.. and many say the decompression was "fast" (2 minutes?)... and this doesn't provide enough time to account for your theory.
2. When it's onscreen (in your theory, "at Rest") - the top white stripe is bent and almost gone -- and the top part is SLANTED towards offscreen, where it attaches to the horizontal pole. It's clear from this slant that "on screen" is NOT "at-rest" but is in a state of "being pushed by something -- towards the LM". In short it can't be "At Rest" when on screen.
The "slant" gives it away. Shows it is "being pushed" on-screen. Do you disagree? If so, how?
===
Drafts inside of a 1200' x 300' hanger are possible.
1. Air leaks... wind outside blows, goes through the leaks, and causes a draft. A huge hangar probably isn't so air tight.
2. Someone has a door open, or worse a door on both sides open. Maybe then wanted some ventilation.
3. Central AC.. can cause drafts.
Sound feasible?
While on the moon, an air current going TOWARDS the LM - isn't explainable.
Unless you can defend "At Rest" being "on Screen" - your current theory Fails. And this "Flag pushed towards LM" theory stands unrefuted.
Here is the flag before it is moved:
It stays in that position for some time. It begins to move after depresurisation starts.
AS14-66-9304
AS14-66-9324
Also show the flag pointed at the LM, with the first one showing the lean on the pole, which can freely rotate.
You're correct: an air current towards the LM would not be possible. Just as well there isn't one, just like there is no studio.
At some point people are going to stop spoon feeding you, because all the questions you are asking can be answered with the same resource everyone else has: Google.
-
Then photoshop one. Photoshop a RAW file, without trace. Let's see it.
Show us the Apollo 11 and 12 sites without the hardware on.
ISRO's images of Apollo 11 and 12 are not the first high resolution images of the Apollo sites, they are the highest resolution of two sites. If all that's required for you to accept their validity is publicity, then I guess the Korean and LRO images of the Apollo sites are absolutely genuine.
Like all other space agencies, their lunar probes imaged Apollo sites because it allows them to check how their own equipment is performing. They know what's there, how big the equipment is, and they know the physical parameters of the ground thanks to the samples returned. They are not doing it to prove Apollo, they are doing it to validate their own equipment, and they certainly aren't doing it to appease some cranks.
I read a really good summary about this from "Gonetoplaid" talking about Deconvolving and the sheer complexities of introducing changes into streamed data. It basically places Arizona State Uni into collaborators. Where does this mad anti-logic end? We're already multiple generations into NASA turnover staff, other space agencies etc.
I'm going to see if I can find it, can't recall where I saw it.
-
Soon after reading Najak's first few posts here I trotted off to the Apollo 14 Lunar Surface Journal, went past the links to the Journal, paged down to Background Material, and clicked on the fourth link, Image Library, did a quick search for "flag", and got 25 hits.
Plain text below has their full details and a lot of information, such as the azimuth the US flag points to.
Usually I would include links, so I apologise to other members for not including them, but I'm trying to encourage Najak to do his own research. Just like I did. :-)
THANK YOU for the links. You are correct, I should have dug this up myself.
Before I'm done with the associated KB, I will incorporate this long commentary inserted into the Surface Journal, starting at 131:09:46. It appears are trying to imply an Apollogist theory to explain the mysterious (impossible?) flag waving.
So thank you very much for this. And I apologize that I didn't find this myself.
-
I read a really good summary about this from "Gonetoplaid" talking about Deconvolving and the sheer complexities of introducing changes into streamed data. It basically places Arizona State Uni into collaborators. Where does this mad anti-logic end? We're already multiple generations into NASA turnover staff, other space agencies etc.
My own theory about these imagery edits, could be the following:
1. They edited the final non-streamed data. Which would mean if they were to RE-PROCESS the original stream, it would NOT included these graphics... showing that they are MISSING.
OR
2. They modified the streamed data itself (not in real-time) but after it was done being received. Which might mean they were using the research done by ASU to build a software tool that reverse generates the streamed data, from the modified output imagery.
So if #2 is not possible... then I would be stuck with #1 -- which means it could be uncovered by simply re-processing the streamed data. Which might be why neither organization is directly Proclaiming "we saw Apollo!" -- despite the huge significance of this supposed imagery. Because if they "open the door" by proclaiming it, they might be asked -- "Can you please reprocess the data stream to validate it?"... which they may simply not want to do... as it would expose the "security breach, of which they are currently officially unaware".
The gig would be up.
Or we could use Presidential executive order (or some shit) to Open up the "Apollo Capsule" recovered from Russian waters the day after Apollo 13 launch .... where the serial # evidence inside would reveal this to be the Apollo 13 capsule.... but NOPE, they sealed it up, never to be opened until 2070... I'd like to see that Serial#.... it could reveal EVERYTHING. So why are we respecting the 1970 decision to keep this sealed? What are they hiding?
-
Here is the flag before it is moved:...
THANKS! I found the flag motion at 5:22:38. It moves the horizontal pole a LOT.
https://youtu.be/LK97hd3U4b8?t=19355 (https://youtu.be/LK97hd3U4b8?t=19355)
How does your footage align in time-line to the footage I was showing here, where there appears to be a draft TOWARDS the LM?
https://youtu.be/HpXQBYohV9Q?t=697 (https://youtu.be/HpXQBYohV9Q?t=697)
[/quote]
-
Then photoshop one. Photoshop a RAW file, without trace. Let's see it. Show us the Apollo 11 and 12 sites without the hardware on.
Adding something is easier than removal. For addition, we KNOW what we want to add (from a Lander model).. These new pixels overwrite the others. And for lower resolution images, this is an easy task - Digital Graphic Arts 101, taught at a Community College.
ISRO's images of Apollo 11 and 12 are not the first high resolution images of the Apollo sites, they are the highest resolution of two sites. If all that's required for you to accept their validity is publicity, then I guess the Korean and LRO images of the Apollo sites are absolutely genuine.
Here I am comparing all 3 images (India ISRO, NASA LRO, Korea KARI):
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2017.0;attach=1234)
India is by far the highest resolution, and only decent Hi-Rez from a so-called Independent Nation (India). More than double the resolution of prior images... yet no mentions on either's site... Highest resolution and from "another nation" -- isn't that a huge deal? Nope, didn't make the cut even for the ISRO galleries.
KARI appears to host one video that showcases "traces of Apollo sites" (weak claim, made on very very low resolution). Are you calling a "weak claim" (i.e. "Traces" of Apollo) of one video with 621 views "Publicity"? They have 34 videos here, and only 1 shows "Traces" with very low res images with nothing to see.
==
NASA's LRO images seem to have been removed from Goddard's site (service is now down)... leaving behind only the presentation of Ariz State Univ... who are not NASA employees.
Here's a link that used to show Apollo imagery from Goddard:
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/31052/ (https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/31052/)
-
Then you should have no problem creating the image.
Get the raw data, insert hardware in a way that os absolutely undetectable. Do it over and over, consistently, so that the hardware is always in the right place, correctly lit, and so that every rock and small crater is also correct.
Korea have imaged most of the Apollo sites. Their data matches everyone else's. They first announced Apollo 11& 17 imagery on Twitter, and then in published papers. They, like every other space agency, don't have to conform to your standards of how to do business, and they, like other space agencies, did not spend billions to photograph something just to appease people like you.
There is a good reason why Arizona State Uni host LRO images. See if you can work it out.
-
Here is the flag before it is moved:...
THANKS! I found the flag motion at 5:22:38. It moves the horizontal pole a LOT.
https://youtu.be/LK97hd3U4b8?t=19355 (https://youtu.be/LK97hd3U4b8?t=19355)
How does your footage align in time-line to the footage I was showing here, where there appears to be a draft TOWARDS the LM?
https://youtu.be/HpXQBYohV9Q?t=697 (https://youtu.be/HpXQBYohV9Q?t=697)
[/quote]
Watch the footage. Work it out.
-
I read a really good summary about this from "Gonetoplaid" talking about Deconvolving and the sheer complexities of introducing changes into streamed data. It basically places Arizona State Uni into collaborators. Where does this mad anti-logic end? We're already multiple generations into NASA turnover staff, other space agencies etc.
My own theory about these imagery edits, could be the following:
1. They edited the final non-streamed data. Which would mean if they were to RE-PROCESS the original stream, it would NOT included these graphics... showing that they are MISSING.
OR
2. They modified the streamed data itself (not in real-time) but after it was done being received. Which might mean they were using the research done by ASU to build a software tool that reverse generates the streamed data, from the modified output imagery.
So if #2 is not possible... then I would be stuck with #1 -- which means it could be uncovered by simply re-processing the streamed data. Which might be why neither organization is directly Proclaiming "we saw Apollo!" -- despite the huge significance of this supposed imagery. Because if they "open the door" by proclaiming it, they might be asked -- "Can you please reprocess the data stream to validate it?"... which they may simply not want to do... as it would expose the "security breach, of which they are currently officially unaware".
The gig would be up.
Or we could use Presidential executive order (or some shit) to Open up the "Apollo Capsule" recovered from Russian waters the day after Apollo 13 launch .... where the serial # evidence inside would reveal this to be the Apollo 13 capsule.... but NOPE, they sealed it up, never to be opened until 2070... I'd like to see that Serial#.... it could reveal EVERYTHING. So why are we respecting the 1970 decision to keep this sealed? What are they hiding?
I suggest you watch Phase52012's many youtube videos covering the boilerplate CM capsule. It explains it in great detail.
-
Watch the footage. Work it out.
It seems like I did analyze your footage - these are entirely different segments in time, where I think yours must come later. Since it's your footage, maybe you can tell us the mission Time stamp for when it begins.
The famous footage I've referenced shows the flag pushed ONTO the screen, as we can see the "slant" at the top that demonstrates the flag is under stress (being pushed, not "at rest").
These 4 instances of the flag being push TOWARDS the LM, are IMPOSSIBLE... yet they happen.
I do not understand your thinking in how your separate video clip explains the IMPOSSIBLE that occurs in the clip I am referencing. (???)
-
I suggest you watch Phase52012's many youtube videos covering the boilerplate CM capsule. It explains it in great detail.
Watched this 7 minute clip, looks like interesting stuff.
https://youtu.be/L3tH7zhFDF4 (https://youtu.be/L3tH7zhFDF4)
Was there something specific you had in mind that you'd like me to glean from this video? (or another related one)
-
I suggest you watch Phase52012's many youtube videos covering the boilerplate CM capsule. It explains it in great detail.
Watched this 7 minute clip, looks like interesting stuff.
https://youtu.be/L3tH7zhFDF4 (https://youtu.be/L3tH7zhFDF4)
Was there something specific you had in mind that you'd like me to glean from this video? (or another related one)
Facts, knowledge, understanding. That kind of thing.
-
Watch the footage. Work it out.
It seems like I did analyze your footage - these are entirely different segments in time, where I think yours must come later. Since it's your footage, maybe you can tell us the mission Time stamp for when it begins.
The famous footage I've referenced shows the flag pushed ONTO the screen, as we can see the "slant" at the top that demonstrates the flag is under stress (being pushed, not "at rest").
These 4 instances of the flag being push TOWARDS the LM, are IMPOSSIBLE... yet they happen.
I do not understand your thinking in how your separate video clip explains the IMPOSSIBLE that occurs in the clip I am referencing. (???)
It's not my footage, it's NASA's.
Partly my misundertanding of whatthe footage you cited was showing - apologies for the confusion. The timestamp I gave was of pressurisation ready for EVA-2, which clearly shows the flag at rest pointing towards the LM, and the flag then moving away as a resuilt of that LM depressurising, which is discussed here:
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a14/a14.eva2prep.html
The footage you referenced does not show the flag in its entirety - attached is the view before the crew move the camera position. It is clearly angled towards the LM to start with. The flag is not being pulled towards the LM< it is rotating freely back towards the LM after being pushed away.
-
The footage you referenced does not show the flag in its entirety - attached is the view before the crew move the camera position. It is clearly angled towards the LM to start with. The flag is not being pulled towards the LM< it is rotating freely back towards the LM after being pushed away.
So your theory is that the vertical pole is crooked, angling towards the LM, enough that if it's blown away, that it keeps coming back?
For how long does this "depressurization" last?
If you look at my footage, you'll see that the flag was off screen for the first 11 minutes.
11:05 - it comes on screen for 16 seconds, very steady. <== pushed towards LM... was away for 11 minutes.. that's not Depressurization.
11:45 - comes back on again for 30 seconds. <== while on, no blowing... if Depressurization happening, we'd have turbulence.
13:54 - comes back on for 5 seconds
14:01 - back on for 1 second
Then it remains gone from then on.
Now here's a real bite -- that Apollogists have done all along, and just did again here within the last year... when they "Moved locations" of this video (taking down the old video)-- the "new" video truncates the rightmost few pixels -- which are the most telling.
Here's a video from Jet Wintzer (who isn't as smart as he thinks he is), where it shows the "top white stripe" that is stressed, demonstrating that it's at a SLANT -- which must be caused by a force.
This type of slimy "alterations" have been done many times, when a "mess up" becomes too obvious and problematic, such as this Flag blowing TOWARDS the LM -- and the SLANT is what makes it most obvious.
https://youtu.be/p_66cqMQsW4?t=54 (https://youtu.be/p_66cqMQsW4?t=54)
So I don't think your "leaning pole causes it to fall back to onscreen" works for a few reasons:
1. Flag is offscreen for 11 minutes, then pushes on screen with a SLANT.. demonstrating pressure from the OTHER SIDE.
2. It spends FAR MORE TIME OFFSCREEN than ON SCREEN -- the Depressurization was supposedly quite fast (2 minutes?)
3. The Slant at the top reveals pressure pushing on the flag material TOWARDS the LM.
4. If the vertical pole was slanted towards the LM -- then the Flag edge would have also had *some* slant downwards. Instead it was very vertical-- indicating a very vertical upright pole. And instead showed the top slant in the opposite direction!
So your "pole was slanted" hypothesis seems to fail critically for these 4 four reasons. Do you agree?
-
No.
Photographic evidence of the flagpole not being vertical proves it was not vertical.
Aside from the RCS hot fires, there are two flag movement events. Both events coincide exactly with LM depressurisations. The flag can rotate freely on the slanted pole. It comes to rest when it has finished oscillating in response to air currents from the LM. That resting position can be confirmed by photographs and the 16mm footage.
The flag is not being blown towards the LM. Footage has not been modified. There is no studio. Websites change all the time.
-
The flag in each of these three images is in exactly the same position at different points in the mission.
It is off screen in the final TV footage because the camera has changed view.
It re-appears as it oscillates thanks to the air movement before returning to a final resting place off camera.
-
The flag in each of these three images is in exactly the same position at different points in the mission.
It is off screen in the final TV footage because the camera has changed view.
It re-appears as it oscillates thanks to the air movement before returning to a final resting place off camera.
Thanks for the graphic! I'm researching the Journal and timing now. We can derive the Decompression rates and time intervals pretty accurately from this. I'll post again when done.
Was the same camera transmitting SSTV to Earth, while also filming this scene with 16mm film? Or were there two cameras involved?
-
The flag in each of these three images is in exactly the same position at different points in the mission.
It is off screen in the final TV footage because the camera has changed view.
It re-appears as it oscillates thanks to the air movement before returning to a final resting place off camera.
I have made a good start on the Rough Draft of the document to fully analyze this super-natural phenomenon.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KnnsXE97fKJZ-CJYv7j_G9eVdgwW960LUeOCGz5uarE/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KnnsXE97fKJZ-CJYv7j_G9eVdgwW960LUeOCGz5uarE/edit?usp=sharing)
Page 2-3 - covers a full analysis of the Depressurization timing and duration from the Journal + Audio track.
It has an associated spreadsheet where the math is done, to figure the Exhaust Rate (oz/sec) as a function of time -- 2 minutes TOTAL, including a 40 second pause.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_7OaXUWMiiNKzo50J9WBvDjEzNZoKmPBx8XndBtHaMI/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_7OaXUWMiiNKzo50J9WBvDjEzNZoKmPBx8XndBtHaMI/edit?usp=sharing)
SUMMARY: (starts at 131:07:16 [1:07])
15 sec - High- 2.2 oz/sec
40 sec - Paused
15 sec - High - 2.6 oz/sec
30 sec - Med - 1 oz/sec
15 sec - Low - 0.5 oz/sec
30 sec - Very Low - 0.15 oz/sec, 0.2 PSI left.
So please adjust your hypothesis to account for this timing, now that it's clearly known/provable, the timing and exhaust rates for this 2 minutes decompression.
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2017.0;attach=1242)
-
The flag in each of these three images is in exactly the same position at different points in the mission.
It is off screen in the final TV footage because the camera has changed view.
It re-appears as it oscillates thanks to the air movement before returning to a final resting place off camera.
Thanks for the graphic! I'm researching the Journal and timing now. We can derive the Decompression rates and time intervals pretty accurately from this. I'll post again when done.
Was the same camera transmitting SSTV to Earth, while also filming this scene with 16mm film? Or were there two cameras involved?
All the information you need to answer your question is freely available.
-
The flag in each of these three images is in exactly the same position at different points in the mission.
It is off screen in the final TV footage because the camera has changed view.
It re-appears as it oscillates thanks to the air movement before returning to a final resting place off camera.
I have made a good start on the Rough Draft of the document to fully analyze this super-natural phenomenon.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KnnsXE97fKJZ-CJYv7j_G9eVdgwW960LUeOCGz5uarE/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KnnsXE97fKJZ-CJYv7j_G9eVdgwW960LUeOCGz5uarE/edit?usp=sharing)
Page 2-3 - covers a full analysis of the Depressurization timing and duration from the Journal + Audio track.
It has an associated spreadsheet where the math is done, to figure the Exhaust Rate (oz/sec) as a function of time -- 2 minutes TOTAL, including a 40 second pause.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_7OaXUWMiiNKzo50J9WBvDjEzNZoKmPBx8XndBtHaMI/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_7OaXUWMiiNKzo50J9WBvDjEzNZoKmPBx8XndBtHaMI/edit?usp=sharing)
SUMMARY: (starts at 131:07:16 [1:07])
15 sec - High- 2.2 oz/sec
40 sec - Paused
15 sec - High - 2.6 oz/sec
30 sec - Med - 1 oz/sec
15 sec - Low - 0.5 oz/sec
30 sec - Very Low - 0.15 oz/sec, 0.2 PSI left.
So please adjust your hypothesis to account for this timing, now that it's clearly known/provable, the timing and exhaust rates for this 2 minutes decompression.
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2017.0;attach=1242)
Here's all the adjustment I think needs doing to my explanation:
-
Here's all the adjustment I think needs doing to my explanation:
LOL.
So the long-video low-rez seems to have been doctored to get rid of the first flag waving, by showing a 1 minute excerpt from the end overtop of it. Apollogists handling these videos is a bit like having the Fox guard the hen house. The "defects" seem to get omitted or cropped.
The first flag waving on Low res, should occur at 10:12:30 - instead we are pre-watching the "end of the clip" where he throws down the white bag and they say "Good throw".... so the part that would show the flag waving has been replaced by duplicate footage.
If Apollo was faked, I believe many Apollogists simply would never want to know -- ruins their worldview, and probably a lot of investment, that goes to pot, if the fraud is exposed. This isn't a world you'd want to live in, I imagine.
-
proven by simple high school physics logic.
Nope. Just your wishful thinking.
BTW - the RCS hot fire test on Apollo 12 blew the erectable S-band antenna over.
-
Here's all the adjustment I think needs doing to my explanation:
OK - completed a draft round of analysis here.
I think I get your theory:
1. Pole is slanted, so when exhaust pushes the flag off screen, and when the exhaust subsides (e.g. they close the valve for equipment/safety checks) -- the flag comes back on screen, because of this tilt.
2. The flag will be on screen when "at rest", and off screen as it is pushed by the Exhaust.
===
When I twist everything in favor of the Apollogist, I still cannot resolve a number of critical issues with your theory:
1. Depressurization procedures only allow for high pressure evacuation for about 1 minute. Yet your theory has this exhaust breeze holding the flag away for about 116 seconds total, after it's first appearance to it's final appearance. This doesn't include the concept of "what about BEFORE the flag first shows up???"
2. What brought the flag onto the screen to start with? (continuation from #1)
3. Why was the top of the flag always SLANTED off screen to the top pole? This is a sure sign of "breeze pushing it on screen", and not being "at rest" per your theory.
4. Your theory has a "grand finale" where the PSI is about 0.1 PSI - that flows the flag to do a 180, and then stay there.
-
BTW - the RCS hot fire test on Apollo 12 blew the erectable S-band antenna over.
I was aware of this. But there's a HUGE difference between evacuating 7 lbs of oxygen through at 5 PSI (which falls to 1 PSI within a minute), vs. an RCS thruster which shoots out exhaust at about MACH 5 from an uber violent fuel burn. Each RCS thruster emits about 5 oz/sec of exhaust... so it's considerably heavier and a WHOLE LOT FASTER.
Your comparison is like comparing a toddler throwing a rock at someone, vs. shooting it from a cannon.
I'm not convinced that the 1 ounce of air expelled from even 5 PSI, would impact the flag from 8 meters away.... And the 5 PSI drops to 3.5 PSI in 15 seconds, then to 2 PSI in 20 more seconds and in 30 more seconds, it below 1 PSI...
Yet Apollogist theories have this "blowing the flag" for multiple minutes... ending with a "grand finale" that blows the flag to do a 180 (and then stay there).
-
BTW - the RCS hot fire test on Apollo 12 blew the erectable S-band antenna over.
I was aware of this. But there's a HUGE difference between evacuating 7 lbs of oxygen through at 5 PSI (which falls to 1 PSI within a minute), vs. an RCS thruster which shoots out exhaust at about MACH 5 from an uber violent fuel burn. Each RCS thruster emits about 5 oz/sec of exhaust... so it's considerably heavier and a WHOLE LOT FASTER.
Your comparison is like comparing a toddler throwing a rock at someone, vs. shooting it from a cannon.
I'm not convinced that the 1 ounce of air expelled from even 5 PSI, would impact the flag from 8 meters away.... And the 5 PSI drops to 3.5 PSI in 15 seconds, then to 2 PSI in 20 more seconds and in 30 more seconds, it below 1 PSI...
Yet Apollogist theories have this "blowing the flag" for multiple minutes... ending with a "grand finale" that blows the flag to do a 180 (and then stay there).
I was not comparing the RCS hot-fire to the cabin depress. I did, however, manage to provoke you into completely contradicting your earlier claims about the movement of the flag. As I said several days ago, it is the decreasing force of the depress which allows the flag to be rotated around and then not have the power to blow it back round. Have you forgotten your weather vane analogy which relies on continuing force to keep the flag pointing away from the LM? I also asked you to consider that the flag did not have consistent rotational inertia and could stick in a certain position. Care to address that?
-
I was not comparing the RCS hot-fire to the cabin depress. I did, however, manage to provoke you into completely contradicting your earlier claims about the movement of the flag. As I said several days ago, it is the decreasing force of the depress which allows the flag to be rotated around and then not have the power to blow it back round. Have you forgotten your weather vane analogy which relies on continuing force to keep the flag pointing away from the LM? I also asked you to consider that the flag did not have consistent rotational inertia and could stick in a certain position. Care to address that?
I'll be happy to answer, I'll need you to clarify more about what you are saying. And BTW, if I said something "wrong earlier" but no longer think that "wrong thing" - this is to my credit. Most people tend to double-down on what they think. If you think I'm saying something "wrong", etc -- please clarify it more, so that I can assess it.
And even better - can you detail for me a possible explanation for the Flag's behavior, with these 8 movements?
-
You need to clarify everything you say, because you don't make much sense with all this rambling.
-
Hey "physics" buy najack:
I have vidoe I'd like you to comment on since so are such a physics enthusiast. Proof that the A14 mission indeed was on the Moon despite you beliefs.
-
Yet Apollogist theories have this "blowing the flag" for multiple minutes... ending with a "grand finale" that blows the flag to do a 180 (and then stay there).
And the incessant childish posturing, replete with the same statement that has had an explanation given.
The "grand finale" occurs as the second PLSS strikes the surface. If you want to be an arse again and pull me up for suggesting it hit the flag, knock yourself out. It struck the rock hard lunar surface and at the same time we see the flag flutter.
So, either there is a stagehand doing something, a big gust of wind/whatever, a simultaneous incident...... or that small vibration was enough to move the pole and cause the flag to wobble. The 2nd PLSS landing does offer an explanation and nothing you could possibly say could 100% refute it, unless you can tell me the landing force, the soil density, the stability of the pole, the force needed to move it etc. Your claim is nothing more than you throwing your toys out of the pram.
Either way we're back to the "NASA are morons" bollocks again.
-
BTW - the RCS hot fire test on Apollo 12 blew the erectable S-band antenna over.
I was aware of this. But there's a HUGE difference between evacuating 7 lbs of oxygen through at 5 PSI (which falls to 1 PSI within a minute), vs. an RCS thruster which shoots out exhaust at about MACH 5 from an uber violent fuel burn. Each RCS thruster emits about 5 oz/sec of exhaust... so it's considerably heavier and a WHOLE LOT FASTER.
Your comparison is like comparing a toddler throwing a rock at someone, vs. shooting it from a cannon.
I'm not convinced that the 1 ounce of air expelled from even 5 PSI, would impact the flag from 8 meters away.... And the 5 PSI drops to 3.5 PSI in 15 seconds, then to 2 PSI in 20 more seconds and in 30 more seconds, it below 1 PSI...
Yet Apollogist theories have this "blowing the flag" for multiple minutes... ending with a "grand finale" that blows the flag to do a 180 (and then stay there).
180 is a gross exaggeration, backing back from all the images on ALSJ, it is apparent the flag was position from the LM 20-30 so a movement of 150-160 is doable. What you are convince of and reality are two different outcomes. Have you done any vacuum chamber studies, or are you just guessing again?
-
180 is a gross exaggeration, backing back from all the images on ALSJ, it is apparent the flag was position from the LM 20-30 so a movement of 150-160 is doable. What you are convince of and reality are two different outcomes. Have you done any vacuum chamber studies, or are you just guessing again?
Good point, 180 isn't correct, because it didn't start at 0. So my 180 reference is a reference to relative orientation vs. the LM. It didn't start at 0 so it didn't do a "180". So it was closer to 150 deg? No matter, this truly is a "grand finale" at a time where there was NO PSI left in the cabin. The Since the Flag motions are spread across 175 seconds, and Decompression mostly occurs in about 60 seconds.
I would LOVE for NASA to do some vacuum analysis with a flag involved. Simulate 3 oz/sec of oxygen being emitted from a 5 PSI cannister into the CENTER of a 20x20 meter vacuum chamber, with a flag positioned 8 meters away... and see if the flag moves at all. I am doubtful, because in my mind - all of the men-on-the-moon footage was faked... I believe this for dozens of very compelling reasons. I'm starting with the "Apollo Broke Physics" reasons first. If they ran this test - it could build my case of "yet another thing that was impossible that Apollogists believe".
===
The OneBigMonkey major flaw in his hypothesis is that it demands 116 seconds of blowing during this 175 second period, plus minutes of blowing beforehand. He's got no rationale for what brought the flag onto the screen to start with. Nor is the Depressurization capable of providing the 116 seconds of blowing -- with a grand finale of a "big turn" at the end.
And @Mag40's "bag reverb" is just ludicrous. Regolith is as dense as sand, and loosely packed.. So would never carry a reverb many feet away.. and then defies OneBigMonkey's big "Pole was tilted TOWARDS the LM"-- and so such a reverb would only cause it to rotate TOWARDS the LM - not away. And how in his mind he would even translate "a quick ground vibration from feet away" into "a force that imparts rotational spin on a thin pole" - is beyond me.
-
180 is a gross exaggeration, backing back from all the images on ALSJ, it is apparent the flag was position from the LM 20-30 so a movement of 150-160 is doable. What you are convince of and reality are two different outcomes. Have you done any vacuum chamber studies, or are you just guessing again?
Good point, 180 isn't correct, because it didn't start at 0. So my 180 reference is a reference to relative orientation vs. the LM. It didn't start at 0 so it didn't do a "180". So it was closer to 150 deg? No matter, this truly is a "grand finale" at a time where there was NO PSI left in the cabin. The Since the Flag motions are spread across 175 seconds, and Decompression mostly occurs in about 60 seconds.
I would LOVE for NASA to do some vacuum analysis with a flag involved. Simulate 3 oz/sec of oxygen being emitted from a 5 PSI cannister into the CENTER of a 20x20 meter vacuum chamber, with a flag positioned 8 meters away... and see if the flag moves at all. I am doubtful, because in my mind - all of the men-on-the-moon footage was faked... I believe this for dozens of very compelling reasons. I'm starting with the "Apollo Broke Physics" reasons first. If they ran this test - it could build my case of "yet another thing that was impossible that Apollogists believe".
They're not doing anything of the sort they have the evidence of the Lunar mission that you are desperately try to refute.
===
The OneBigMonkey major flaw in his hypothesis is that it demands 116 seconds of blowing during this 175 second period, plus minutes of blowing beforehand. He's got no rationale for what brought the flag onto the screen to start with. Nor is the Depressurization capable of providing the 116 seconds of blowing -- with a grand finale of a "big turn" at the end.
And @Mag40's "bag reverb" is just ludicrous. Regolith is as dense as sand, and loosely packed.. So would never carry a reverb many feet away.. and then defies OneBigMonkey's big "Pole was tilted TOWARDS the LM"-- and so such a reverb would only cause it to rotate TOWARDS the LM - not away. And how in his mind he would even translate "a quick ground vibration from feet away" into "a force that imparts rotational spin on a thin pole" - is beyond me.
So are your explanations , let me put it like this something moved the flag, it was air it wasn't gremlins, it was not anything on Earth since the LM was on the Moon. You do remember that the descent stage has been imaged on the Moon by at least the LRO, if not others. ow about your physics discussion of the video I posted.
-
... let me put it like this something moved the flag, it was air it wasn't gremlins, it was not anything on Earth since the LM was on the Moon.
Your starting supposition here is "it was all real; on the moon". But your supposition doesn't hold up under this scrutiny.
There currently exists no viable legitimate explanation for the 8 flag movements that we clearly see happening here. Therefore, maybe that magician didn't really cut the woman in half, as you are assuming.
The only viable explanation remains is that "the flag was moved by a slight draft TOWARDS the LM, for a total of about 60 seconds total across the 4 instances of it being Pushed TOWARDS the LM".
-
And @Mag40's "bag reverb" is just ludicrous. Regolith is as dense as sand, and loosely packed.. ground vibration from feet away" .
Wow, that sounds like you don't know what you are talking about. The upper layer is dust, but just below densely packed. In low gravity it certainly doesn't need much vibration to affect a pole hammered into the ground. It's why I said you don't know the flagpole stability. It could have been close to a simple tipping point.
It occurs at the same point in time. It is the same idiotic claim that someone in NASA thought it ok or nobody noticed. Logic vaccuum.
-
I said you don't know the flagpole stability. It could have been close to a simple tipping point.
If you are right, that the "tipping of the flag could cause this" - then you are simultaneously undermining the MAIN PREMISE of OneBigMonkey's whole hypothesis, of how "pole tilt TOWARDS the LM" explains the flag motions (yet, his hypothesis has several gaping holes in it already).
So you first need to debate OneBigMonkey on this. I believe he would firmly disagree with your claim.
Also - this whole bag vibration, for me, is "out of scope" -- it happens AFTER the 8 flag motions.... and so you are only trying to explain how it turned the poll by about 150 degrees. This is out of scope -- happens AFTER the 8 flag motions - which IS the point of this thread. These 8 motions have no viable explanation within the Lunar Vacuum environment.
-
And @Mag40's "bag reverb" is just ludicrous. Regolith is as dense as sand, and loosely packed.. ground vibration from feet away" .
Wow, that sounds like you don't know what you are talking about. The upper layer is dust, but just below densely packed. In low gravity it certainly doesn't need much vibration to affect a pole hammered into the ground. It's why I said you don't know the flagpole stability. It could have been close to a simple tipping point.
It occurs at the same point in time. It is the same idiotic claim that someone in NASA thought it ok or nobody noticed. Logic vaccuum.
Confirmation of how far in the flag pole went from the astronauts themselves.
Aldrin, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "How far would you estimate you got it into the ground?"]
[Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "Six to eight inches was about as far as I could get it in."]
[Aldrin, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "It was fairly easy to get it down the first 4 or 5 inches."]
[Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "It gets hard quickly."]
-
Have got any rebuttal to the video I posted or are you going to agree with it? If you don't agree, what physics do you present in this case?
-
If you are right, that the "tipping of the flag could cause this" - then you are simultaneously undermining the MAIN PREMISE of OneBigMonkey's whole hypothesis, of how "pole tilt TOWARDS the LM" explains the flag motions (yet, his hypothesis has several gaping holes in it already).
God man, you do talk bollocks. It's almost as though you will go to any length to concede plausibie explanations for things, that had NASA thought up to show, would go down in the "Shoot your own foot, because we're total morons" category. Their objective is to supposedly fake things and yet all they do is contrive needless footage for the "smart" people to discover. HBs just don't have any logic at all.
Plus, here we are arguing trivial points when totally clear things have already proven they are in low gravity vacuum.
The PLSS hits the surface fairly hard. Remaining consumables vented out. It's certainly not out of the question.
Also - this whole bag vibration, for me, is "out of scope" -- it happens AFTER the 8 flag motions.... and so you are only trying to explain how it turned the poll by about 150 degrees. This is out of scope -- happens AFTER the 8 flag motions - which IS the point of this thread. These 8 motions have no viable explanation within the Lunar Vacuum environment.
Did he really just repeat his claim and ignore the depressurisation again? What a waste of time this is rapidly becoming.
-
Have got any rebuttal to the video I posted or are you going to agree with it? If you don't agree, what physics do you present in this case?
If you want to discuss this, you should make your own thread. This is a specific instance where you believe "it could NOT have been faked"... and if you did find something IMPOSSIBLE TO FAKE, that would bode well for Apollogists. So give it a shot.
-
What a waste of time this is rapidly becoming.
For this topic, and for you specifically, I agree. Your continued comments here are a waste of time.
Save yourself for my next topic. I find your comments BENEFICIAL for each thread... but then we beat the horse to death - and it becomes a waste of time.
I'm still wanting to see if anyone here can present a fully-valid explanation of the 8 flag movements alone. Otherwise, I'll call this "unrefuted".
In order for a hypothesis to be valid, it has to account for a full 7-minutes, starting 2 minutes before the flag first appears, and ending 2 minutes after it is last seen.
Everyone here is claiming that "this has been refuted for Decades!" -- if this is true, then why can no one tell me a hypothesis which covers the full 7 minute time period?
This should be "easy"... but still remains unrefuted here.
-
I'm still wanting to see if anyone here can present a fully-valid explanation of the 8 flag movements alone. Otherwise, I'll call this "unrefuted".
No, you're wanting everyone to agree with you. Seeing as you aren't presenting anything that can be agreed with, that isn't going to happen.
You've been given a perfectly reasonable explanation, repeatedly, that is entirely consistent with the events broadcast on live TV, Hasselblad photographs, 16mm footage, mission procedures and transcripts. Your claim is refuted.
-
#1: Seeing as you aren't presenting anything that can be agreed with, that isn't going to happen.
#2: You've been given a perfectly reasonable explanation, repeatedly, that is entirely consistent with the events broadcast on live TV, Hasselblad photographs, 16mm footage, mission procedures and transcripts. Your claim is refuted.
#1: My claim can be agreed with, and is clear and comprehensive:
1. Each time flag comes on screen, it is for short period of time, and demonstrates a "Slanted" top, showing connection to the pole offscreen. Thus it is being "PUSHED TOWARDS THE LM" these 4x.
2. Each time flag goes off screen, it is just "returning to At rest" (hanging straight down).
3. The push towards the LM is caused by gentle atmospheric motion (if in a studio, could be AC venting causing air current in the hangar, or the hangar isn't air tight, or a few entrances were open - take your pick).
(or if they were outside on a windless night-- then an occasional breeze still happens)
#2: So where is the Apollogist Hypothesis that explains:
1. The timing that MUST be associated/aligned with the decompression process.
2. The dynamic for ALL 8 movements over a 3 minute time period.
3. The rationale for why we didn't see the flag anytime BEFORE or AFTER these supernatural 3 minutes.
Your existing theory claims:
1. When offscreen, it's because the exhaust is pushing it offscreen -- for a total or 116 seconds, during the 3 minute period of waving.
2. Isn't pushing it for 59 of these seconds... so it's on screen.
3. Has a grand finale at the end which then pushes it off screen for good, rotating the pole. So that no more exhaust is needed.
Critical Issues with this claim:
1. How was it off screen for the 10 minutes preceding the first time the flag comes on screen?
2. When depressurization falls from 5 PSI to 1 PSI in under 60 seconds... how is it pushing the flag offscreen for 116 seconds?
3. After 60 seconds of depressurization, the exhaust rate falls from 2.5 oz/sec to under 0.5 oz/sec, and only back by < 1 PSI for "providing it initial energy required to move a flag"
4. How what there a grand finale at the end, when there was no pressure left inside the cabin?
I get that you don't (and won't) accept the implied conclusion from this. But it does seem that you've given up on providing a hypothesis that actually works here.
Which means, we can close out this Issue as "No existing Apollogist hypothesis to explain these flag movements."
I think it's time to move on to the next items, in my list.
Here's the spreadsheet that shows the Timing from the perspective of 2 Videos, and the Surface Journal.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_7OaXUWMiiNKzo50J9WBvDjEzNZoKmPBx8XndBtHaMI/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_7OaXUWMiiNKzo50J9WBvDjEzNZoKmPBx8XndBtHaMI/edit?usp=sharing)
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2017.0;attach=1248)
-
Have got any rebuttal to the video I posted or are you going to agree with it? If you don't agree, what physics do you present in this case?
If you want to discuss this, you should make your own thread. This is a specific instance where you believe "it could NOT have been faked"... and if you did find something IMPOSSIBLE TO FAKE, that would bode well for Apollogists. So give it a shot.
Cue chicken-noises. It's just a simple piece of footage from the same mission showing something you absolutely cannot explain, save with your usual diversionary bluster. You are running away from things that don't fit your pre-conceived unscientific tosh.
You post ridiculous religion comparisons and references to bloody Epstein!
-
For this topic, and for you specifically, I agree. Your continued comments here are a waste of time.
Save yourself for my next topic. I find your comments BENEFICIAL for each thread... but then we beat the horse to death - and it becomes a waste of time.
Your behaviour, your continued evasion and diversion is the "waste of time" bit.
From the moment the flag is planted, through 2 EVAs right up until they ingress for the last time....it stays in the same position. During a period where depressurising is happening, where objects are being thrown out. The flag moves a little.
What happened, did the stagehand pop in with sandwiches and leave the door open? HB and logic are not great companions.
-
Have got any rebuttal to the video I posted or are you going to agree with it? If you don't agree, what physics do you present in this case?
If you want to discuss this, you should make your own thread. This is a specific instance where you believe "it could NOT have been faked"... and if you did find something IMPOSSIBLE TO FAKE, that would bode well for Apollogists. So give it a shot.
I'm playing your games, the video proves that the video is taken on the Moon and thus with less gravity. So all your comments about not be on the Moon dissipates into nothingness.
-
#1: Seeing as you aren't presenting anything that can be agreed with, that isn't going to happen.
#2: You've been given a perfectly reasonable explanation, repeatedly, that is entirely consistent with the events broadcast on live TV, Hasselblad photographs, 16mm footage, mission procedures and transcripts. Your claim is refuted.
#1: My claim can be agreed with, and is clear and comprehensive:
No, it isn't.
1. Each time flag comes on screen, it is for short period of time, and demonstrates a "Slanted" top, showing connection to the pole offscreen. Thus it is being "PUSHED TOWARDS THE LM" these 4x.
Of course it is connected to the flag pole. The slant can be observed in all the footage and still photographs, but you would be unwise to draw any conclusions on the angle it's sloping based on a camera that may not be vertical and the fraction of flagpole you can see in the footage you prefer to look at. x does not equal y here.
2. Each time flag goes off screen, it is just "returning to At rest" (hanging straight down).
Correct. What is "straight down" supposed to mean?
3. The push towards the LM is caused by gentle atmospheric motion (if in a studio, could be AC venting causing air current in the hangar, or the hangar isn't air tight, or a few entrances were open - take your pick).
(or if they were outside on a windless night-- then an occasional breeze still happens)
Again, you're assuming an awful lot based on nothing you can actually see.
#2: So where is the Apollogist Hypothesis that explains:
1. The timing that MUST be associated/aligned with the decompression process.
2. The dynamic for ALL 8 movements over a 3 minute time period.
Yes. And?
3. The rationale for why we didn't see the flag anytime BEFORE or AFTER these supernatural 3 minutes.
Because it is off screen. At rest. You remember when you were happy that this was the case?
Your existing theory claims:
1. When offscreen, it's because the exhaust is pushing it offscreen -- for a total or 116 seconds, during the 3 minute period of waving.
2. Isn't pushing it for 59 of these seconds... so it's on screen.
3. Has a grand finale at the end which then pushes it off screen for good, rotating the pole. So that no more exhaust is needed.
Critical Issues with this claim:
1. How was it off screen for the 10 minutes preceding the first time the flag comes on screen?
2. When depressurization falls from 5 PSI to 1 PSI in under 60 seconds... how is it pushing the flag offscreen for 116 seconds?
3. After 60 seconds of depressurization, the exhaust rate falls from 2.5 oz/sec to under 0.5 oz/sec, and only back by < 1 PSI for "providing it initial energy required to move a flag"
4. How what there a grand finale at the end, when there was no pressure left inside the cabin?
Air from the LM acts on the flag when it meets the flag face. It stops acting on the flag face when it is no longer presented normal to the air flow. Lunar gravity does the rest.
I get that you don't (and won't) accept the implied conclusion from this.
Because you're wrong.
But it does seem that you've given up on providing a hypothesis that actually works here.
Given up? No. Can't be arsed with your game playing and fabricated version of events? Yes. You've had your hypothesis. Nothing you've provided contradicts it. No-one has to play by whatever rules you've decided to play with. No-one has to do your bidding. I've got far more interesting things to do, like looking at the newly uploaded images of Apollo 14 taken by South Korea.
Which means, we can close out this Issue as "No existing Apollogist hypothesis to explain these flag movements."
You're pretty much just a pigeon playing chess here.
-
#1: Seeing as you aren't presenting anything that can be agreed with, that isn't going to happen.
#2: You've been given a perfectly reasonable explanation, repeatedly, that is entirely consistent with the events broadcast on live TV, Hasselblad photographs, 16mm footage, mission procedures and transcripts. Your claim is refuted.
#1: My claim can be agreed with, and is clear and comprehensive:
1. Each time flag comes on screen, it is for short period of time, and demonstrates a "Slanted" top, showing connection to the pole offscreen. Thus it is being "PUSHED TOWARDS THE LM" these 4x.
2. Each time flag goes off screen, it is just "returning to At rest" (hanging straight down).
3. The push towards the LM is caused by gentle atmospheric motion (if in a studio, could be AC venting causing air current in the hangar, or the hangar isn't air tight, or a few entrances were open - take your pick).
(or if they were outside on a windless night-- then an occasional breeze still happens)
#2: So where is the Apollogist Hypothesis that explains:
1. The timing that MUST be associated/aligned with the decompression process.
2. The dynamic for ALL 8 movements over a 3 minute time period.
3. The rationale for why we didn't see the flag anytime BEFORE or AFTER these supernatural 3 minutes.
Your existing theory claims:
1. When offscreen, it's because the exhaust is pushing it offscreen -- for a total or 116 seconds, during the 3 minute period of waving.
2. Isn't pushing it for 59 of these seconds... so it's on screen.
3. Has a grand finale at the end which then pushes it off screen for good, rotating the pole. So that no more exhaust is needed.
Critical Issues with this claim:
1. How was it off screen for the 10 minutes preceding the first time the flag comes on screen?
2. When depressurization falls from 5 PSI to 1 PSI in under 60 seconds... how is it pushing the flag offscreen for 116 seconds?
3. After 60 seconds of depressurization, the exhaust rate falls from 2.5 oz/sec to under 0.5 oz/sec, and only back by < 1 PSI for "providing it initial energy required to move a flag"
4. How what there a grand finale at the end, when there was no pressure left inside the cabin?
I get that you don't (and won't) accept the implied conclusion from this. But it does seem that you've given up on providing a hypothesis that actually works here.
Which means, we can close out this Issue as "No existing Apollogist hypothesis to explain these flag movements."
I think it's time to move on to the next items, in my list.
Here's the spreadsheet that shows the Timing from the perspective of 2 Videos, and the Surface Journal.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_7OaXUWMiiNKzo50J9WBvDjEzNZoKmPBx8XndBtHaMI/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_7OaXUWMiiNKzo50J9WBvDjEzNZoKmPBx8XndBtHaMI/edit?usp=sharing)
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2017.0;attach=1248)
Clearly the video I posted demonstrates to anyone with rudimentary skills that the LM is on the Moon so all of your "studio door must open" or "hangar not sealed" are incorrect, you FAIL miserably.
-
Air from the LM acts on the flag when it meets the flag face. It stops acting on the flag face when it is no longer presented normal to the air flow. Lunar gravity does the rest.
This hypothesis fails the test of 116 seconds of "air from the LM", as well as the minutes PRIOR to the first flag appearance.
The LM doesn't have "that much air" -- after 51 seconds of decompression, the PSI falls from 5 PSI to 1 PSI. 30 seconds later, it's at 0.4 PSI. 30 seconds later, 0.2 PSI or less.
So your current hypothesis fails to explain the flag motion.
I'm OK with ending this thread. Everyone has had their shot at presenting a viable hypothesis, and so this thread is complete.
-
I'm OK with ending this thread. Everyone has had their shot at presenting a viable hypothesis, and so this thread is complete.
Nope, it doesn't work like that. You can admit defeat if you want, but you don't get to dismiss all of the answers you have been given and self-declare victory.
You are not going to be allowed to start any new topics until your existing ones are properly resolved, and that will only happen if you show that you are capable of an honest debate.
-
Nope, it doesn't work like that. You can admit defeat if you want, but you don't get to dismiss all of the answers you have been given and self-declare victory.
You are not going to be allowed to start any new topics until your existing ones are properly resolved, and that will only happen if you show that you are capable of an honest debate.
If I don't come to YOUR CONCLUSION - I cannot start any new threads. I thought you didn't want an Echo Chamber here?
Have you ever heard, "Agree to Disagree". We've reached the point of beating dead horses. We're going in circles.
As I see it, no hypothesis proposed so far - truly satisfies the requirement of explaining all 8 flag movements.
If you disagree, please tell me at least One Hypothesis that truly satisfies this requirement.
If you want to say "we're not going to do that for you"-- that's fine too. This debate is going in circles, but you won't let it end until I agree with YOU. Is this how it really works here?
-
I've been told by the Master Overseers of this forum that I haven't sufficiently addressed the objections to my thesis.
To be clear, my thesis here is ONLY THIS:
I believe there has been no fully viable hypothesis presented here that can explain all 8 motions of the flag, that happened over 175 seconds, including the minutes that preceded these movements.
If I've missed such a hypothesis, please tell me what it is.
If you'd like to present such a hypothesis, please do so now.
Otherwise, what else is there to do with this thread? It's time to pause it, until someone steps forward to propose a viable hypothesis.
-
Have you ever heard, "Agree to Disagree".
Have you? Claiming that the thread is over because your poorly supported conclusion is unrefuted is not "agreeing to disagree".
As I see it, no hypothesis proposed so far - truly satisfies the requirement of explaining all 8 flag movements.
If you disagree, please tell me at least One Hypothesis that truly satisfies this requirement.
Again, this isn't how intelligent debate works. You're the one making an extraordinary claim so you are the one with the burden of providing extraordinary evidence.
You're creating a false dichotomy where things can only fall into one of two categories: 1) things that behave according to your expectations, 2) things that are physically impossible. Anything you can't neatly put into the first box gets tossed into the second. This is extremely poor reasoning as it relies on a primary assumption that your expectations are always correct and completely ignores the possibility that you don't have all the information.
Something on the Moon moved the flag. I don't know what it was and frankly, don't care. If you do, look into it more thoroughly. But you don't get to conclude that the only way it could have been moved was if it was on Earth, despite all of the overwhelming evidence it wasn't. The obvious conclusion for any reasonable person is that a force they are unaware of acted on the flag. Find an answer that satisfies you or don't, but either way, your current conclusion is ridiculous.
-
You're creating a false dichotomy where things can only fall into one of two categories: 1) things that behave according to your expectations, 2) things that are physically impossible. Anything you can't neatly put into the first box gets tossed into the second. This is extremely poor reasoning as it relies on a primary assumption that your expectations are always correct and completely ignores the possibility that you don't have all the information.
Something on the Moon moved the flag. I don't know what it was and frankly, don't care. If you do, look into it more thoroughly. But you don't get to conclude that the only way it could have been moved was if it was on Earth, despite all of the overwhelming evidence it wasn't. The obvious conclusion for any reasonable person is that a force they are unaware of acted on the flag. Find an answer that satisfies you or don't, but either way, your current conclusion is ridiculous.
My thesis here is that we have a hypothesis in the Earth's atmosphere that can explain these movements. But as of yet, there has been no hypothesis that fully explains these motions in the context of the Moon.
Conclude from that what you will. This specific thesis remains Un-Refuted. You are free to explain this as "surely something reasonable happened, because I know Apollo landed men on the moon because of A, B, C... X, Y, Z". That's your prerogative.
-
My thesis here is that we have a hypothesis in the Earth's atmosphere that can explain these movements. But as of yet, there has been no hypothesis that fully explains these motions in the context of the Moon.
Conclude from that what you will. This specific thesis remains Un-Refuted. You are free to explain this as "surely something reasonable happened, because I know Apollo landed men on the moon because of A, B, C... X, Y, Z". That's your prerogative.
This is the problem with cherry picking at minutiae. The fact that this occurred on the Moon 100% refutes your hypothesis that the flag moved because it was on Earth. In order to substantiate your hypothesis that air currents on Earth are responsible for moving the flag, it is your burden to disprove all of the evidence that indicates the flag was on the Moon. You don't want to do that. You want to conclude that, because you can't find a reason for the flag to move on the Moon, that a dozen eyewitnesses, hundreds of corroborating support staff, thousands of engineers, hundreds of thousands of other employees, all worked together to fake hours of video, hundreds of pounds of lunar material, hundreds of hours of radio signals and telemetry, and countless other necessary components to secure the hoax. It would be laughable if it weren't so sad that you seriously believe this is a logical and rational thought process.
-
Have got any rebuttal to the video I posted or are you going to agree with it? If you don't agree, what physics do you present in this case?
When is he going to answer this? It's the same mission and pretty much a slam dunk as he puts it.
-
He is ignoring it hoping it will go away, but that is not going to happen. Thanks for bumping it.
-
When is he going to answer this? It's the same mission and pretty much a slam dunk as he puts it.
Make a new post for this, and we can address it. This is off-topic from the thesis that is my conclusion. You can say "this PROVES WE WERE ON THE MOON" and in your thread, we can discuss it.
My conclusion is merely that:
My thesis here is that we have a hypothesis in the Earth's atmosphere that can explain these movements. But as of yet, there has been no hypothesis that fully explains these motions in the context of the Moon.
I withdraw my conclusion from this thread that "this specific lone instance proves it was faked". You win on this point. I concede. Let's move on.
-
Make a new post for this, and we can address it. This is off-topic from the thesis that is my conclusion. You can say "this PROVES WE WERE ON THE MOON" and in your thread, we can discuss it.
My conclusion is merely that:
My thesis here is that we have a hypothesis in the Earth's atmosphere that can explain these movements. But as of yet, there has been no hypothesis that fully explains these motions in the context of the Moon.
No! Answer it here. There's way too many threads as it is and you're failing in every one of them.
-
No! Answer it here. There's way too many threads as it is and you're failing in every one of them.
It's a separate topic. And you find it compelling - so why not make a whole thread of it? You find it to be "slam dunk proof against MLH" - but you don't want a thread to cover this specifically?
This thread here is complete, or at least "paused" until an Apollogist comes forward with a viable hypothesis to explain all 8 movements.
-
No! Answer it here. There's way too many threads as it is and you're failing in every one of them.
It's a separate topic. And you find it compelling - so why not make a whole thread of it? You find it to be "slam dunk proof against MLH" - but you don't want a thread to cover this specifically?
This thread here is complete, or at least "paused" until an Apollogist comes forward with a viable hypothesis to explain all 8 movements.
You are being asked questions about things you brought up in this thread. You will answer them in this thread. My patience with you is razor thin.
-
When is he going to answer this? It's the same mission and pretty much a slam dunk as he puts it.
Make a new post for this, and we can address it. This is off-topic from the thesis that is my conclusion. You can say "this PROVES WE WERE ON THE MOON" and in your thread, we can discuss it.
My conclusion is merely that:
My thesis here is that we have a hypothesis in the Earth's atmosphere that can explain these movements. But as of yet, there has been no hypothesis that fully explains these motions in the context of the Moon.
I withdraw my conclusion from this thread that "this specific lone instance proves it was faked". You win on this point. I concede. Let's move on.
You have failed to consider all possibilities, that is your problem, they were on the Moon now consider everything in that vien.
-
It's a separate topic. And you find it compelling - so why not make a whole thread of it? You find it to be "slam dunk proof against MLH" - but you don't want a thread to cover this specifically?
Stop evading things that disprove your claims.
This thread here is complete, or at least "paused" until an Apollogist comes forward with a viable hypothesis to explain all 8 movements.
Spamming the same claim and ignoring all responses. Your concept and understanding of physics has been shown to be very poor. Your familiarity with activity in vacuum is not cause for you to doubt perfectly valid reasons.
-
Stop evading things that disprove your claims.
Read my thesis:
"My thesis here is that we have a hypothesis in the Earth's atmosphere that can explain these movements. But as of yet, there has been no hypothesis that fully explains these motions in the context of the Moon."
Your article does not provide a hypothesis to explain these 8 flag movements. So it's a NEW TOPIC. Make a new thread -- why are you scared to do so? Do you think you won't win that debate?
-
You are being asked questions about things you brought up in this thread. You will answer them in this thread. My patience with you is razor thin.
It's off-topic, and has nothing to do with my thesis.
If you think it's slam-dunk - create the new thread -- see where it leads.
Lets do the APPROPRIATE THING and create a NEW THREAD for this NEW TOPIC-- which has nothing to do with these 8 Flag waves.
-
Read my thesis:
What? Your "thesis"?
"My thesis here is that we have a hypothesis in the Earth's atmosphere that can explain these movements. But as of yet, there has been no hypothesis that fully explains these motions in the context of the Moon."
Yes there has. You just don't know what you are doing.
Your article does not provide a hypothesis to explain these 8 flag movements. So it's a NEW TOPIC.
1. It isn't mine.
2. It's a video not an article.
3. Yes it does, by rendering your claim moot as to being on Earth.
Make a new thread -- why are you scared to do so?
Already answered, there's far too many of these dumb threads already.
Do you think you won't win that debate?
Define win. If you mean convince anyone who has honest objectivity and logic, yeah, I'll win. If you mean convince somebody prepared to make up any old bollocks to avoid admitting defeat, probably no.
You have shown yourself to be firmly in the latter of those two camps.
After all the hoohah about "agreeing to disagree" you seem to be afraid yourself. I await what is likely to be evasive obfuscation/ diversionary rebuttal to the video.
-
After all the hoohah about "agreeing to disagree" you seem to be afraid yourself. I await what is likely to be evasive obfuscation/ diversionary rebuttal to the video.
Why would you think a thread that "proves it was on the moon" is a dumb thread?
My thesis only shows that we the 8 Flag motions alone currently have no viable hypothesis to explain them. This is correct, unless you'd like to prove it wrong.
Showing a pendulum, doesn't explain these 8 Flag motions.
But if you want to show "here's how I know we were on the moon" - please present that topic. Or if it's not of interest, don't.
-
Is he really whining about off-topic?
Look at his own posts - 83 / 88 /90 /95
Look at how he wanted to close the thread, "agree to disagree"! Now he's afraid to incorporate the same mission with specific footage rendering his claims moot.
-
Why would you think a thread that "proves it was on the moon" is a dumb thread?
Well firstly it doesn't and secondly repetition. You're already starting to make HB Bingo noises,
Showing a pendulum, doesn't explain these 8 Flag motions.
I looked at the flag position prior to it falling, and it was pointed at the camera. You said some lie about it doing a 180. It's right on the very edge of the hi quality video after the camera is picked up. I'm not even sure it moves at all. The original footage is replete with motion artefacts that push the video visibly in all directions. The new data stream could be prone to misinterpreting this data misalignment.
That is why Dwight would definitely be able to help here. I suspect JayUtah could too, but he's not impressed with the old Gish-gallup. The multiple threads all at once and the "missing" 100% integrity.
-
Why would you think a thread that "proves it was on the moon" is a dumb thread?
Well firstly it doesn't and secondly repetition. You're already starting to make HB Bingo noises,
Showing a pendulum, doesn't explain these 8 Flag motions.
I looked at the flag position prior to it falling, and it was pointed at the camera. You said some lie about it doing a 180. It's right on the very edge of the hi quality video after the camera is picked up. I'm not even sure it moves at all. The original footage is replete with motion artefacts that push the video visibly in all directions. The new data stream could be prone to misinterpreting this data misalignment.
That is why Dwight would definitely be able to help here. I suspect JayUtah could too, but he's not impressed with the old Gish-gallup. The multiple threads all at once and the "missing" 100% integrity.
If you'd like to author a rebuttal for the document, specifically for the 8 flag motions - tell me how you want it to look, and I can include it.
My knowledge base has about 100 articles already drafted. I even have a section for Apollogists (called MLB here - Moon Landing Believers). We could add articles here that you feel are worthy of being documented in this context -- such as the "tape measure pendulum".
-
]If you'd like to author a rebuttal for the document, specifically for the 8 flag motions - tell me how you want it to look, and I can include it.
I'd like you to address the video presented to you and stop making out you are some 'truth-seeking' historian documenting his big achievement.
My knowledge base ..
Is driven by confirmation bias with the primary goal for every response given to you to find anything, no matter how daft, to obfuscate it, divert from it or avoid it.
-
Is driven by confirmation bias with the primary goal for every response given to you to find anything, no matter how daft, to obfuscate it, divert from it or avoid it.
I believe I could reasonably cast this accusation right back at you. I'd like to hear what "neutral eyes" would conclude.
-
My thesis only shows that we the 8 Flag motions alone currently have no viable hypothesis to explain them. This is correct, unless you'd like to prove it wrong.
IF that is your "thesis", then you cannot make any claims on whether the flag is on the moon, in a studio, in a dessert, etc, primarily as you have not provided any evidence to support your idea that they were not on the moon.
We have the possibilities that explain the movement in relation to manned lunar flight, whether or not you accept them. We will never have complete certainty, simply because the intricate details required are not known, and will never be known beyond educated speculation, however, you have yet to provide any evidence for your version, and here we are, some 11 pages later.
-
IF that is your "thesis", then you cannot make any claims on whether the flag is on the moon, in a studio, in a dessert, etc, primarily as you have not provided any evidence to support your idea that they were not on the moon.
We have the possibilities that explain the movement in relation to manned lunar flight, whether or not you accept them. We will never have complete certainty, simply because the intricate details required are not known, and will never be known beyond educated speculation, however, you have yet to provide any evidence for your version, and here we are, some 11 pages later.
Yes this is my full thesis. However it is "evidence of faked footage", just NOT PROOF of the Hoax.
Why? Because this FULL DEBATE is a FULL COURT CASE -- with evidence from both sides. No single piece of evidence stands alone.
I'm simply providing the evidences that I believe work to the favor of the MLH theory. Currently, I find this evidence to be more compelling. Call me dumb, that's a normal response. Fundamentalist Christians tend to think I'm dumb too. I'm used to being in groups where I'm labeled as such.
-
So now "unexplained" flag movement equals hoax?
Sorry, "unexplained" flag movement equals "unexplained" flag movement, nothing more, nothing less.
I'm simply providing the evidences that I believe work to the favor of the MLH theory. Currently, I find this evidence to be more compelling.
Are you going to share this evidence? To date, all I can see is you saying the movement is "unexplained", and that you believe it could have been filmed in a studio. Well, where is the positive evidence to support your claim? Where is the evidence that a studio even existed? Who filmed it? Where? Who built the set? When was it filmed? Why, in over 50 years, have we not heard from anyone of the people involved?
Or, should we conclude that no HB has provided acceptable evidence as to how the flag moved, we can therefore claim the movement is undisputed that the flag is on the lunar surface? No, we conclude the flag is on the lunar surface because of the historical record of Apollo, being well aware that 50 years later, we do not, and never will, possess all the minute, intricate details that would provide a perfect explanation to every single event in the historical record (and to assume otherwise is foolish at best).
-
So now "unexplained" flag movement equals hoax?
Sorry, "unexplained" flag movement equals "unexplained" flag movement, nothing more, nothing less.
Unexplained movement == "hoax", NOPE, not saying this. -- We are in agreement here.
It is ONLY "Evidence", because these movements are easily explainable if in the context of an atmosphere.
-
Unexplained movement == "hoax", NOPE, not saying this. -- We are in agreement here.
They aren't unexplained.
It is ONLY "Evidence", because these movements are easily explainable if in the context of an atmosphere.
The pendulum video renders it moot.
-
They aren't unexplained.
Please describe for me your hypothesis that explains all 8 flag movements, and I can include your rebuttal into the doc.
-
They aren't unexplained.
Please describe for me your hypothesis that explains all 8 flag movements, and I can include your rebuttal into the doc.
Without wishing to sound impolite, stuff your "doc". The explanations have been made in this thread. Your inability to reconcile them with your expectations is the issue.
-
It is ONLY "Evidence", because these movements are easily explainable if in the context of an atmosphere.
You've been claiming for two weeks that this "breaks physics" and is "impossible". It should be obvious that just because they could be explained in the context of an atmosphere, it does not necessarily follow that could not be explained in the context of the lunar environment. This "argument" just distills down to, "I don't understand, therefore it is impossible".
Furthermore, these movements aren't the entirety of the video, so any hypothesis of atmosphere that they inspire then needs to incorporate the rest of the video to see if it's consistent. That's why the pendulum isn't a separate thread. Any positive affirmation of a lunar environment anywhere else in the video shows the Earth hypothesis to be false.
You will either address the pendulum claims here, where they belong, or you can continue to argue in bad faith by attempting to limit discussion to the tiny, cherry picked issues you've selected where you can safely disregard any other evidence. Make no mistake though Mr. 100% integrity, this is another character test, and one you very badly need to pass.
-
It is ONLY "Evidence", because these movements are easily explainable if in the context of an atmosphere.
It is only "easily" explainable because you have refused to provide any actual evidence of the existence of the claimed studio you require. Are you ever going to get around to providing positive evidence for any of your claims here?
-
...
I'll address this pendulum here, if @LunarOrbit will agree to let me make a new post after we deal with this here.
I'm creating a new folder now for the analysis.
-
I looked at the flag position prior to camera falling over, and it was pointed at the camera. You said some lie about it doing a 180.
It's right on the very edge of the hi quality video after the camera is picked up. I'm not even sure it moves at all. The original footage is replete with motion artefacts that push the video visibly in all directions. The new data stream could be prone to misinterpreting this data misalignment.
That is why Dwight would definitely be able to help here. I suspect JayUtah could too, but he's not impressed with the old Gish-gallup. The multiple threads all at once and the "missing" 100% integrity.
Response please.
-
I looked at the flag position prior to camera falling over, and it was pointed at the camera. You said some lie about it doing a 180.
It's right on the very edge of the hi quality video after the camera is picked up. I'm not even sure it moves at all. The original footage is replete with motion artefacts that push the video visibly in all directions. The new data stream could be prone to misinterpreting this data misalignment.
That is why Dwight would definitely be able to help here. I suspect JayUtah could too, but he's not impressed with the old Gish-gallup. The multiple threads all at once and the "missing" 100% integrity.
Response please.
I have no idea what your point is here. You'll need to be more explicit.
-
I looked at the flag position prior to camera falling over, and it was pointed at the camera. You said some lie about it doing a 180.
It's right on the very edge of the hi quality video after the camera is picked up. I'm not even sure it moves at all. The original footage is replete with motion artefacts that push the video visibly in all directions. The new data stream could be prone to misinterpreting this data misalignment.
That is why Dwight would definitely be able to help here. I suspect JayUtah could too, but he's not impressed with the old Gish-gallup. The multiple threads all at once and the "missing" 100% integrity.
Response please.
I have no idea what your point is here. You'll need to be more explicit.
It's pretty simple: the original TV is poor quality. Digital rendering of that, often also at low resolution, does not help.
-
I have no idea what your point is here. You'll need to be more explicit.
You said this:
Nor am I aware of any explanation for what would explain how force is PULLING the flag towards the LEM? For the majority of the time, this flag is offscreen, suggesting that it's "resting state" is offscreen to the right. And then some force PULLS it onto the screen, towards the LEM.
You are claiming that the flag does this massive motion based on the appearances on the JSC improved video. I am stating categorically that when the camera cable pulled the camera over, the flag was in this position just before:
(https://i.ibb.co/Bsvtnvm/flag.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/dBXnzYP/dir.jpg)
The left(stripes) bit is on the very cusp of the right hand edge of the video. So it isn't "pulling" anything. Over the course of 18 seconds of depressurisation it is pushing it away and it simply oscillates on screen.
I've removed the rest of this post (please ignore the observation if you read it) as now I am 100% convinced it is actual movement. I re-watched the JSC version a few times. I speculated that artefacts in the original film might be the cause.
-
Pendulum video analysis, Round #1 completed.
1. Where is their basis for measuring the tape at 1.6 meters?
2. And the 0.9 meters, what is the basis?
3. Can someone show me where in this video the apparatus that suspends this tape is?? I see no sign of it.
Using these [unsubstantiated?] measurements the video shows expected Moon periods of: 6.2 sec & 4.7 sec. Where for about half of the time, it's swinging for the longer length.
The observed period is 4.8 sec.
The expected should be the "average of the two" -- (6.2 + 4.7) / 2 = 5.45 sec... so it's off. Swinging almost like a PURE 0.9 meter pendulum!
So looks to me like they messed up their "simulated Moon gravity" by more than 10% -- using THEIR Measurements.
1.6 meters is only 5.25 feet ... yet it is suspended from a pole about 7.5'. I think this measurement is shy. Which only makes it worse.
If instead the tape is 1.8 meters long and the bottom pendulum were 1 meter long.
Then the periods are : 6.62 sec and 4.94 sec -- average is 5.78 sec!! .. vs. 4.8 sec observed... 21% too fast!
This doesn't look good for the Apollogists.
It's hard to "fake Physics accurately" when pretending to be on the moon.
ALSO:
And btw, the 2X speed one, looks decent to me... Have you ever watched any sports? People can move a LOT faster than you see in this very blurry video... All you have to do is say "hey Alan, and Ed -- for the next minute - I want you to make your movements abnormally fast"... These movements weren't anywhere NEAR impossible - -simply "unnatural looking" -maybe (hard to say with such blur).
Remember you are trying to prove "this 2 minutes of footage could not be faked!" As though these astronauts couldn't simply "move unnaturally fast for a few minutes" if that was even needed.
If you watch it at 1.5X - it looks MORE natural than at 1X.... I'd say the "original footage looks unnaturally slow".
===
When you are pulling a trick - you are expected to do things in order to make that trick seem real. So long as those "things you need to do" are feasible -- you don't have a proof of Impossibility on your hands here.
Here's the doc link that I started, to be a repository for notes and images:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oHd81jNixxs0rb33a7Tg72YETy7Tk8oJKMkg0zP4_IE/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oHd81jNixxs0rb33a7Tg72YETy7Tk8oJKMkg0zP4_IE/edit?usp=sharing)
-
It's pretty simple: the original TV is poor quality. Digital rendering of that, often also at low resolution, does not help.
I'll document this in the KB doc if you want. I don't think it adequately explains the amount of flag that is shown and it's resolution. But I'll include it as "the best Apollogy they could muster" if you want to include it -- or improve upon it.
-
I've removed the rest of this post (please ignore the observation if you read it) as now I am 100% convinced it is actual movement. I re-watched the JSC version a few times. I speculated that artefacts in the original film might be the cause.
Your logic is scattered and unclear. Perhaps you should create a google doc, and write it once, very clearly with images -- use a graphics program to mark up some photos and such and add text.
The original video (because they truncated the right side) - showed PLENTY OF FLAG, including a very distinct SLANT at the top, to indicate it being "pushed".
I have no clue what you are trying to say here. Are you trying to present a hypothesis that explains all 8 movements?
-
I'll document this in the KB doc if you want. I don't think it adequately explains the amount of flag that is shown and it's resolution. But I'll include it as "the best Apollogy they could muster" if you want to include it -- or improve upon it.
You continue to deliberately piss people off! That isn't the "best" at all! It is 19 seconds of depressurisation - occurring at that exact time and moving the flag away and back, enough that it appears on the edge of the screen!
-
Your logic is scattered and unclear. Perhaps you should create a google doc, and write it once, very clearly with images -- use a graphics program to mark up some photos and such and add text.
Are you blind? I posted photographic proof that disputes your (lie, deliberate misinformation?) that the flag does this 180 degree pulling thing. It is angled in direction to just left of the camera so the edge of it is very close to the edge of the video, when the camera is repositioned.
-
The expected should be the "average of the two" -- (6.2 + 4.7) / 2 = 5.45 sec... so it's off. Swinging almost like a PURE 0.9 meter pendulum!
Average of the two? What? Are they equidistant?
Everyone can see that the smaller of the periods doesn't even complete on its left side transition since it then becomes the full length. Your maths and understanding is useless. Just watch the video below.
As though these astronauts couldn't simply "move unnaturally fast for a few minutes" if that was even needed.
That is just a stupid statement.
If you watch it at 1.5X - it looks MORE natural than at 1X.... I'd say the "original footage looks unnaturally slow".
Your judgement on this is bollocks.
Here it's all explained for you:
@52 seconds show the layout.
-
Pendulum video analysis, Round #1 completed.
1. Where is their basis for measuring the tape at 1.6 meters?
2. And the 0.9 meters, what is the basis?
3. Can someone show me where in this video the apparatus that suspends this tape is?? I see no sign of it.
Since the descent module is 3.2 m high the top looks to me about half way up, so 1.6 m is a good estimate.
The packed Alsep was 2.8 m high so maybe the .9 m was a bit high, but within reason.
The tape if you watched the video was a packing tape at the top of the Alsep.
Using these [unsubstantiated?] measurements the video shows expected Moon periods of: 6.2 sec & 4.7 sec. Where for about half of the time, it's swinging for the longer length.
The observed period is 4.8 sec.
The expected should be the "average of the two" -- (6.2 + 4.7) / 2 = 5.45 sec... so it's off. Swinging almost like a PURE 0.9 meter pendulum!
I disagree with the half time in each period I estimate .6 for the shorter and .4 for the longer so my Avg time will be 5.3 sec.
No it doesn't swing like a .9m pendulum.
So looks to me like they messed up their "simulated Moon gravity" by more than 10% -- using THEIR Measurements.
1.6 meters is only 5.25 feet ... yet it is suspended from a pole about 7.5'. I think this measurement is shy. Which only makes it worse.
If instead the tape is 1.8 meters long and the bottom pendulum were 1 meter long.
Then the periods are : 6.62 sec and 4.94 sec -- average is 5.78 sec!! .. vs. 4.8 sec observed... 21% too fast!
This doesn't look good for the Apollogists.
It's hard to "fake Physics accurately" when pretending to be on the moon.
First you ask where is the tape suspended and then you indicate that is on a 7.5' "pole", no it is not a pole it is the top of the Alsep.
You are avoiding the obvious, on Earth the periods would be 2.54 and 1.91 which using your 50% estimate is 2.25 sec which is twice as fast as the pendulum moves.
Conclusion it wasn't done on the Earth.
ALSO:
And btw, the 2X speed one, looks decent to me... Have you ever watched any sports? People can move a LOT faster than you see in this very blurry video... All you have to do is say "hey Alan, and Ed -- for the next minute - I want you to make your movements abnormally fast"... These movements weren't anywhere NEAR impossible - -simply "unnatural looking" -maybe (hard to say with such blur).
NO, the 2x times looks jerky to me unnatural body movements.
Remember you are trying to prove "this 2 minutes of footage could not be faked!" As though these astronauts couldn't simply "move unnaturally fast for a few minutes" if that was even needed.
If you watch it at 1.5X - it looks MORE natural than at 1X.... I'd say the "original footage looks unnaturally slow".
===
When you are pulling a trick - you are expected to do things in order to make that trick seem real. So long as those "things you need to do" are feasible -- you don't have a proof of Impossibility on your hands here.
Here's the doc link that I started, to be a repository for notes and images:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oHd81jNixxs0rb33a7Tg72YETy7Tk8oJKMkg0zP4_IE/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oHd81jNixxs0rb33a7Tg72YETy7Tk8oJKMkg0zP4_IE/edit?usp=sharing)
No tricks here just you inability to understand what occurred. You lose, again.
-
You continue to deliberately piss people off! That isn't the "best" at all! It is 19 seconds of depressurisation - occurring at that exact time and moving the flag away and back, enough that it appears on the edge of the screen!
So give me your "best". But be sure your hypothesis can explain the full 175 seconds of waving (start to finish) with 116 seconds off screen, and 59 seconds on screen -- and also preceded by being off-screen for the 10+ minutes preceding this supernatural phenomenon.
You are only speaking here of 19 seconds.
-
Are you blind? I posted photographic proof that disputes your (lie, deliberate misinformation?) that the flag does this 180 degree pulling thing. It is angled in direction to just left of the camera so the edge of it is very close to the edge of the video, when the camera is repositioned.
[/quote]
Yes, I agree, the flag was positioned just off the edge of the screen. When the draft blows it On-Screen TOWARDS THE LM, for a total of 59 seconds over 4 instances -- each time we can see the top stripe mostly occluded by the SLANT offscreen- to where it attaches to the horizontal pole.
The SLANT is telling. Are YOU blind?
For these 59 seconds - the flag is PULLED TOWARDS THE LM.
Or OneBigMonkey's hypothesis is that these 59 seconds are "at rest" (by ignoring the SLANT) - but then fails the test of explaining the 116 seconds of "push off screen" during these supernatural 175 seconds... along with failing to account for how it was offscreen for many minutes beforehand.
I'm still waiting for someone to be able to comprehensively present a hypothesis here to explain all 8 motions.
Please present it.
-
Here it's all explained for you...
@52 seconds show the layout.
The diagram measurements and angle at 52 seconds isn't validated as accurate. Where are they even ATTEMPTING to measure distances or angles? They simply claim the tape was 5' long. And unlike some of us have been told, "length matters".
The majority of a pendulum's time is spent near each side apex... So the EXPECTED period here should be very close to the 50/50 average. This is your proof -- you do the math. I don't think you even know where to begin for this math.
And the "wind resistance" proof is invalid, because he places a "small lock" at the end. With Apollo 14, as they were setting out to provide us with a "pendulum to prove lunar gravity" - they would have placed the HEAVIEST object on the end, and ensured that the tape itself had the LEAST amount of tensile resistance.... all would have minimized the impact of air resistance. And so here, "mass matters!" He chose a 1 ounce lock, instead of a 2 lb ball.
If you watch the full 18 swings... mark the first swing ending point with your finger on the screen. Then fast forward to the 18th one -- notice the amplitude is NOW HALF! A sign of air resistance!
Your proof here arguably serves to prove the MLH point:
1. It oscillated at LEAST 10% too fast... if the length were just 10" longer -- then 20% too fast.
2. The amplitude reduces to HALF of the original amplitude - a sign of air resistance acting on a heavy end weight.
3. Speeding up the film to 1.5X looks "very natural" ... more natural than the original slow motion.
3. Telling the astronauts to move 30% faster than normal in their actions for 2 minutes -- is very feasible. -- just an added perk to help it look less "unnatural" when slowed to half-speed.
This film was slowed to just half-speed. The astronauts moved about 30% faster than normal (on purpose, as directed)... and it all pans out 100% for MLH.
Or, for the Apollogists, they have to explain the "breaking of physics" here as the pendulum: (a) oscillated 10-20% too fast... and (b) decreased amplitude to HALF showing signs of air resistance.
What else do you have for me?
-
#1: I disagree with the half time in each period I estimate .6 for the shorter and .4 for the longer so my Avg time will be 5.3 sec.
#2: No tricks here just you inability to understand what occurred. You lose, again.
#1: Do more math here; you are missing something big. The distribution isn't "linear" based upon "swing angle" because the "MOST TIME BY FAR" is spent closer to the Apex -- because the travel speed as it gets higher is MUCH slower than it is at the bottom of the swing. Do the math - this is your proof.
#2: Your inability to demonstrate even the "non-feasibility" of the astronauts simply moving 30% faster than they normally would, as 1.5X looks "very natural" for starters. 2X simply looks a bit rushed.
This whole "proof" rests upon the claim that the 2X movements are "impossible for humans to have done deliberately". Have you ever watched professional basketball? Do you think they are all FAKE, because they make "unnatural motions" MUCH faster than these astronauts.
And your proof also requires Apollogetic imagination that you know what these "blobs" are even doing... there are only a few instances where motions are more distinct -- NONE of them are non-feasible.
And once you do the double-pendulum-period math above (assuming the shorter pendulum comprises 60% of the arc, and longer pendulum only 40%) -- It makes it blatantly obvious that this pendulum swing 10% too fast, AND it's amplitude cut-in-half (as would be expected for air resistance).
This example, once again, is evidence of MLH.. due to: (a) pendulum swings too fast (~10%+), and (b) Amplitude cuts in half showing air resistance.
Thank you for playing. Better luck next time.
-
#1: I disagree with the half time in each period I estimate .6 for the shorter and .4 for the longer so my Avg time will be 5.3 sec.
#2: No tricks here just you inability to understand what occurred. You lose, again.
#1: Do more math here; you are missing something big. The distribution isn't "linear" based upon "swing angle" because the "MOST TIME BY FAR" is spent closer to the Apex -- because the travel speed as it gets higher is MUCH slower than it is at the bottom of the swing. Do the math - this is your proof.
I'm only doing the same study as you. Perhaps you think that you can invent stuff? Which apex, there are two. Yes the speed is slower at the apexes, faster at the bottom, and??? I did the math on Earth the speed is about twice as fast which would be expected in a 9.8 m/s/s rather than a 1.62 m/s/s.
#2: Your inability to demonstrate even the "non-feasibility" of the astronauts simply moving 30% faster than they normally would, as 1.5X looks "very natural" for starters. 2X simply looks a bit rushed.
According to you anyone else in here like to share their opinion of the astronauts movements?
This whole "proof" rests upon the claim that the 2X movements are "impossible for humans to have done deliberately". Have you ever watched professional basketball? Do you think they are all FAKE, because they make "unnatural motions" MUCH faster than these astronauts.
Irrelevant, BB don't have 35lbs. survival gear strapped to their backs.
And your proof also requires Apollogetic imagination that you know what these "blobs" are even doing... there are only a few instances where motions are more distinct -- NONE of them are non-feasible.
Make better sense.
And once you do the double-pendulum-period math above (assuming the shorter pendulum comprises 60% of the arc, and longer pendulum only 40%) -- It makes it blatantly obvious that this pendulum swing 10% too fast, AND it's amplitude cut-in-half (as would be expected for air resistance).
No, if there was any air resistance, the pendulum would have slowed appreciably in those 18 periods covering 85 seconds, you know you used that value.
This example, once again, is evidence of MLH.. due to: (a) pendulum swings too fast (~10%+), and (b) Amplitude cuts in half showing air resistance.
Show your math that you believe sows the speed to be 10% faster. No the amplitude continues until the tape intersects with another piece of equipment, causing it to stop, not air resistance not your imagination.
Thank you for playing. Better luck next time.
You haven't put to rest this argument by a long shot so better luck to you next time.
-
You haven't put to rest this argument by a long shot so better luck to you next time.
You still think that if the long pendulum was in effect for 40 deg of the arc angle, this equates to the pendulum spending 40% of the TIME on the long pendulum motion.
This is your proof, and you don't know the math for it. Do you need me to do this for you?
Your proof also lacks a basis for accurate measurements... 9" makes a difference on the results. Do the math. Show your work -- the video shows none of this.
Until then, you have an incomplete proof.
And in the end, your proof resides upon proving that 30% faster-than-normal actions for a few minutes is IMPOSSIBLE. You are not just proving "this clip is (mostly) consistent with Moon gravity"- but you are claiming that this clip "Proves FAKING IT was IMPOSSIBLE". ... and it falls way short of this.. way short.
-
You haven't put to rest this argument by a long shot so better luck to you next time.
You still think that if the long pendulum was in effect for 40 deg of the arc angle, this equates to the pendulum spending 40% of the TIME on the long pendulum motion.
Not my equation mine is only an estimate by observing, I didn't think your 50%was accurate.
This is your proof, and you don't know the math for it. Do you need me to do this for you?
Your proof also lacks a basis for accurate measurements... 9" makes a difference on the results. Do the math. Show your work -- the video shows none of this.
I used the values that were in the video, if you dispute them then present your own set, just post what you believe the values you used and why if they differed from the videos, you believe you are correct.
Until then, you have an incomplete proof.
I calculated the times in the exact same manner as you, if you found fault with mine, then yours is faulted.
And in the end, your proof resides upon proving that 30% faster-than-normal actions for a few minutes is IMPOSSIBLE. You are not just proving "this clip is (mostly) consistent with Moon gravity"- but you are claiming that this clip "Proves FAKING IT was IMPOSSIBLE". ... and it falls way short of this.. way short.
Link to where I said it is IMPOSSIBLE to move faster than normal for short durations. I doubt that 30% is doable with wearing an A-7 suite with survival gear on your back.
Quit attempting to move the goal post and show how the time is 10% faster.
-
#1: Not my equation mine is only an estimate by observing, I didn't think your 50%was accurate.
#2: I used the values that were in the video, if you dispute them
#3: Link to where I said it is IMPOSSIBLE to move faster than normal for short durations. I doubt that 30% is doable...
#1: 60/40 is inaccurate. So the proof is incomplete, and therefore can prove nothing. This is your proof, and it's incomplete....
#2: The video just pulls states these without substantiation/method. So if this is the standard, I see the #'s were 1.8 meters (6') and 1m (3'). .. Now the observed result is 20% too fast.
If you can't be bothered in your OWN PROOF to substantiate the assumed measurements.... I won't either.
#3: Great-- then you just admitted that even if your measurements and bad pendulum math were correct -- it doesn't matter -- because all they had to do was move 30% faster than normal... and in the faked environment, the backpacks are mostly hollow, and suits not heavy duty. This makes it even easier.
If this SEQ Pendulum cannot prove "this could not have been faked" - then it amounts to nothing. It simply means that "they faked this one reasonably well -- except for missed the proper timing by about 10-20%, and the amplitude reduces 50%, implicating the presence of air.. but it wasn't too bad of a messup.. it could have been real."
Proof Failed.
-
#1: Not my equation mine is only an estimate by observing, I didn't think your 50%was accurate.
#2: I used the values that were in the video, if you dispute them
#3: Link to where I said it is IMPOSSIBLE to move faster than normal for short durations. I doubt that 30% is doable...
#1: 60/40 is inaccurate. So the proof is incomplete, and therefore can prove nothing. This is your proof, and it's incomplete....
#2: The video just pulls states these without substantiation/method. So if this is the standard, I see the #'s were 1.8 meters (6') and 1m (3'). .. Now the observed result is 20% too fast.
If you can't be bothered in your OWN PROOF to substantiate the assumed measurements.... I won't either.
#3: Great-- then you just admitted that even if your measurements and bad pendulum math were correct -- it doesn't matter -- because all they had to do was move 30% faster than normal... and in the faked environment, the backpacks are mostly hollow, and suits not heavy duty. This makes it even easier.
If this SEQ Pendulum cannot prove "this could not have been faked" - then it amounts to nothing. It simply means that "they faked this one reasonably well -- except for missed the proper timing by about 10-20%, and the amplitude reduces 50%, implicating the presence of air.. but it wasn't too bad of a messup.. it could have been real."
Proof Failed.
OK I will concede your 50-50. Now so that we can compute this problem to your stisfaction tell me what the legnths werre? We know the times and computation should be easy.
I asked yesterday and now repeat Yesterday you stated ~10%, now it is 20%, which is it in between? pick a number and stick with it. I stated what the lengths were you ignored my comment, if you would like them again, 1.6 and .9. If you don't like them pick some that you feel comfortable with.
As for #3, boy you jump to conclusion without reading comprehension. I indicated to link where I said it was impossible to move faster for short durations, you haven't done that. Secondly I stated I doubt 30% was doable.
ETA:I'm still awaiting you to show by calculation the time is 10% faster, you might well include 20 % also, you need to get to computing and show your numbers.
-
OK I will concede your 50-50. Now so that we can compute this problem to your stisfaction tell me what the legnths werre? We know the times and computation should be easy.
I asked yesterday and now repeat Yesterday you stated ~10%, now it is 20%, which is it in between? pick a number and stick with it. I stated what the lengths were you ignored my comment, if you would like them again, 1.6 and .9. If you don't like them pick some that you feel comfortable with.
As for #3, boy you jump to conclusion without reading comprehension. I indicated to link where I said it was impossible to move faster for short durations, you haven't done that. Secondly I stated I doubt 30% was doable.
ETA:I'm still awaiting you to show by calculation the time is 10% faster, you might well include 20 % also, you need to get to computing and show your numbers.
Thanks for engaging in good faith and spirit. I've updated my doc, final page to show the calculation results:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oHd81jNixxs0rb33a7Tg72YETy7Tk8oJKMkg0zP4_IE/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oHd81jNixxs0rb33a7Tg72YETy7Tk8oJKMkg0zP4_IE/edit?usp=sharing)
Pasted here:
If we assume 50/50 here, the average is (4.7 + 6.2) / 2 = 5.45 sec.
Error:
5.45 / 4.8 ⇒ 1.135 (13.5% too fast) using their lengths
Since they gave no basis for measurement:
Let’s assume LONGER… 1.8 meters and 1.0 meter lengths.
Expected period now is:
6.62 sec, and 4.94 sec, Moon
2.69 sec and 2.18 sec, Earth
Applying 50/50,the expected Total Period (half of each)
5.78 sec, Moon
2.44 sec, Earth
Error:
5.78 / 4.8 => 1.2042 (20.4% too fast)
==
Given that the pendulum amplitude cuts in half after 18 swings... that implies there's "resistance" (air?) -- and when a pendulum has resistance, the Period is typically a bit longer. So if we add 3% to the periods for this "resistance" factor (that is evident) -- it gets even worse for Apollogists and better for MLD's. (Moon Landing Deniers).
-
OK I will concede your 50-50. Now so that we can compute this problem to your stisfaction tell me what the legnths werre? We know the times and computation should be easy.
I asked yesterday and now repeat Yesterday you stated ~10%, now it is 20%, which is it in between? pick a number and stick with it. I stated what the lengths were you ignored my comment, if you would like them again, 1.6 and .9. If you don't like them pick some that you feel comfortable with.
As for #3, boy you jump to conclusion without reading comprehension. I indicated to link where I said it was impossible to move faster for short durations, you haven't done that. Secondly I stated I doubt 30% was doable.
ETA:I'm still awaiting you to show by calculation the time is 10% faster, you might well include 20 % also, you need to get to computing and show your numbers.
Thanks for engaging in good faith and spirit. I've updated my doc, final page to show the calculation results:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oHd81jNixxs0rb33a7Tg72YETy7Tk8oJKMkg0zP4_IE/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oHd81jNixxs0rb33a7Tg72YETy7Tk8oJKMkg0zP4_IE/edit?usp=sharing)
Pasted here:
If we assume 50/50 here, the average is (4.7 + 6.2) / 2 = 5.45 sec.
Error:
5.45 / 4.8 ⇒ 1.135 (13.5% too fast) using their lengths
Since they gave no basis for measurement:
Let’s assume LONGER… 1.8 meters and 1.0 meter lengths.
Expected period now is:
6.62 sec, and 4.94 sec, Moon
2.69 sec and 2.18 sec, Earth
Applying 50/50,the expected Total Period (half of each)
5.78 sec, Moon
2.44 sec, Earth
Error:
5.78 / 4.8 => 1.2042 (20.4% too fast)
But both estimations are slower than what would be expected on Earth, so the pendulum is not on Earth regardless of any perceived error and that is precisely the point. It is happening in a lower gravity than Earth's.
==
Given that the pendulum amplitude cuts in half after 18 swings... that implies there's "resistance" (air?) -- and when a pendulum has resistance, the Period is typically a bit longer. So if we add 3% to the periods for this "resistance" factor (that is evident) -- it gets even worse for Apollogists and better for MLD's. (Moon Landing Deniers).
There is no loss of amplitude and you saying will not make it so. But for the sake of argument, what if you were correct? The pendulum is still in a lower gravity environment. That being said a chamber large enough to house the LM would necessarily be transported to this lower gravity place. What do you think is more obvious the LM is on the moon or the is housed in a large chamber in this lower gravity place? The answer is rhetorical.
The pendulum stops when interferes with another piece of equipment.
Now do you admit that the pendulum occurred where the gravity is less than 9.8 m/s/s?
-
But both estimations are slower than what would be expected on Earth, so the pendulum is not on Earth regardless of any perceived error and that is precisely the point. It is happening in a lower gravity than Earth's.
Why is it that you still do not understand the whole premise of MLH theory? In this case, it's running at about "half frame rate", which fully explains why it would be oscillating at double the pendulum period.
During these few minutes, the astronauts were directed to "move 30% faster than you normally would move".
This Frame rate scaling varies frequently. There's a whole video put out by an anonymous source (possibly someone who actually KNEW, and would have been charged with Treason for revealing it)... called "Smoke & Mirrors"... Most times, they were only slowing it to around 80%, and only providing the astronauts with "some lift" to make them look lighter.
In the MLH theory, the backpacks are mostly empty - light. The space suits are also lighter.. not 100 lbs. So on the moon, they are to weigh 60 lbs (360 lbs / 6)........... but in MLH theory, they might only be wearing 30 lbs total... meaning that they weigh about 200 lbs each. Many Apollogists don't seem to factor this in either (saying things like "he couldn't move that fast with a 100 lbs on his back!")...
In order to viable argue against MLH, you need to internalize this understanding.... otherwise, you will only be straw manning your opposition.
-
But both estimations are slower than what would be expected on Earth, so the pendulum is not on Earth regardless of any perceived error and that is precisely the point. It is happening in a lower gravity than Earth's.
Why is it that you still do not understand the whole premise of MLH theory? In this case, it's running at about "half frame rate", which fully explains why it would be oscillating at double the pendulum period.
Prove this statement to be true.
During these few minutes, the astronauts were directed to "move 30% faster than you normally would move".
Realistically, just how are going to move 30% faster? How do they estimate it?
This Frame rate scaling varies frequently. There's a whole video put out by an anonymous source (possibly someone who actually KNEW, and would have been charged with Treason for revealing it)... called "Smoke & Mirrors"... Most times, they were only slowing it to around 80%, and only providing the astronauts with "some lift" to make them look lighter.
Proof of all of this nonsense
In the MLH theory, the backpacks are mostly empty - light. The space suits are also lighter.. not 100 lbs. So on the moon, they are to weigh 60 lbs (360 lbs / 6)........... but in MLH theory, they might only be wearing 30 lbs total... meaning that they weigh about 200 lbs each. Many Apollogists don't seem to factor this in either (saying things like "he couldn't move that fast with a 100 lbs on his back!")...
Where is the proof of all this?
In order to viable argue against MLH, you need to internalize this understanding.... otherwise, you will only be straw manning your opposition.
Speaking of smoke and mirrors you are still ignoring the fat of the slower speeds of the pendulum than if observed on Earth. This is your loss.
-
But both estimations are slower than what would be expected on Earth, so the pendulum is not on Earth regardless of any perceived error and that is precisely the point. It is happening in a lower gravity than Earth's.
Why is it that you still do not understand the whole premise of MLH theory? In this case, it's running at about "half frame rate", which fully explains why it would be oscillating at double the pendulum period.
During these few minutes, the astronauts were directed to "move 30% faster than you normally would move".
This Frame rate scaling varies frequently. There's a whole video put out by an anonymous source (possibly someone who actually KNEW, and would have been charged with Treason for revealing it)... called "Smoke & Mirrors"... Most times, they were only slowing it to around 80%, and only providing the astronauts with "some lift" to make them look lighter.
In the MLH theory, the backpacks are mostly empty - light. The space suits are also lighter.. not 100 lbs. So on the moon, they are to weigh 60 lbs (360 lbs / 6)........... but in MLH theory, they might only be wearing 30 lbs total... meaning that they weigh about 200 lbs each. Many Apollogists don't seem to factor this in either (saying things like "he couldn't move that fast with a 100 lbs on his back!")...
In order to viable argue against MLH, you need to internalize this understanding.... otherwise, you will only be straw manning your opposition.
Why did you ignore the video I put up? It shows how atmosphere slows down this tape and makes a mockery of your double-speed claim. The atmosphere drastically slows the motion because of air resistance.
Your fudging maths means absolutely nothing. The amplitude simply does not match Earth amplitude no matter what you do to it.
-
Why is it that you still do not understand the whole premise of MLH theory? In this case, it's running at about "half frame rate", which fully explains why it would be oscillating at double the pendulum period.
Prove this statement to be true.
The fact that I have to prove this you at this point, indicates that for as long as you've been debating MLH as "ridiculous" you haven't yet digested this one VERY CRUCIAL cornerstone of MLH theory.
If you throw an object or swing a pendulum on earth and film it -- then just replay that film at 40% speed... it will behave EXACTLY per the physics of the moon. It will be non-discernable.
This effect can also be approximated by a combination of factors - such as for the astronauts, you alternatively provide upward lift (via a thin cable) by say 50%, which emulates 1/2 gravity by itself (mostly) -- and then from there, you only need to slow the frame rate to about 60% to approximate Moon gravity (they combine) - -however, if dust rises with the foot, that dust would fall about 70% faster than it should on the moon.
Realistically, just how are going to move 30% faster? How do they estimate it?
Just approximated is fine. They practice a few times, get a little coaching/feedback and then get decent at it. Since there is no "exact measurement for what constitutes natural movement", they merely need to move fast enough that if you sped up the replay to the filmed rate, it would look "unnatural". Not need for precision on the 30%. 25%-40% will all suffice.
Where is the proof of all this?
The only MLH proof required here is "feasibility". In the case of the SEQ pendulum, given that "if this were the moon, it would be 13% too fast"... this indicates "things aren't right -- someone is modifying the playback speed". So -- THIS discrepancy is "evidence", indicating frame rate adjustments were made.
The foundation of MLH theory resides on two things:
1. Showing things that were IMPOSSIBLE (indicating a mess-up on their simulation), or "a series of things that are very Un-likely"
combined with
2. Showing that faking these things was Feasible.
My main focus on these Theses is on #1, but sometimes falls over into #2 (such as with the replay rate changes, and cable suspension)
-
#1: Why did you ignore the video I put up? It shows how atmosphere slows down this tape and makes a mockery of your double-speed claim. The atmosphere drastically slows the motion because of air resistance.
#2: Your fudging maths means absolutely nothing. The amplitude simply does not match Earth amplitude no matter what you do to it.
#1: I'm juggling a dozen commenters. You only have one. I made this point very clearly. The video you showed chose to put a SMALL (2-ounce?) lock on the end of it. MASS MATTERS. If you change this to a 2 lb lead weight - that changes the rate of decay a LOT. In fact, in the Moon video, we see this amplitude approximately cut-in-half!! So shows this decay, which could indicate air resistance IS at play.
#2: ... except if you simply speed up their film by 2X -- then it matches Earth's period EXACTLY. And the only remaining gripes is "these astronauts would then be moving unnaturally fast" (by about 30%). There isn't much left of your "Apollogy" here.... but the sad part, is that this "Apollogy proof" does more to prove MLH, than Apollogy.
-
Why is it that you still do not understand the whole premise of MLH theory? In this case, it's running at about "half frame rate", which fully explains why it would be oscillating at double the pendulum period.
Prove this statement to be true.
The fact that I have to prove this you at this point, indicates that for as long as you've been debating MLH as "ridiculous" you haven't yet digested this one VERY CRUCIAL cornerstone of MLH theory.
If you throw an object or swing a pendulum on earth and film it -- then just replay that film at 40% speed... it will behave EXACTLY per the physics of the moon. It will be non-discernable.
This effect can also be approximated by a combination of factors - such as for the astronauts, you alternatively provide upward lift (via a thin cable) by say 50%, which emulates 1/2 gravity by itself (mostly) -- and then from there, you only need to slow the frame rate to about 60% to approximate Moon gravity (they combine) - -however, if dust rises with the foot, that dust would fall about 70% faster than it should on the moon.
Realistically, just how are going to move 30% faster? How do they estimate it?
Just approximated is fine. They practice a few times, get a little coaching/feedback and then get decent at it. Since there is no "exact measurement for what constitutes natural movement", they merely need to move fast enough that if you sped up the replay to the filmed rate, it would look "unnatural". Not need for precision on the 30%. 25%-40% will all suffice.
Where is the proof of all this?
The only MLH proof required here is "feasibility". In the case of the SEQ pendulum, given that "if this were the moon, it would be 13% too fast"... this indicates "things aren't right -- someone is modifying the playback speed". So -- THIS discrepancy is "evidence", indicating frame rate adjustments were made.
Firstly learn how to quote properly.
If you throw an object or swing a pendulum on earth and film it -- then just replay that film at 40% speed... it will behave EXACTLY per the physics of the moon.
But it was filmed live +1.25 second delay at 60 frames per second North American standard. You are just idly speculating.
Just approximated is fine. They practice a few times, get a little coaching/feedback and then get decent at it. Since there is no "exact measurement for what constitutes natural movement", they merely need to move fast enough that if you sped up the replay to the filmed rate, it would look "unnatural". Not need for precision on the 30%. 25%-40% will all suffice.
Other than idle speculation, you have proof of this? Has anyone actors or crew stepped forward and corroborated this? No
The only MLH proof required here is "feasibility". In the case of the SEQ pendulum, given that "if this were the moon, it would be 13% too fast"... this indicates "things aren't right -- someone is modifying the playback speed". So -- THIS discrepancy is "evidence", indicating frame rate adjustments were made.
Maybe proof to a bunch of Hoaxtards, but here. Real proof not speculation. In short you have no physics denial of this evidense.
-
#1: Why did you ignore the video I put up? It shows how atmosphere slows down this tape and makes a mockery of your double-speed claim. The atmosphere drastically slows the motion because of air resistance.
#2: Your fudging maths means absolutely nothing. The amplitude simply does not match Earth amplitude no matter what you do to it.
#1: I'm juggling a dozen commenters. You only have one. I made this point very clearly. The video you showed chose to put a SMALL (2-ounce?) lock on the end of it. MASS MATTERS. If you change this to a 2 lb lead weight - that changes the rate of decay a LOT. In fact, in the Moon video, we see this amplitude approximately cut-in-half!! So shows this decay, which could indicate air resistance IS at play.
That is your own fault, not ours.
#2: ... except if you simply speed up their film by 2X -- then it matches Earth's period EXACTLY. And the only remaining gripes is "these astronauts would then be moving unnaturally fast" (by about 30%). There isn't much left of your "Apollogy" here.... but the sad part, is that this "Apollogy proof" does more to prove MLH, than Apollogy.
Let's see "proof by speculation".
-
But it was filmed live +1.25 second delay at 60 frames per second North American standard. You are just idly speculating
Other than idle speculation, you have proof of this? Has anyone actors or crew stepped forward and corroborated this? No
And you are presuming that everything we saw on TV was honest/genuine. The MLH theory is that all (or most all) of the Moon footage was pre-filmed, possibly in June 1968, per this man's father's Deathbed confession, who was the Chief of Security for the Hanger in 1968 at Canon AF base, NM.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu5Z75ji3aU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu5Z75ji3aU)
Just because they say it's "live footage" - does that make it fact?
-
#1: I'm juggling a dozen commenters. You only have one.
That's gish gallup HB bingo for you.
I made this point very clearly. The video you showed chose to put a SMALL (2-ounce?) lock on the end of it. MASS MATTERS.
Mass makes no difference. You can put 10 tons on or 10lb and it makes no difference!
If you change this to a 2 lb lead weight - that changes the rate of decay a LOT.
Edit: misread your post. The decay weight is not relevant, the Apollo 14 example doesn't use a weight.
In fact, in the Moon video, we see this amplitude approximately cut-in-half!! So shows this decay, which could indicate air resistance IS at play.
The decay is caused by the jutting edge friction initiating smaller pendulum.
#2: ... except if you simply speed up their film by 2X -- then it matches Earth's period EXACTLY.
Sure does but the rate is 245%. But....you didn't watch the video properly. The same experiment on Earth is significantly slower by air resistance.
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a14/a14pendulum.html
-
Let's see "proof by speculation".
The "proof" is a combination of factors:
a. when Apollo breaks physics, or there is behavior that was necessary for the hoax (such as losing all telemetry tapes, or discarding key LM design docs).
b. the feasibility of faking it - such as pre-filming and changing the frame rates.
-
The "proof" is a combination of factors:
In quotes.
a. when Apollo breaks physics
You can repeat the crap all you want but you've evaded key rebuttal.
or there is behavior that was necessary for the hoax (such as losing all telemetry tapes, or discarding key LM design docs).
Is this done to irritate? The only telemetry data lost that could have been significant was the SSTV data for Apollo 11. The discussion on design docs resulted in you demonstrating how you don't properly read extensive links.
b. the feasibility of faking it - such as pre-filming and changing the frame rates.
Nothing proven, no evidence provided.
-
#1: I'm juggling a dozen commenters.
And you want to start more threads? If you have time for more threads you have time to respond to the questions and comments that have been directed at you in your existing threads. You will not be starting any new threads until you do.
-
I'm going to lock this thread. It has gone way off topic and Najak doesn't seem interested in defending his original claim.
I will try to separate the off topic posts into a new thread when I have time, but please don't allow Najak to skirt the rules by starting new threads inside his other threads. I imposed this restriction on him specifically to keep him (and us) focused on a small number of threads until they can be resolved.
Update:
The off-topic posts have been moved to the "Najak potpourri" (https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2029.0) thread. It's a dumpster fire of posts of various different topics.
-
This thread has been unlocked to continue this debate.
Here is my summary of the TD's attempts to explain these movements:
1. It swung back like a pendulum.
2. The pole itself did 360's...
3. The pole was leaning towards the LM, and so "resting position was on-screen"
#1 and #2 are too easy -- the motion onto the screen is steady/slow, holds steady for 5-15 seconds at a time... so CLEARLY is NOT a pendulum motion, nor a 360 swinging motion.
Only #3 merits some discussion - and so I addressed it in my doc:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KnnsXE97fKJZ-CJYv7j_G9eVdgwW960LUeOCGz5uarE/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KnnsXE97fKJZ-CJYv7j_G9eVdgwW960LUeOCGz5uarE/edit?usp=sharing)
(See page 2.)
I've Pasted Page 2 text here for convenience (and ensuring a snapshot):
Apollogist Hypothesis #1: Leaning Pole
1. Pole is slanted, so when exhaust pushes the flag off screen, and when the exhaust subsides (e.g. they close the valve for equipment/safety checks) -- the flag comes back on screen, because of this tilt.
2. The flag will be on screen when "at rest", and off screen as it is pushed by the Exhaust.
===
Non-Feasibility of Apollogist Hypothesis:
1. Depressurization procedures only allow for higher pressure evacuation for about 1 minute (from PSI 5 to down 1). Yet this hypothesis has this exhaust breeze holding the flag away for about 116 seconds total, after its first appearance to its final appearance. And this does not include the “minutes beforehand” where it started offscreen.
2. What brought the flag onto the screen to start with? (continuation from #1)
3. Why was the top of the flag always SLANTED off screen to the top pole? This is a sure sign of "breeze pushing it on screen", and not being "at rest".
4. This hypothesis has a "grand finale" where the PSI is about 0.1 PSI - that flows the flag to do a 90 degree full turn, and then stay there.
-
Here is the hoax-claimant position:
Some bloke left the door open and this gust of wind came in and did things. These do not explain the flag movement. This occurred during the first videoed depressurisation. Then, that same pillock came along and did the very same thing again, equally with no explanation and also during the next depressurisation.
Logic of a toaster.
-
From the A12 antenna thread.
I point out a glaring error in your thesis concerning A14 and all you can do is rant about bias. You are really terrible at this. Point blank do you believe that A14 was not on Earth?
"glaring error" - can you be more specific?
Point blank, I don't think we landed humans on the moon... yet.
The live video of the tape oscillating gives zero weight to your thesis. Yes, that is a glaring error on your part and you don't have the courage to ad mit that you have made a mistake. You mention that the pendulum moves too fast.
Well lets put it another way it made 18 oscillations in 86 seconds that was 4.8 seconds per oscillation. Now IF that pendulum was on Earth it would need to be ~5.7 meters long. 4.8=2Pi*sqrt(L/G) where G is 9.8 on Earth as you believe. Do you really believe that the tape is 5.7 meters long, or expect the rest of us to believe that it is? Your thesis fails miserably. The LM was not on Earth. So where could it have been? Could it be on Mars, no the "ground" doesn't appear to be oxidized. The only object that NASA planned and executed in the late 60's early 70's was land on the Moon. You are not as smart as you think you are. And yes, this is physics.
If you need to refer to the video, look on page 8 if you don't remember.
-
The live video of the tape oscillating gives zero weight to your thesis. Yes, that is a glaring error on your part and you don't have the courage to ad mit that you have made a mistake. You mention that the pendulum moves too fast.
Your rebuttal here ignores the fact that MLH proclaims they slowed the frame rate to about 50% for this footage, and instructed the astronauts to "make movements double-speed for the next minute"... the slowdown should have been to 40%, not 50%... thus the pendulum that they DID show was "too fast"... but the worst part is that it was decreasing in amplitude considerably, a sign of air resistance.
So the MLH theory for the SEQ Tape pendulum is that... they slowed frame rate to about 50%, and told them to move "double-time" for a minute, so they could give the NASA TD's some fodder... but oops, the amplitude reduced showing the air resistance, so this fodder didn't work out as well as they had hoped.
There is nothing non-feasible here about the MLH proposal. But there is potentially a fatal flaw for the TD's because the amplitude is decreasing, showing air resistance.
-
Some bloke left the door open and this gust of wind came in and did things. These do not explain the flag movement. This occurred during the first videoed depressurisation. Then, that same pillock came along and did the very same thing again, equally with no explanation and also during the next depressurisation.
That's a good counter argument -- the unlikeliness of this "mistake" being also timed with the depressurization.
But it STILL offers no viable explanation for what force moved these flags TOWARDS the LM in the manner we see filmed.
-
The live video of the tape oscillating gives zero weight to your thesis. Yes, that is a glaring error on your part and you don't have the courage to ad mit that you have made a mistake. You mention that the pendulum moves too fast.
Your rebuttal here ignores the fact that MLH proclaims they slowed the frame rate to about 50% for this footage, and instructed the astronauts to "make movements double-speed for the next minute"... the slowdown should have been to 40%, not 50%... thus the pendulum that they DID show was "too fast"... but the worst part is that it was decreasing in amplitude considerably, a sign of air resistance.
So the MLH theory for the SEQ Tape pendulum is that... they slowed frame rate to about 50%, and told them to move "double-time" for a minute, so they could give the NASA TD's some fodder... but oops, the amplitude reduced showing the air resistance, so this fodder didn't work out as well as they had hoped.
There is nothing non-feasible here about the MLH proposal. But there is potentially a fatal flaw for the TD's because the amplitude is decreasing, showing air resistance.
What you claim and what you prove are two different things. Proof of this live broadcast has been slowed by 50 %.
-
Some bloke left the door open and this gust of wind came in and did things. These do not explain the flag movement. This occurred during the first videoed depressurisation. Then, that same pillock came along and did the very same thing again, equally with no explanation and also during the next depressurisation.
That's a good counter argument -- the unlikeliness of this "mistake" being also timed with the depressurization.
But it STILL offers no viable explanation for what force moved these flags TOWARDS the LM in the manner we see filmed.
It shows how ridiculous your claims is.
-
Your rebuttal here ignores the fact that MLH proclaims they slowed the frame rate to about 50% for this footage, and instructed the astronauts to "make movements double-speed for the next minute"... the slowdown should have been to 40%, not 50%.
Are you saying the film should be slowed to 40% of the original value or the playback speed when put into modern video software should be reduced from 100% playback speed to 60% playback speed?
-
I ask again. Do you agree that the color TV cameras used on Apollo operated at 30 frames per second?
-
It shows how ridiculous your claims is.
To be clear, my CLAIM is simply that these movements currently have no viable explanation within the Lunar context. Period. That's it.
Him pointing out that MLH explanations aren't so hot either... is a good point to make. It is odd that the only "Mistakes made" coincided with the depressurization procedure -- which for this one is undocumented without reason -- they completely cut the journal here, to make it more ambiguous. How unlikely is that? (Attempted Damage control?)
This particular claim is one of my favorites --- "how can Apollo explain these 9 movements?" (there are 9, not 8, as the 6th one has two parts.... moves on screen, then moves MORE on screen 6 seconds later).
-
I ask again. Do you agree that the color TV cameras used on Apollo operated at 30 frames per second?
Sounds like a loaded question. A11 was at 10 FPS. Another (A12?) - 15 FPS. A16/17 were 29.97 FPS, with more scanlines (550?)
It was an interesting setup with the RGB color wheel passing in front, producing some artifacts, such as making the shrapnel of the A15/16/17 launches appear rainbow colored.
From what I can see from alignment of audio-tracks to video footage, of the A16 (which starts from "Ignition" to "Pitchover!", 9 seconds) - the 30 FPS rate of the A16 take-off appears to be accurate better than 10%.
What are you getting at here?
-
How can it be a loaded question? No color TV camera on Apollo 11 operated at 10fps. Who told you that? There were two models of color TV camera: Westinghouse sequential color camera, and on 15,16,17 on the Rover the RCA sequential color camera. Where did you read about 15fps TV camera?
I ask as I'd like to know if you think they operated at a different frame rate to that noted in their specs.
-
Are you saying the film should be slowed to 40% of the original value or the playback speed when put into modern video software should be reduced from 100% playback speed to 60% playback speed?
Are you new to MLH theory? If so, I'll explain a few concepts.
To Simulate Lunar gravity EXACTLY, we only need to slow the frame rate to 40%. (meaning a 60% slowdown, a factor of 2.5x)... 2.5^2= 6.25... which is nearly the ratio of Earth to Moon gravity.
However, the slowdown was almost NEVER 40%... but only for cases where objects were thrown/dropped on purpose... such as the hammer/feather.... and the SEQ tape pendulum (although here it looks like they may have only done 50%, ooops).
The other way to simulate lunar gravity is "wire suspension", to slow their fall, and increase their rise height. The MLH theory posits that it was USUALLY A MIX between the two. Because it's really awkward to truly only be 1/6th your weight.... instead they would split the difference, such as lifting only 50% of your weight, and then slowing the camera to about 60% -- combined -- these two simulate (well enough) lunar gravity.. (some slow motion coupled with some lift)
If you want me to go into more detail, please message me on this forum, or friend request me on FB. You seem like someone with whom I'd like to have more conversation. Not that I'd expect you to agree with my conclusions, but that our conversation would probably be fruitful. You seem smart, courteous, considerate and genuine.
-
I ask as I'd like to know if you think they operated at a different frame rate to that noted in their specs.
Ah, so you are asking about MLH theory in general. This is off-topic, polluting this thread. Would love to discuss it, but this thread is alive again, to discuss the Flag motions specifically.
Start a new thread? Or engage in private chat? Either is fine with me.
-
It is very much in keeping with the topic of this thread given that you have introduced speed variations. What is your intention to keep introducing topics only to deem them off topic later on?
-
What you claim and what you prove are two different things. Proof of this live broadcast has been slowed by 50 %.
I NEVER claimed this as proof. In fact, LO FORCED ME to address this off-topic claim within another thread. So I did as I was MANDATED to do, in hopes of being able to start a new thread someday soon.
As I did was I was mandated, WE discovered that this pendulum using the estimates for length WE came up with, showed a period that was about 10% too fast. (IIRC).. But more interestingly, from the clip you can see the amplitude reducing to about HALF over this minute. To me, this doesn't look good for Apollo... that's all I said. I would NOT include this in my top-list of MLH claims, not by a long-shot. It just turned out to NOT work out well as the TD's had intended.
-
It is very much in keeping with the topic of this thread given that you have introduced speed variations. What is your intention to keep introducing topics only to deem them off topic later on?
The speed variation topic itself was already off-topic -- I didn't raise this topic... someone else did. The "8 flag motions" has NOTHING to do with speed variations.
LO gave direct orders to NOT GO OFF TOPIC - yet everyone else is attempting to do just that.
-
Are you new to MLH theory?
Not at all. 20 years or thereabouts. I just want to nail down what you are proposing so we have a common starting point. Otherwise we will diverge, yes?
To Simulate Lunar gravity EXACTLY, we only need to slow the frame rate to 40%. (meaning a 60% slowdown, a factor of 2.5x)... 2.5^2= 6.25... which is nearly the ratio of Earth to Moon gravity.
OK, I agree to simulate moon's gravity the film must be slowed down according to (1.67/9.81)1/2. So we have to slow the Apollo film from 30 fps to 12.3 fps. Is this the starting point?
-
What you claim and what you prove are two different things. Proof of this live broadcast has been slowed by 50 %.
I NEVER claimed this as proof. In fact, LO FORCED ME to address this off-topic claim within another thread. So I did as I was MANDATED to do, in hopes of being able to start a new thread someday soon.
As I did was I was mandated, WE discovered that this pendulum using the estimates for length WE came up with, showed a period that was about 10% too fast. (IIRC).. But more interestingly, from the clip you can see the amplitude reducing to about HALF over this minute. To me, this doesn't look good for Apollo... that's all I said. I would NOT include this in my top-list of MLH claims, not by a long-shot. It just turned out to NOT work out well as the TD's had intended.
As someone else says, bollocks. This is no proof that this live broadcast has been slowed, remember this in NOT film, but TV and I ask you to prove it has been slowed to 50%. Painting with BS is not a proof. Either prove that the live TV has been slowed by 50% or retract the statement.
-
To be clear, my CLAIM is simply that these movements currently have no viable explanation within the Lunar context. Period. That's it.
Depressurisation of the LM.
There you go, one viable explanation that doesn't require a multi-decade, multi-country, multi-government, conspiracy behind it.
Naturally, as part of your counter, you will need to explain how the flag moved while it was off screen, since that will influence how it moves while on screen. And, of course, you have a detailed explanation that covers why the flag moved if the footage was faked?
-
Depressurisation of the LM.
How would this make the Flag come ON the screen and hold there steadily 4x over 3 a minute period?
What is pushing the flag towards the LM?
-
Depressurisation of the LM.
How would this make the Flag come ON the screen and hold there steadily 4x over 3 a minute period?
What is pushing the flag towards the LM?
How does some pillock leaving the door open work? Amazingly only during depressurisation!
-
How does some pillock leaving the door open work? Amazingly only during depressurisation!
With an atmosphere, there are viable alternatives to cause a draft, even if unlikely.
But without an atmosphere, the viable alternatives seem to be ZERO.
-
How does some pillock leaving the door open work? Amazingly only during depressurisation!
With an atmosphere, there are viable alternatives to cause a draft, even if unlikely.
But without an atmosphere, the viable alternatives seem to be ZERO.
My god this guy talks such bollocks. Even if unlikely? Did anybody catch how appalling his logic is here?
We have two episodes where the flag moves about during an episode of depressurisation. Najak can't explain this gaseous effect on the flag or flagpole, therefore he bleats hoax. He then offers the ludicrous coincidence that suddenly an idiot lets in a gust of wind that occurs only during those episodes and suggests it better explains it without showing how?
-
Did anybody catch how appalling his logic is here?
It's like watching a police interview. The problem with telling a lie is that you have to be consistent, and eventually you can't keep the consistency.
Same with the moon hoax. Different people trying to tell the same story, but there is no internal consistency. Whereas the Apollo record is internally consistent.
I am still waiting on an answer for my last post to this thread, to what is a relatively simple question.
-
How does some pillock leaving the door open work? Amazingly only during depressurisation!
With an atmosphere, there are viable alternatives to cause a draft, even if unlikely.
But without an atmosphere, the viable alternatives seem to be ZERO.
Except there is no atmosphere to speak of on the Moon since the LM was not possibly on Earth.
-
OK, I agree to simulate moon's gravity the film must be slowed down according to (1.67/9.81)1/2. So we have to slow the Apollo film from 30 fps to 12.3 fps. Is this the starting point?
Why not create a new thread for this, as it has nothing to do with flag motions?
The MLH theory I've heard involves 144 FPS source frame rate, and an Optical printer. I believe the technique is described by an anonymous contributor, in a production called "Smoke & Mirrors". Have you seen it?
This specific aspect of MLH is not one I've studied in detail. If you think it's something to debunk, start a thread, and you can debunk it there.
-
What you claim and what you prove are two different things. Proof of this live broadcast has been slowed by 50 %.
I NEVER claimed this as proof. In fact, LO FORCED ME to address this off-topic claim within another thread. So I did as I was MANDATED to do, in hopes of being able to start a new thread someday soon.
As I did was I was mandated, WE discovered that this pendulum using the estimates for length WE came up with, showed a period that was about 10% too fast. (IIRC).. But more interestingly, from the clip you can see the amplitude reducing to about HALF over this minute. To me, this doesn't look good for Apollo... that's all I said. I would NOT include this in my top-list of MLH claims, not by a long-shot. It just turned out to NOT work out well as the TD's had intended.
Why is it that no one else sees a decrease in amplitude except you? The tape keeps oscillating for the entire 86 seconds until in intersect with anothe piece of something in the descent stage and STOPS.
-
OK, I agree to simulate moon's gravity the film must be slowed down according to (1.67/9.81)1/2. So we have to slow the Apollo film from 30 fps to 12.3 fps. Is this the starting point?
Why not create a new thread for this, as it has nothing to do with flag motions?
You were discussing film slow down rates in this very thread. I quoted you in the question.
But it is OK, I've found the answer to my question from another one of your posts. My question wasn't really about frame rates and how films are slowed, but rather the history of MLH theory and the internal inconsistencies and its shifting goal posts. It is quite funny that you asked me if I was new to MLH theory. On the contrary.
Do you agree that MLH theory must have a consistent set of premises from the start if it is to be a viable theory?
-
Depressurisation of the LM.
How would this make the Flag come ON the screen and hold there steadily 4x over 3 a minute period?
What is pushing the flag towards the LM?
Multiple events, as the LM Wasn't depressurised in a single step (as confirmed by the science packages and the surface record/procedures).
What is your reason for the flag movement?
-
Why is it that no one else sees a decrease in amplitude except you? The tape keeps oscillating for the entire 86 seconds until in intersect with anothe piece of something in the descent stage and STOPS.
Here's the video, showing end of Period 2 vs 18. "Half" is a significant overstatement. Thanks for challenging it.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AEVLayLGbfEPmjx7AVy67R1fmq6oV5WK/view?usp=drive_link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AEVLayLGbfEPmjx7AVy67R1fmq6oV5WK/view?usp=drive_link)
-
Do you agree that MLH theory must have a consistent set of premises from the start if it is to be a viable theory?
"From the start" - if you are talking "history/calendar start" - no. MLH theory matures, as it is corrected, or new ideas emerge that make more sense.
With MLH we are dealing with "deliberate secrets/tricks - unrevealed" - like trying to guess how the magician did his trick... it might take you a few rounds of guessing... but in the end, even if you don't guess it "correctly", if "it's a trick, it's a trick" - either way.
So the most viable approach we all can take here is to address the "impossibilities within the context of normalcy" where in this context there are no devious/expert/special humans with a high budget trying to fool you. It makes the process-of-elimination FEASIBLE. The 8 flag motions is a perfect example of a VERY SIMPLE LUNAR CONTEXT, where there is no force coming TOWARDS the LM.
-
1. Multiple events, as the LM Wasn't depressurised in a single step (as confirmed by the science packages and the surface record/procedures).
2. What is your reason for the flag movement?
1. The issue is WHAT PUSHED IT TOWARDS THE LM?? (slowly, and held it there for 5-15 seconds at a time).. In the 3rd motion was eve a DUAL-motion -- it first was pushed on a small amount for 5 seconds, then pushed on MORE for another 6 seconds... This isn't how a pendulum works, or 180 deg rotations... it requires a steady force, followed by ANOTHER larger steady force.
2. Your guess is as good as mine. With an atmosphere involved, there are many options. If one or more of the guys on set weren't fully on board with this hoax, maybe they executed a mistake on purpose. Here we've got an atmosphere and human trickery (or whistleblowing motives) potentially involved. While for the Simple Lunar Context - we have nothing to viably explain this.
-
You should watch all the footages of the various flags being setup, they move in some, what would look like to us, strange ways. But then, our whole perception of how a flag moves is based on a freely moving flag in an atmosphere, which Apollo was not.
So you can claim that history is fake, crow that no one can present an appropriate (to you) answer for the movements, despite the main, plausible answer being provided already, but you don't need to provide any details on what was actually happening? So this whole thread is actually pointless, seeing as how you want to be the sole arbiter of what is 'possible' and what is not, and yet, repeatedly, in this thread and others, new information is constantly provided to you, that you were not aware of, and you still think you are a credible source to decide on what was possible?
-
... you want to be the sole arbiter of what is 'possible'
I'm only saying that TD's have not been able to produce a viable explanation for what moved the Flag TOWARDS THE LM, in the manner that we see on film. I didn't say it's "impossible" with certainty, but it sure seems that way, doesn't it? Such a SIMPLE CONTEXT, but with no viable explanations for this motion.
What explanation would you all like for me to document as the TD's best attempt? Give me your best.
Then you decide for yourself if this holds ANY weight at all. And I'll do the same. Free thought is a good thing, right?
-
Why is it that no one else sees a decrease in amplitude except you? The tape keeps oscillating for the entire 86 seconds until in intersect with anothe piece of something in the descent stage and STOPS.
Here's the video, showing end of Period 2 vs 18. "Half" is a significant overstatement. Thanks for challenging it.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AEVLayLGbfEPmjx7AVy67R1fmq6oV5WK/view?usp=drive_link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AEVLayLGbfEPmjx7AVy67R1fmq6oV5WK/view?usp=drive_link)
This video has nothing to do with the tape pendulum during A14. Just like the rest of your poorly researched "evidence" This sounds like a landing sequence. You should watch your fingers on the keyboard more carefully--"Thanks for challenging it"
Now I challenge you to watch the entire 86 seconds before telling me stupid remarks instead of two periods you will see that the tape does not stop until after the 18 periods when it interacts with something else and then it stops, does decrease in amplitude.
-
OK, I agree to simulate moon's gravity the film must be slowed down according to (1.67/9.81)1/2. So we have to slow the Apollo film from 30 fps to 12.3 fps. Is this the starting point?
Why not create a new thread for this, as it has nothing to do with flag motions?
The MLH theory I've heard involves 144 FPS source frame rate, and an Optical printer. I believe the technique is described by an anonymous contributor, in a production called "Smoke & Mirrors". Have you seen it?
This specific aspect of MLH is not one I've studied in detail. If you think it's something to debunk, start a thread, and you can debunk it there.
Now ex[plain how this is done in real time. THIS IS NOT A FILM it is real-time TV.
-
This video has nothing to do with the tape pendulum during A14.
This video shows a snapshot of the end-point of the pendulum after period #2, and #18. You can see that the end-angle is NOT THE SAME. Period 18 has decreased significantly. My claim of it being "HALF" was an overstatement, as was your statement of "NO CHANGE"... there's a measurable change here.
-
This video has nothing to do with the tape pendulum during A14.
This video shows a snapshot of the end-point of the pendulum after period #2, and #18. You can see that the end-angle is NOT THE SAME. Period 18 has decreased significantly. My claim of it being "HALF" was an overstatement, as was your statement of "NO CHANGE"... there's a measurable change here.
The video is of a landing, why don'y you watch the link you provided?
-
The video is of a landing, why don'y you watch the link you provided?
Hmm, for me it shows the 2-frame pendulum. Trying again here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AEVLayLGbfEPmjx7AVy67R1fmq6oV5WK/view?usp=drive_link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AEVLayLGbfEPmjx7AVy67R1fmq6oV5WK/view?usp=drive_link)
-
The video is of a landing, why don'y you watch the link you provided?
Hmm, for me it shows the 2-frame pendulum. Trying again here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AEVLayLGbfEPmjx7AVy67R1fmq6oV5WK/view?usp=drive_link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AEVLayLGbfEPmjx7AVy67R1fmq6oV5WK/view?usp=drive_link)
Again the audio is not of the tape, the fuzziness of the video could be described by any number of Moon actions. Did you watch the entire sequence of the tape oscillations? That is much more important than your fuzzy video .
-
Again the audio is not of the tape, the fuzziness of the video could be described by any number of Moon actions. Did you watch the entire sequence of the tape oscillations? That is much more important than your fuzzy video .
This is a close-up of the tape itself.. I put two red dots, to show the middle and end of it... to highlight the decreased angle. You can do the same... capture two images of the video... then overlay end of Period 2 and 18 -- you should see the same thing. I used KRITA, it's free, but discarded my project, only saved this video capture.
-
Do you agree that MLH theory must have a consistent set of premises from the start if it is to be a viable theory?
"From the start" - if you are talking "history/calendar start" - no. MLH theory matures, as it is corrected, or new ideas emerge that make more sense.
With MLH we are dealing with "deliberate secrets/tricks - unrevealed" - like trying to guess how the magician did his trick... it might take you a few rounds of guessing... but in the end, even if you don't guess it "correctly", if "it's a trick, it's a trick" - either way.
That's not even being close to being a theory then is it? A theory is not built on a few rounds of guesses.
But it's worse than that. Bill Kaysing said the film speed was reduced to 50% original speed, Ralph Rene and then Jarrah White propagated the 50% as gospel. People like myself pointed out that objects need reduction to 41% if lunar gravity is to be simulated. Despite this Jarrah and his band of stalwarts stuck with the 50%. So it was this side of the fence that arrived with the 41% value, not the hoax believers in their round of guessing as 'new ideas came along.'
It gets better: the about 60% figure for rising astronauts does not come from the hoax believers either. It arises because Jarrah did not understand how to double film speed in video software. So in haste, and to save face, Jarrah decided to repeat his film speed demo. Using the same circular logic he showed 1 = 1 and declared the film speed correction to be 67%. Again, not a guess, not because a new idea emerged, not because it refined the theory in light of new evidence. No, it was due to Jarrah making a foolish mistake to discredit someone, only to see his rebuttal backfire; and when the penny dropped he began handwaving and behaved like a petulant child.
You might find these Jarrah videos worth watching to see the debacle unfold.
So, this doesn't really fit well with your idea of the 'moon hoax maturing as new ideas become available after a few rounds of guessing' does it?' There's no theory, there is only blind conjecture, handwaving and shifting the goalposts while all the time doubling down when one has been found out.
-
Again the audio is not of the tape, the fuzziness of the video could be described by any number of Moon actions. Did you watch the entire sequence of the tape oscillations? That is much more important than your fuzzy video .
This is a close-up of the tape itself.. I put two red dots, to show the middle and end of it... to highlight the decreased angle. You can do the same... capture two images of the video... then overlay end of Period 2 and 18 -- you should see the same thing. I used KRITA, it's free, but discarded my project, only saved this video capture.
So you say but the fuzziness of the video accompanied with a landing audio is most confusing and does not prove anything, except what you say it proves. This is not evidence it is handwaving accompanied with "trust me on this"
Moving on, have you watched the tape for the full 86 seconds? Yes or No. If No why not?
-
najak, you posted this in a different thread.
Again, it's clear you don't really understand, so I'll try to make it more clear. Gish Gallop is when you attempt to support a claim with an overwhelming amount of arguments, regardless of whether those arguments are strong, or even correct.
You wrote: "STRONG":
You can argue with the dictionary and Wikipedia on this one.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/gish-gallop (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/gish-gallop)
"a style of arguing in which someone tries to win a debate (= a political, etc. discussion) by using so many different arguments so quickly that their opponent cannot answer them, although these arguments may not be true, correct, or reasonable"
==
All have been discussed at length -- so "not too fast". And I'm making what I believed were GOOD/TRUE arguments.
I'm NOT trying to win the MLH debate here. I'm trying to figure out which claims of MLH are solid, ambiguous, skewed, overstated, or entirely false.
Gish Gallop RELIES upon not providing time for the arguments to be scrutinized/cross-examined... That's never been my goal for ANY of these.
Sometimes a thousand smaller but true/compelling details CAN make a case.
I'm not deleting any of the wall of text that you love so much. You talk out of both sides of your mouth, and they say different things. I presented you with a compelling video that proves that the A14 LM is not on Earth, so the first thin you do is to indicate that "MLH claim the video has been increased by 50%, or words to that effect", instead of saying it might be true, thus destroying your whole thesis. But then you double down and indicate that the tape decreases in amplitude by more than 50% in the second cycle attaching a fuzzy video that can prove nothing. After some disagreement on what the video is in your words marking the end of the tape, but without any clear image it could really be anything, especially when accompanied by a landing sequence of one of the missions, I ask you to watch the full 86 seconds of the pendulum movement. To which you have not answered whether you watched it or not. It still does not appear to me that you act in good faith in dealing with discussions that oppose your beliefs. You don't have the courage to say "I am wrong" without any stipulations attached. Just "I am wrong".
In a case where an institution is lying, the truth can only be revealed through smaller mistakes/mess-ups (assuming they did a reasonable job of constructing their lie). It's the ONLY VIABLE METHOD to discover the Lie.
There were a lot of times where NASA/Astronauts messed up, but none of those mess-ups are not through any conspiracy, they just made a mistake and they ultimately take the blame, not shirk away from the mess-up. The MLH jumps on these as proof of a conspiracy without looking at the whole picture the evidence of what made up the incident. You come onto the stage "claiming" you use physics to prove the incidents and that NASA broke physics. The physics that you understand, but you are short on physics understanding the real world. And still you don't admit you were wrong, except with the following stipulations---.
If there is No Lie with Apollo - then that should become obvious, even after discussing the various other points I'd like to bring up. And no seemingly better place than ApolloHoax.net.
It is obvious that there is no lie concerning Apollo, just inaccurate observation/computation, poor image analysis, and definitely poor physics application.
Your recent life is wasted trying to prove something that is not true and you can't have the courage/integrity to admit failure and move onto something that will benefit you.
-
Moving on, have you watched the tape for the full 86 seconds? Yes or No. If No why not?
Yes, of course. And captured two frames with Windows "Snippet" then pasted into 2 layers for KRITA and created the video. It's a close-up of the two frames aligned - and tape for Period 18 is at a significantly lower angle than it was for Period 2. Do you know how to do this type of analysis yourself? It was very easy, so I didn't save-my-work, except the outputted video.
This is all off-topic for this thread. If you want to discuss more, let's create a thread dedicated to the SEQ Tape Pendulum. Otherwise, I'm not using this as any form of claim/evidence for MLH. It's too weak.
-
... just inaccurate observation/computation, poor image analysis, and definitely poor physics application.
Please relate your accusations specifically to the 8-flag-motions - the topic of this thread.
-
Moving on, have you watched the tape for the full 86 seconds? Yes or No. If No why not?
Yes, of course. And captured two frames with Windows "Snippet" then pasted into 2 layers for KRITA and created the video. It's a close-up of the two frames aligned - and tape for Period 18 is at a significantly lower angle than it was for Period 2. Do you know how to do this type of analysis yourself? It was very easy, so I didn't save-my-work, except the outputted video.
This is all off-topic for this thread. If you want to discuss more, let's create a thread dedicated to the SEQ Tape Pendulum. Otherwise, I'm not using this as any form of claim/evidence for MLH. It's too weak.
The tape was moving at the same amplitude at 18 as it was in 1, therefore there is no amplitude decrease over time. This means of course tat there is no reduction due to any atmosphere, and with the time calculates to be not on Earth and is certainly on topic for this thread. Defeats one of your pet and incorrect theses that wind blew the flag back. And as I indicated you have no courage to admit where you are incorrect. I asked a question early on in this current piece, how did they reduce a live TV broadcast. No response, that figures. Early in this thread you indicated that the astronauts moved really fast for short durations. Which is it really fast or really slow? The answer is whatever narrative that you piece together at the time to "prove" your thesis. You can't even say the same thing all the time, because you are making this stuff up instead of observing facts. You aren't using it because it defeats your story.
-
... just inaccurate observation/computation, poor image analysis, and definitely poor physics application.
Please relate your accusations specifically to the 8-flag-motions - the topic of this thread.
I believe they have been noted over and over and you just hand wave then away because it doesn't fit your ideas. Depressurization of the ascent module.
-
The tape was moving at the same amplitude at 18 as it was in 1.
On what basis do you make this claim?
-
... just inaccurate observation/computation, poor image analysis, and definitely poor physics application.
I believe they have been noted over and over and you just hand wave then away because it doesn't fit your ideas. Depressurization of the ascent module.
Please be more specific. For the 8-flag motions - how have I exhibited these flaws specifically?
-
... just inaccurate observation/computation, poor image analysis, and definitely poor physics application.
I believe they have been noted over and over and you just hand wave then away because it doesn't fit your ideas. Depressurization of the ascent module.
Please be more specific. For the 8-flag motions - how have I exhibited these flaws specifically?
You indicated that the only possible answer was someone left the door open. Since the LM is not on Earth, there is no door to leave open ans almost zero atmosphere.
-
Moving on, have you watched the tape for the full 86 seconds? Yes or No. If No why not?
Yes, of course. And captured two frames with Windows "Snippet" then pasted into 2 layers for KRITA and created the video. It's a close-up of the two frames aligned - and tape for Period 18 is at a significantly lower angle than it was for Period 2. Do you know how to do this type of analysis yourself? It was very easy, so I didn't save-my-work, except the outputted video.
This is all off-topic for this thread. If you want to discuss more, let's create a thread dedicated to the SEQ Tape Pendulum. Otherwise, I'm not using this as any form of claim/evidence for MLH. It's too weak.
The tape was moving at the same amplitude at 18 as it was in 1, therefore there is no amplitude decrease over time. This means of course tat there is no reduction due to any atmosphere, and with the time calculates to be not on Earth and is certainly on topic for this thread. Defeats one of your pet and incorrect theses that wind blew the flag back. And as I indicated you have no courage to admit where you are incorrect. I asked a question early on in this current piece, how did they reduce a live TV broadcast. No response, that figures. Early in this thread you indicated that the astronauts moved really fast for short durations. Which is it really fast or really slow? The answer is whatever narrative that you piece together at the time to "prove" your thesis. You can't even say the same thing all the time, because you are making this stuff up instead of observing facts. You aren't using it because it defeats your story.
At timestamp 3.43 proof, not that any were needed, that this cannot have been filmed on Earth. I put this up earlier in the thread and am 100% sure he hasn't watched this version:
The small loss of periods noted here:
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a14/a14pendulum.html
-
Please be more specific. For the 8-flag motions - how have I exhibited these flaws specifically?
You indicated that the only possible answer was someone left the door open. Since the LM is not on Earth, there is no door to leave open ans almost zero atmosphere.
That was not my claim. I was being coerced into some guesses, not claims. Just guesses, in the context of MLH.
My Claim is simply this: "The 5 flag motions towards the LM do not currently have a viable explanation within the Lunar context".
It's a SIMPLE LUNAR CONTEXT -- with no way to explain it that we know of.
Where is the fault in this claim?
-
At timestamp 3.43 proof, not that any were needed, that this cannot have been filmed on Earth. I put this up earlier in the thread and am 100% sure he hasn't watched this version:
The small loss of periods noted here:
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a14/a14pendulum.html
Stay up with us, this was already addressed. He chose to put a small weight.... lighter weight will dissipate faster. For the Apollo example, the end weight could have been a few pounds of lead. The guy here is either not smart, or not genuine in his test. If he's a TD, with truth on his side -- why does he see the need to be deceptive, by using a light weight when he knows that if it were being faked, they'd use something heavier?
Are you going to make a proposal related to this thread? Give me an intelligent vialbe explanation for the 5 movements TOWARDS the LM?
-
My Claim is simply this: "The 5 flag motions towards the LM do not currently have a viable explanation within the Lunar context".
It's a SIMPLE LUNAR CONTEXT -- with no way to explain it that we know of.
Where is the fault in this claim?
That you fail to draw any distinction between 'no way we know of' and 'no way I will accept'. They're not the same.
-
My Claim is simply this: "The 5 flag motions towards the LM do not currently have a viable explanation within the Lunar context".
It's a SIMPLE LUNAR CONTEXT -- with no way to explain it that we know of.
Where is the fault in this claim?
The fault is that you haven't considered the possibility that your interpretation of the matter is wrong.
You're like people who see an object in the sky that they can't explain, jump to the conclusion that it's aliens, and can't be convinced otherwise even when a more plausible explanation is provided. You see a flag moving on the Moon and immediately jump to the conclusion that the Apollo landings were faked.
The others have provided you with a very plausible explanation for the flag movements. But even if they are wrong (and I don't believe they are) that doesn't automatically validate your belief that the landings were faked.
But your arrogance does not allow you to even consider the possibility that your interpretation is wrong.
-
Moving on, have you watched the tape for the full 86 seconds? Yes or No. If No why not?
Yes, of course. And captured two frames with Windows "Snippet" then pasted into 2 layers for KRITA and created the video. It's a close-up of the two frames aligned - and tape for Period 18 is at a significantly lower angle than it was for Period 2. Do you know how to do this type of analysis yourself? It was very easy, so I didn't save-my-work, except the outputted video.
This is all off-topic for this thread. If you want to discuss more, let's create a thread dedicated to the SEQ Tape Pendulum. Otherwise, I'm not using this as any form of claim/evidence for MLH. It's too weak.
The tape was moving at the same amplitude at 18 as it was in 1, therefore there is no amplitude decrease over time. This means of course tat there is no reduction due to any atmosphere, and with the time calculates to be not on Earth and is certainly on topic for this thread. Defeats one of your pet and incorrect theses that wind blew the flag back. And as I indicated you have no courage to admit where you are incorrect. I asked a question early on in this current piece, how did they reduce a live TV broadcast. No response, that figures. Early in this thread you indicated that the astronauts moved really fast for short durations. Which is it really fast or really slow? The answer is whatever narrative that you piece together at the time to "prove" your thesis. You can't even say the same thing all the time, because you are making this stuff up instead of observing facts. You aren't using it because it defeats your story.
At timestamp 3.43 proof, not that any were needed, that this cannot have been filmed on Earth. I put this up earlier in the thread and am 100% sure he hasn't watched this version:
The small loss of periods noted here:
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a14/a14pendulum.html
I never had seen this in ALSJ, but thanks. Any good comment other than the amplitude drops by at least 50% during cycle 2, najak? These two didn't see your point and neither do I. The pendulum was an the Moon attached to A14 Descent module. No open doors, nobody accidentally on or purpose moving the flag to give away the secret. Give up your weak comments on this.
Notice how they talk about the TV camera, that is because it was live, plus the transmission time.
-
Please be more specific. For the 8-flag motions - how have I exhibited these flaws specifically?
You indicated that the only possible answer was someone left the door open. Since the LM is not on Earth, there is no door to leave open ans almost zero atmosphere.
That was not my claim. I was being coerced into some guesses, not claims. Just guesses, in the context of MLH.
My Claim is simply this: "The 5 flag motions towards the LM do not currently have a viable explanation within the Lunar context".
It's a SIMPLE LUNAR CONTEXT -- with no way to explain it that we know of.
Where is the fault in this claim?
What you really mean is no way I can envision. But you haven't fully looked into degassing of the LM. You say you have but how do you know what the time stamp on the video has been synched with Mission Elapsed Time? You really need to give up on this one and just say, "I'm wrong."
-
Stay up with us, this was already addressed. He chose to put a small weight.... lighter weight will dissipate faster. For the Apollo example, the end weight could have been a few pounds of lead.
Coulda-would-shoulda. Clearly there is no weight at the end of the tape on the lunar surface. Your deception is very obvious here.
The guy here is either not smart, or not genuine in his test.
Bollocks - he's actually skewed the results in favour of the HB claim.
Are you going to make a proposal related to this thread? Give me an intelligent vialbe explanation for the 5 movements TOWARDS the LM?
This IS related to the thread. You call into question Apollo 14 footage by observations made with extreme bias / blinkers and the rebuttal shows how the footage was not faked.
-
AS requested. I have no interest in defending any speculation here:
Cabin depressurisation.
1. Venting strikes the pole, the pole support and/or the flag.
2. Unpredictable results based on random vacuum gas motion.
3. Maybe random static attraction with the gas venting against the nylon flag - not even looked into it.
4. The venting could be partially striking the surface around about where the flagpole is - static attraction with the oxygen / nylon.
Pure speculation.
Some "whistleblowing-hero" opening the door in all instances (coincidences in stupid conspiracy theories) and still providing no coherent explanation, doesn't quite work.
Pure bollocks.
-
1. The fault is that you haven't considered the possibility that your interpretation of the matter is wrong.
2. But your arrogance does not allow you to even consider the possibility that your interpretation is wrong.
1. "The matter" is simply this -- a flag in a vacuum moves TOWARDS the LM gently and is held there for 5-15 seconds at a time. NOBODY can come up with a viable scientific explanation for this. I'm not even going to say "THEY NEVER WILL" or even that "IT'S IMPOSSIBLE". Simply that they haven't yet. THIS IS TRUE. Plain and simple. It's undeniable.
Does this mean there's not some UNEXPLAINED CAUSE - Sure -- but at this point, NOBODY KNOWS what this something is.
2. My "arrogance" has submitted to new knowledge time and again. I conceded the Lunar Launches thread entirely, and also conceded that "It's reasonable that other people see something different than me for the sand falling - because it's ambiguous" (while others far more arrogant cannot seem to figure this out).
You mistake my "strong stick man" approach to "arrogance".. And simply telling people about my ACTUAL testing scores as arrogance -- this is just factual. I do VERY WELL academically. Is it arrogant for a strong man to say "I can bench 500 lbs?" - it's just fact. I'm sorry I ever shared this truth -- seems to make everyone so mad.
-
1. The fault is that you haven't considered the possibility that your interpretation of the matter is wrong.
2. But your arrogance does not allow you to even consider the possibility that your interpretation is wrong.
1. "The matter" is simply this -- a flag in a vacuum moves TOWARDS the LM gently and is held there for 5-15 seconds at a time. NOBODY can come up with a viable scientific explanation for this. I'm not even going to say "THEY NEVER WILL" or even that "IT'S IMPOSSIBLE". Simply that they haven't yet. THIS IS TRUE. Plain and simple. It's undeniable.
Does this mean there's not some UNEXPLAINED CAUSE - Sure -- but at this point, NOBODY KNOWS what this something is.
IT IS THE AIR FROM A DEPRESSURIZING LM. IT IS NOT UNEXPLAINED. THE MOTION NOT CONFORMING TO YOUR EXPECTATIONS DOES NOT MEAN PHYSICS IS BROKEN OR THERE IS NO EXPLANATION. IT MEANS YOUR EXPECTATIONS ARE WRONG.
-
IT IS THE AIR FROM A DEPRESSURIZING LM. IT IS NOT UNEXPLAINED. THE MOTION NOT CONFORMING TO YOUR EXPECTATIONS DOES NOT MEAN PHYSICS IS BROKEN OR THERE IS NO EXPLANATION. IT MEANS YOUR EXPECTATIONS ARE WRONG.
OK - I'll change my claim to:
For the A14 9 flag motions, 5 of which are towards the LM, the best explanation offered by TDs is that it's caused by the LM Depressurization, but currently without a viable explanation for how the physics of this context could induce such movements.
Is this not accurate?
-
IT IS THE AIR FROM A DEPRESSURIZING LM. IT IS NOT UNEXPLAINED. THE MOTION NOT CONFORMING TO YOUR EXPECTATIONS DOES NOT MEAN PHYSICS IS BROKEN OR THERE IS NO EXPLANATION. IT MEANS YOUR EXPECTATIONS ARE WRONG.
OK - I'll change my claim to:
For the A14 9 flag motions, 5 of which are towards the LM, the best explanation offered by TDs is that it's caused by the LM Depressurization, but currently without a viable explanation for how the physics of this context could induce such movements.
Is this not accurate?
No, it is not accurate.
-
IT IS THE AIR FROM A DEPRESSURIZING LM. IT IS NOT UNEXPLAINED. THE MOTION NOT CONFORMING TO YOUR EXPECTATIONS DOES NOT MEAN PHYSICS IS BROKEN OR THERE IS NO EXPLANATION. IT MEANS YOUR EXPECTATIONS ARE WRONG.
OK - I'll change my claim to:
For the A14 9 flag motions, 5 of which are towards the LM, the best explanation offered by TDs is that it's caused by the LM Depressurization, but currently without a viable explanation for how the physics of this context could induce such movements.
Is this not accurate?
No, it is not accurate.
Agreed
-
For the A14 9 flag motions, 5 of which are towards the LM, the best explanation offered by TDs is that it's caused by the LM Depressurization, but currently without a viable explanation for how the physics of this context could induce such movements.
Please then offer the viable explanation using physics/science, other than "it must have been Depressurization SOMEHOW", else my conclusion remains accurate.
Otherwise this thread is done. I've documented/acknowledged your counter-claim, in full.
-
For the A14 9 flag motions, 5 of which are towards the LM, the best explanation offered by TDs is that it's caused by the LM Depressurization, but currently without a viable explanation for how the physics of this context could induce such movements.
Please then offer the viable explanation using physics/science, other than "it must have been Depressurization SOMEHOW", else my conclusion remains accurate.
Otherwise this thread is done. I've documented/acknowledged your counter-claim, in full.
What part of "say your goodbyes because I'm done with you" didn't you understand?
-
Please then offer the viable explanation using physics/science.
You first!
Otherwise this thread is done. I've documented/acknowledged your counter-claim, in full.
Nobody cares what you have "documented". There is still counter evidence.
Stay up with us, this was already addressed. He chose to put a small weight.... lighter weight will dissipate faster. For the Apollo example, the end weight could have been a few pounds of lead.
Coulda-would-shoulda. Clearly there is no weight at the end of the tape on the lunar surface. Your deception is very obvious here.
The guy here is either not smart, or not genuine in his test.
Bollocks - he's actually skewed the results in favour of the HB claim.
Are you going to make a proposal related to this thread? Give me an intelligent vialbe explanation for the 5 movements TOWARDS the LM?
This IS related to the thread. You call into question Apollo 14 footage by observations made with extreme bias / blinkers and the rebuttal shows how the footage was not faked.
May we have a viable alternative that works rather than the invisible-huge-weight? Everything about the SEQ suggests it is on the Moon and nothing suggest it is on Earth. Your augmented shite about instructing the astronauts to move around quicker during this and the unsupported speeded up footage are noted.
-
What part of "say your goodbyes because I'm done with you" didn't you understand?
I have more to be discussed -- and have completed more than twice-over the threads already opened.
You banning me for not-agreeing is like Salem. If that's who you want to be -- then that's who you are.
If no one wants to discuss other point, they'll just not respond. No one is forcing their response, nor forcing you to read any of this.
-
May we have a viable alternative that works rather than the invisible-huge-weight? Everything about the SEQ suggests it is on the Moon and nothing suggest it is on Earth. Your augmented shite about instructing the astronauts to move around quicker during this and the unsupported speeded up footage are noted.
Small 2-lb lead weigh is my best explanation currently and I'm satisfied with that, and instructing them to move faster is also satisfactory to me. Note away. So this discussion has ended, with nothing new to be added. If an audience doesn't like what I'm proposing -- this works well for you.
-
Please then offer the viable explanation using physics/science, other than "it must have been Depressurization SOMEHOW", else my conclusion remains accurate.
The SOMEHOW is your addition. Don't insert this embellishment to imply that others are handwaving. You are putting words into the mouths of others to detract from being given a viable explanation and not accepting it. Depressurisations that are consistent with the record.
But let us examine your burden of proof further in context of your demands. Ralph Rene arrived at moving flags because someone opened the stage door. Just what sort of wind must have blown through the door across a massive stage to cause the flag to flutter? Please answer this point?
The idea of fluttering flags (in reality, slight movements) originally came from Ralph Rene, you know: the one that disproved Newton, Einstein and Archimedes, and proposed an electric universe because he made two connections on a gold electroscope and earthed one of the gold leaves. The original theory was based on a stage that was kept secret, with a film crew that didn't whistle blow and a massive gust of wind. You accept the words of someone who simply said the flags waved because of a gust of wind, but demand further proof when a perfectly cogent reason has been given? You want others to provide scientific proof over the word of a man who made up a story, a man who didn't grasp basic physics?
-
What part of "say your goodbyes because I'm done with you" didn't you understand?
I have more to be discussed -- and have completed more than twice-over the threads already opened.
You banning me for not-agreeing is like Salem. If that's who you want to be -- then that's who you are.
If no one wants to discuss other point, they'll just not respond. No one is forcing their response, nor forcing you to read any of this.
The phenomenon has been discussed ad infinitum. The vehicle is on the Moon, and something moved the flag towards the LM. Now it can't be your favorite somebody left the door open on purpose or by accident since there is no door. So, we're left outgassing did the movement as the most likely. Now whether you explain that or not doesn't make it correct, but it the only plausible explanation. Your thesis in invalid.
-
May we have a viable alternative that works rather than the invisible-huge-weight? Everything about the SEQ suggests it is on the Moon and nothing suggest it is on Earth. Your augmented shite about instructing the astronauts to move around quicker during this and the unsupported speeded up footage are noted.
Small 2-lb lead weigh is my best explanation currently and I'm satisfied with that, and instructing them to move faster is also satisfactory to me. Note away. So this discussion has ended, with nothing new to be added. If an audience doesn't like what I'm proposing -- this works well for you.
Now you come up with a "Small 2-lb lead weigh", but where is the weight? In a near zero atmospheric condition the tape does not NEED anything to perpetuate the motion. It would have continued for a very long time had it not encountered some other piece of the LM and then it stopped. Just because you can't envision something doesn't invalidate, get over yourself. You are not the smartest person on this thread or forum. Just have some integrity and say I don't understand it without any stipulations added.
-
Further to my last post, as I am busy at the moment. I can't hold a candle to people here, their experience, their erudition and their enthusiasm for Apollo. But I will tell you this, I keep the receipts and don't bemoan those who don't reply to my questions. That's LO's job to moderate. But by quietly poking about, asking questions I've opened you up with all the skill of a QC. I blindsided you and hung you by your own petard.
I asked you a question about film rates and in your arrogance you asked me if I was new to the moon hoax. You then schooled me about the theory, giving me several film rate changes and the reason for each. I explained to you that I was familiar, and your schooling was internally inconsistent. I gave you evidence that prominent theorists had moved the goal posts regarding film speed because they had been caught out, and used the rebuttal to double down on their own mistake. So, what sort of theory uses the rebuttal of their critics to make the same circular argument, doubles down on their own mistake; but then demands the most rigorous proofs of their challengers? I am waiting for an answer to this question, and have been for several days.
Oh, before I go. Something else has been bothering me...
-
What part of "say your goodbyes because I'm done with you" didn't you understand?
I have more to be discussed -- and have completed more than twice-over the threads already opened.
You banning me for not-agreeing is like Salem. If that's who you want to be -- then that's who you are.
If no one wants to discuss other point, they'll just not respond. No one is forcing their response, nor forcing you to read any of this.
I'm not banning you for not agreeing. I'm not banning you because you believe the moon landings were faked. I'm banning you because you repeated dismiss every explanation you are given without any form of counter argument. It's always just "that's not viable". I'm banning you because you're arrogant. I have no patience for people like you.
If you can't respect the time that other people are putting into their research and explanations then you're just trolling.
-
May we have a viable alternative that works rather than the invisible-huge-weight? Everything about the SEQ suggests it is on the Moon and nothing suggest it is on Earth. Your augmented shite about instructing the astronauts to move around quicker during this and the unsupported speeded up footage are noted.
Small 2-lb lead weigh is my best explanation currently and I'm satisfied with that, and instructing them to move faster is also satisfactory to me. Note away. So this discussion has ended, with nothing new to be added. If an audience doesn't like what I'm proposing -- this works well for you.
No. That is most certainly not your best explanation. It is the one that seeks to deny and creates the absurd scenario to do so.
There are so very many of these episodes that were filmed as part of the record. It beggars belief that you think the effort and exposure danger in doing this was ignored in all those cases. This wasn't even an official experiment. Somebody noticed it a few years back and di the analysis. Where is your logic here?
You are happy in conceding things that have no 100% irrefutable proof of lunar landing but in every case are "finding" explanations at all costs for items that do prove they are on the Moon. That's just not scientific at all.
-
You banning me for not-agreeing is like Salem. If that's who you want to be -- then that's who you are.
It just doesn't go in, does it? The reasons for your banning have been explained over and over and over again in very simple terms, as well as ways you can avoid it and keep on having the conversations you claim to want. Instead you double down on your arrogance and insist you can just say 'that's not viable' as if your opinion on what is viable carries any weight at all. You have dismissed the efforts of others to show you the flaws in your reasoning and expand your understanding. You have tried to skirt the restriction on opening other threads by asking others to start them for you. You are not being banned because you believe Apollo was faked, you are being banned because you cannot abide by the rules of reasonable discussion and are consistently rude about it.
Once again, I will say in the vain hope it penetrates, you are NOT NEW OR ORIGINAL here. You exhibit arguments and attitudes we have seen many many times over the last 20+ years. You're not the fresh set of eyes uncovering a big lie, as much as that might appeal to your ego. You're just another in a long line of people with the same gaps in their knowledge and the same Dunning-Kruger issue reacting poorly to a dose of reality. You won't be missed, and almost certainly we'll have someone else just like you along before too long.
-
I had been waiting for days to insist he answered my question about the way in which theorists advanced the theory by using rebuttals, and why in this case should the the hoax theory stand up to the scrutiny he demands of others. Days I tell you, days LO, and you ban him. ;)
It was the right thing to do, and a case in point was the top heavy LM question. It took me 30 minutes of research to understand the basic principles of LM stability. He was pointed in the right direction to find the answers himself. He was allowed 1000+ posts to posit his ideas, but at the same time waved away answers and offered vague alternatives based on tired old ideas. I don't know how much more people here could face his pseudo-philosophical pontification, namely that the hoax theory was to put forward 'viable' alternatives until those 'alternatives' could be proved wrong with a level of scientific proof that he arbitrated.
-
I had been waiting for days to insist he answered my question about the way in which theorists advanced the theory by using rebuttals, and why in this case should the the hoax theory stand up to the scrutiny he demands of others. Days I tell you, days LO, and you ban him. ;)
Sorry. ;)
Something tells me you would still be waiting for an answer a year from now even if I hadn't banned him.
-
I had been waiting for days to insist he answered my question about the way in which theorists advanced the theory by using rebuttals, and why in this case should the the hoax theory stand up to the scrutiny he demands of others. Days I tell you, days LO, and you ban him. ;)
Sorry. ;)
Something tells me you would still be waiting for an answer a year from now even if I hadn't banned him.
I sensed a ban today, that's why I went a little dramatic in my last post to him.
-
He's protesting about the injustice of it all on Facebook.
Boohoo.
-
He's protesting about the injustice of it all on Facebook.
Boohoo.
What name does he post under?
-
He's protesting about the injustice of it all on Facebook.
Boohoo.
What name does he post under?
Brian Knox on the The Apollo Moon Hoax (No Flat Earthers) group.
-
He's protesting about the injustice of it all on Facebook.
Boohoo.
What name does he post under?
Brian Knox on the The Apollo Moon Hoax (No Flat Earthers) group.
Just browsed his page - this is one of the things that convinces him! This is Apollo 8 and didn't even land on the Moon:
Edit: I really hope he has dropped this as part of his list. Maybe a simple logic bomb may do the trick?
NASA - supposedly faking the Earth. Instead of using an "Earth" according to this moronic video, uses a lightbulb?
Really?
The camera is exposed for the dimmed cabin, the Earth is over exposed on (IIRC) a vidicon tube video camera that blooms like crazy. Apollo 8 was tracked by directional radio dishes and the signal came from exactly where claimed.
Maybe he should check out your website and see the astonishing level of detail Apollo images has in correlation with modern verifiable positioning data for the Solar System.
-
Brian Knox on the The Apollo Moon Hoax (No Flat Earthers) group.
Jarrah got me instantly banned from that group. Seems he's still sensitive about his obvious abuse of DMCA to try to get Astrobrant & others kicked off YT. I didn't even raise the topic in that group. He did (as soon as he saw my name).
-
Brian Knox on the The Apollo Moon Hoax (No Flat Earthers) group.
Jarrah got me instantly banned from that group. Seems he's still sensitive about his obvious abuse of DMCA to try to get Astrobrant & others kicked off YT. I didn't even raise the topic in that group. He did (as soon as he saw my name).
The hypocrisy is very high here and I'm guessing you weren't acting like an arrogant arse either.
-
The hypocrisy is very high here and I'm guessing you weren't acting like an arrogant arse either.
I made a comment in a thread about some aspect of the moon hoax theory, and Jarrah jumped in whining about "you were one of those horrid people who accused me 10 years ago of abusing the DMCA system" and I just replied "well, you did, and all the videos you had removed via DMCA claims were re-instated so that rather proves you WERE abusing the DMCA system, doesn't it?" and he had me blocked. I was a member of that group for about one day.
-
NASA - supposedly faking the Earth. Instead of using an "Earth" according to this moronic video, uses a lightbulb?
Really?
The camera is exposed for the dimmed cabin, the Earth is over exposed on (IIRC) a vidicon tube video camera that blooms like crazy. Apollo 8 was tracked by directional radio dishes and the signal came from exactly where claimed.
Who knows, maybe he might actually read Dwight's book and learn something about the TV system that might help....
I laughed so hard when I read his post here asking if Dwight had 'any links' to support what he was saying about the TV on Apollo! ;D
-
NASA - supposedly faking the Earth. Instead of using an "Earth" according to this moronic video, uses a lightbulb?
Really?
The camera is exposed for the dimmed cabin, the Earth is over exposed on (IIRC) a vidicon tube video camera that blooms like crazy. Apollo 8 was tracked by directional radio dishes and the signal came from exactly where claimed.
Who knows, maybe he might actually read Dwight's book and learn something about the TV system that might help....
I laughed so hard when I read his post here asking if Dwight had 'any links' to support what he was saying about the TV on Apollo! ;D
Sadly this is just about the root of the whole thing. It requires any/all experts to be wrong/delusional/paid shills in every institution in the world and on any relevant discipline.
Najak should just do one thing as far as I am concerned. I don't care about his misplaced arrogance, his Dunning-Kruger related failures or any of his conclusions. If he just stopped his distorted confirmation bias and got back to the actual science, it would go a long way to helping him.
If the first reaction is to pencil in hoax and come up with anything that may work - absent of evidence as awlays - then the whole process is skewed.
-
He's protesting about the injustice of it all on Facebook.
The injustice of being able to post 1000+ posts, waving away any argument with vagaries as more information and hints were offered. The injustice of being the chief arbitrater of the truth, while simultaneously dismissing well presented rebuttals. While all the time admitting that the objective of the hoax theory is to identify clues and present arguments that were set in stone until evidence could be provided to the contrary, and when that very evidence was put forward the goalposts were moved.
The reason for the ban is clear to see in the Banned Members section of the forum. LO is quite humbling in his assessment. The world is burning and fascism is on the rise. Why do people here need to spend hours wasting their time because someone on the internet doesn't believe humans landed on the moon.
Maybe when Hoax Theorists turn up in future, we set an exam; and if they refuse to take it they are blocked. That's it, show you have the credentials and prerequisite skills to be an engineer. If not, there's no point wasting time.
The fact he is ingratiating himself with our antipodean friend on FB probably explains the Jay fixation. Interestingly, they are both unable to grasp calculus.
-
Maybe when Hoax Theorists turn up in future, we set an exam; and if they refuse to take it they are blocked. That's it, show you have the credentials and prerequisite skills to be an engineer. If not, there's no point wasting time.
I've thought about some kind of knowledge test upon registration that must be completed before permission to post is granted. We still see hoax believers who think there was only one moon landing, but somehow still think they know more than everyone else. It's something I might attempt at some point when I have time.
I do honestly wish there were more ways for me to ensure people like Najak defended their claims besides just threatening to use the ban hammer, but the forum's moderation tools are limited. If all he is going to dismiss every explanation as "not viable" with zero rebuttal there isn't much I can do other than ban him for wasting our time.
-
Maybe when Hoax Theorists turn up in future, we set an exam; and if they refuse to take it they are blocked. That's it, show you have the credentials and prerequisite skills to be an engineer. If not, there's no point wasting time.
I've thought about some kind of knowledge test upon registration that must be completed before permission to post is granted. We still see hoax believers who think there was only one moon landing, but somehow still think they know more than everyone else. It's something I might attempt at some point when I have time.
I do honestly wish there were more ways for me to ensure people like Najak defended their claims besides just threatening to use the ban hammer, but the forum's moderation tools are limited. If all he is going to dismiss every explanation as "not viable" with zero rebuttal there isn't much I can do other than ban him for wasting our time.
Either that or a stipulation that they must answer direct questions rather like CQ.
-
I've thought about some kind of knowledge test upon registration that must be completed before permission to post is granted.
The problem I see with that is that it's a barrier for those who genuinely want to know. I realise they're not common but there have been some over the years. It's not really the knowledge that's the problem but the willingness to learn. I didn't know much about Apollo when I first came here and I'm not an engineer, nor do I have any relevant qualifications in space flight or applications. I really did come to learn from people who knew more about the subject so I could debunk the conspiracy claims. A lot of what I have learned has been from here, either directly imparted or pointing me towards the right materials.
It's your forum and you must do as you think best to keep it a good place to be, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the idea of an entry knowledge test I probably would have failed back when I started.
-
The problem I see with that is that it's a barrier for those who genuinely want to know.
I'm not thinking of anything too difficult, just the basics. And they wouldn't even need to pass the test in order to post, it would just be to gauge their knowledge level.
It might not happen anyway. It would require me to research how to tie my code into the forum's code, and I haven't got time for that. I am probably going to work on updating the forum's template so that it's up to modern standards, though. The current theme was made in 2012, I think... and it's not mobile friendly at all. Plus my eyesight isn't as good as it was back then, so I'm probably going to make the default font size bigger. ;)
If you guys have anything you'd like to see changed I welcome your input. I'm keeping the orange, though! ;)
-
I was being a little tongue in cheek about the test. I thought about another way to discredit them or even silence their beliefs, but I won't float that as I'd appear bonkers.
It just feels that the hoax theory started with some very basic claims that have all been debunked: shadows, stars, fluttering flags, film speed, rocks, radiation, Buzz in the crater, no photos of Armstrong, computer power, Aldrin's boot print and so forth.
I was having a discussion many years ago and someone suggested that Bill Kaysing's book was intended to be jocular; if I recall he wrote under a pseudonym - Randy Read. Ralph Rene took it a little further with radiation and C-rocks. One only has to see the Ralph Rene interviews to understand you could not take him seriously. The whole theory has morphed into an inconsistent mish mash of hundreds of claims that have no merit. That's not a theory.
Our recently departed friend described the theory as unpicking clues or magic, and finding alternative explanations until they could be proved wrong by viable alternatives. This is goal post moving.
Thanks to Fox, the theory has long been out of control in terms of its claims and the people that peddle it, there's often a cash cow element attached to their motives. The theory even incorporates rebuttals as new evidence. Film speed change is one such example. Our friend explained that the figure could range from 40% to about 60% depending on the situation. The original claim was 50%. The 60% figure was derived because of a dumb mistake and doubling down on that mistake. The 40% because some have twigged the (1.67/9.81)1/2 ratio has merit. Once the 50% figure was debunked, that should have been the end - period. There is no more debate. The theory has no merit.
Don't debate new claims above those that were initially proposed, simply point them to the original claims and discuss these. Nothing else. Here's the theory Bill Kaysing/Ralph Rene set out, do you agree these are the constraints of the theory and the starting point? If not, there is no further discussion.
I do agree with Jason, there are those that do join to understand, so having a test is a poor idea. I arrived here because I had tried my hand at YT. Being here has been a learning experience. So sometimes allowing multiple threads and having the patience of those venerated by the Catholic church provides those learning opportunities.
Would limiting new users to the number of responses they can make per day or restrict them to a pre-prepared thread based on the original claims be a way forward?
Larger font would be better, as my eyesight is getting poorer too.
-
I agree that a proficiency test is not the answer. First, not every question is going to come down to some rote bit of science we can preemptively test, even for the repetitious claims. Second, people should be given credit for any legitimate way they might be able to demonstrate intelligence and insight irrespective of a prefatory test. And on the flip side, the rhetorical disadvantage of requiring an entrance exam is obvious. People will simply claim that we're trying to intimidate claimants who have potentially good claims and potentially interesting questions.
But I do think it's valid to expect claimants to be aware of past discussion on points they raise. They don't get to demand a de novo consideration just because a particular claim is novel to them. It seems fair to require them to have done some homework in our archived posts, at our various web sites, and elsewhere. And having done that, it's fair to require them to have some well articulated objection to the past discussion (not just, "I don't accept that"), or some question that meaningfully transcends what's already been done. It's not like we'd be asking people to pay us money or risk anything other than mild embarrassment. The concept of due diligence is not that hard to grasp or justify.
-
Would limiting new users to the number of responses they can make per day or restrict them to a pre-prepared thread based on the original claims be a way forward?
The forum doesn't have that capability, unfortunately. That's something I had looked into for Najak before imposing the "no new topics" restriction.
Larger font would be better, as my eyesight is getting poorer too.
👍
-
I agree that a proficiency test is not the answer. First, not every question is going to come down to some rote bit of science we can preemptively test, even for the repetitious claims.
Despite my tongue in cheek remark, I understand a test is not the answer. Who here sets the questions and by what criteria do they set the benchmark for proficiency. We complain posters such as najak take the position as arbitrators of acceptable proof, we would place ourselves upon the same pedestal with a test and deter those who have potentially good claims and potentially interesting questions. This leads to hypocrisy on our part.
If the answers are not easily googled we portray ourselves as an exclusive club and an echo chamber; and as you recognise people will simply claim that we're trying to intimidate claimants who have potentially good claims and potentially interesting questions.
-
The forum doesn't have that capability, unfortunately. That's something I had looked into for Najak before imposing the "no new topics" restriction.
Jason and Jay have made good points. I guess none of us are forced to take part, and there are those claimants who might have new or interesting ideas or just want clarification and are acting in good faith. We should be seen as inviting and cordial and open to questions, otherwise perceptions shift to us being a non-inclusive club. The forum is also self-moderating. There's little foul mouthed abuse, and we hold each other to account when casting aspersions on claimants. I've been pulled up for remarks I have made on a couple of occasions by other members. This sheds good light on us. We want to avoid the aggressive nature and block and ban that less desirable hoax proponents operate.
Also, there's the non-STEM aspect. A test would preclude membership to those who have proficiency in other fields
I have set out my thoughts regarding najak calling it moon hoax theory, namely the theory was proposed by Bill and Ralph. Those initial claims have been debunked. Ergo, the proposed theory is wrong, case closed.
The shifting goal posts in threads and the constant evolution with new claims is tiresome though. A majority of claimants can quite easily be shown that Bill and Ralph were outliers in many aspects. It's a case of how do you close the door quickly on some, and not others who simply have questions.
The current format does have merits such as education for us, and a record of the unreasonable behaviour of others.
It just bugs me that the thousands of people involved in putting those astronauts on the moon, and let's not forget the returning them to Earth part, are besmirched by the arrogance and self-aggrandizing of others.
👍
I'm OK on my laptop with a browser setting of 125%, any higher and I get scroll bars. When I connect my laptop to my monitor, I'm fine.
-
Larger font would be better, as my eyesight is getting poorer too.
Assuming you are using Windows: Hold CTRL down and scroll your mouse wheel to adjust the browser font (or alternative controls to suit your OS or controls).
-
He's protesting about the injustice of it all on Facebook.
Boohoo.
What name does he post under?
Brian Knox on the The Apollo Moon Hoax (No Flat Earthers) group.
Oh lord, he is actually asking about the C-rock photo...
-
He's protesting about the injustice of it all on Facebook.
Boohoo.
What name does he post under?
Brian Knox on the The Apollo Moon Hoax (No Flat Earthers) group.
Oh lord, he is actually asking about the C-rock photo...
There's something wrong. I mean with HB bingo! I've got loads of entries but still can't get a line. Very frustrating.
I recall TBFDU did some facepalming video about this because he got hold of a version of this supposedly "original" that had the C(-rock of shite) on it. Of course as part of the ongoing blunder, he didn't bother obtaining the image preceding it, which doesn't have and has never had the C on.
In reality, he obtained (as far as he knew) a press released photo of this image. This would appear to be where the dodgy print occurred (assuming he hasn't been conned). Of course nowhere does he prove the same photo is the one released to the magazine around the same time without the C on.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/50536828@N05/4643351218/
-
As far as Steve Troy was able to determine, the mark appeared on only one dupe master made or used in 1997. It got used a lot, apparently, but you can certainly find dupes in circulation before and after that don't have the mark. This is the stupidest claim ever.
-
As far as Steve Troy was able to determine, the mark appeared on only one dupe master made or used in 1997. It got used a lot, apparently, but you can certainly find dupes in circulation before and after that don't have the mark. This is the stupidest claim ever.
I occasionally see what JW is up too, and saw this video a while ago. I watched it today, after Jason's and Mag's posts. He's still banging on about the C-rock. JW mentions Steve Troy.
To save anyone the 3+ minutes of unwraping, go straight to 3:22.
It is the most ludicrous claim, and anyone who saw Ralph Rene talking about this must have seen...
The guy's clearly off his crumpet.
-
As far as Steve Troy was able to determine, the mark appeared on only one dupe master made or used in 1997. It got used a lot, apparently, but you can certainly find dupes in circulation before and after that don't have the mark. This is the stupidest claim ever.
I occasionally see what JW is up too, and saw this video a while ago. I watched it today, after Jason's and Mag's posts. He's still banging on about the C-rock. JW mentions Steve Troy.
To save anyone the 3+ minutes of unwraping, go straight to 3:22.
It is the most ludicrous claim, and anyone who saw Ralph Rene talking about this must have seen...
The guy's clearly off his crumpet.
We can add another thing that Jarrah isn't good at, opening bubble envelopes. I didn't see who sent it to him, nor hear for that matter. I wonder instead of shipping the image, why not just download a free copy?
-
We can add another thing that Jarrah isn't good at, opening bubble envelopes. I didn't see who sent it to him, nor hear for that matter. I wonder instead of shipping the image, why not just download a free copy?
I am not au fait with the finer details of C-rock.
I understand Rene saw the C on the rock and claimed it was a prop label but the stage hands forgot to place the label downwards. The C appears in later duplicates of the photo that were used for press releases, and the C is possibly due to the presence of lint in the duplication process. I assume JW wants to show that the C appeared at a date before that posited by Steve Troy.
Mag40 has posted a link to the photo that was released soon after the Apollo 16 landings, and an explanation to JW's motive for obtaining the photo.
In reality, he obtained (as far as he knew) a press released photo of this image. This would appear to be where the dodgy print occurred (assuming he hasn't been conned). Of course nowhere does he prove the same photo is the one released to the magazine around the same time without the C on.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/50536828@N05/4643351218/
-
I think Jarrah wanted an original for the same reason U do: it's contemporary with no taint from modern tech.
I did a page on the C rock :)
https://onebigmonkey.com/itburns/c-rock/crock.html
-
Oh lord, he is actually asking about the C-rock photo...
I'm having a chuckle at the moment.
Najak had put up one of his 'this doesn't work according to me, so in the interest of honesty and integrity, you should delete your post' comments on some complaints about Apollo 8. The response from the mods? They deleted Najaks comment, citing that they did so to maintain the integrity and honesty of the page :)
Nice to see his maintaining his scatter gun method of posting new topics about where Apollo didn't work correctly (according to him), wonder how long he'll manage to keep that up before they get sick of him?
On the side. I have a thought as to what might have been the reason for the "unexpected" temperature change, but I can't see any references to this occurring for Apollo 8 as it is.
-
The rate at which something loses heat through radiation depends more than you think on the amount of radiant heat it is simultaneously receiving. Objects in Earth orbit lose heat at a slower rate (and thereby generally maintain a higher temperature) simply because Earth is brighter; it reflects more light back into space than the Moon. That reflected light is heavy on infrared wavelengths, but in the Moon's case the albedo difference matters a lot.
-
As physicists we examine blackbody radiation to introduce us to the ultraviolet catastrophe and how classical electromagnetism has limits at blue and UV frequencies. Blackbody radiation is very counter unitive, and as one explores EM radiation further (Maxwell) it really is not a simple problem. The physics of EM waves (and low energy electrons) interacting with electrons in metals is very involved. This looks like another physicists are not engineers problem.
There have been lots of claims pertaining to 'it would get too hot!' My memory is hazy, but I recall a discussion about infrared absorption by the Apollo space craft, and how this depended on wavelength and the angle of the incident radiation. In which case we have a calculus problem. Funny how lots of engineering ends up with calculus.
Again memory is hazy; but did the Apollo craft need to rotate in space for reasons of temperature control, and did the astronauts complain that the LM was becoming too cold on the lunar surface?
-
Blackbody radiation is very counter intuitive
Quite.
...as one explores EM radiation further (Maxwell) it really is not a simple problem. The physics of EM waves (and low energy electrons) interacting with electrons in metals is very involved.
Indeed, the notion that metals are the best conductors of heat and the best conductors of electricity for special electron reasons is kind of fascinating.
There have been lots of claims pertaining to 'it would get too hot!' My memory is hazy, but I recall a discussion about infrared absorption by the Apollo space craft, and how this depended on wavelength and the angle of the incident radiation. In which case we have a calculus problem. Funny how lots of engineering ends up with calculus.
I remember some idiot claiming that physics was basically just applied calculus when what he should have said was that engineering is basically just applied calculus. But yes, we have mathematical formalisms and some hacky approximations to reason about "view factors." And yes, this was actually simulated on a computer for the LM, using a predictably small number of modeled surfaces. To my knowledge it was the first use of computational radiometry in space engineering.
Again memory is hazy; but did the Apollo craft need to rotate in space for reasons of temperature control, and did the astronauts complain that the LM was becoming too cold on the lunar surface?
Both true. Passive thermal control in the CSM is mostly about reducing thermally induced stress in the assembly—a purely engineering problem. When you build something and you let half of it get very hot and the other half get very cold, you run into all kinds of problems and stresses. One answer is to rotate the stack at a rate best calculated to even out the temperature. For spacecraft like geostationary communication satellites, there are active systems that move heat around, since those spacecraft have pointing constraints inherent to their mission and can't be slow-roasted by rotation. The CMs that were docked to Skylab for a long period were actually painted white (i.e., with a different passive thermal control strategy) since they couldn't rotate either.
The LM had a peculiar problem in that the mass distribution for pitch stability put a lot of equipment in the back and the cockpit in the front. The plan was always to land with the sun at the crew's backs so that the spacecraft shadow could be a visual cue for the pilot. But this means that all that bulky equipment is the part of the ship taking the direct sunlight, and the cabin is on the shady side of the ship.
Part of the qualification for new spacecraft designs is vacuum roasting. You put the spacecraft in a vacuum chamber with massive radiant heaters on the walls. You then selectively roast the spacecraft on one side or the other to see what happens.
-
Indeed, the notion that metals are the best conductors of heat and the best conductors of electricity for special electron reasons is kind of fascinating.
The whole phonon (not a typo) and electron contributions to material properties was a monster, most of 2nd Year was solid state/magnetic material/dielectric and EM. We were introduced to the k-vectors and began to apply complex numbers to an increasing extent; which I found fascinating
I remember some idiot claiming that physics was basically just applied calculus when he should have said was that engineering is basically just applied calculus.
I had forgotten about that. That was an unintended touché moment by me. Seriously, both fields heavily rely on calculus, but the rest of your post (e.g. passive control in CSM) underlines the divergence between the fields. You belong to a field of professionals that build real systems that include humans in the system, I belong to a field that examines esoteric/applied science problems. The twain meets, but I would never claim I could build a spacecraft.
I know it was a waste of time, but this was the point I tried to make to najak: we have engineers, enthusiasts and other specialists here, we know the limits of our expertise and draw upon each others knowledge. He would not cut the mustard with 'it's not feasible' or 'but this is basic physics.'
But yes, we have mathematical formalisms and some hacky approximations to reason about "view factors."
Hacky. You just need to look at Quantum Electrodynamics and the adding and subtracting of infinities that caused Dirac so much agony, or how GR tends to infinity in highly curved space times but we can still manage to interpret those infinities.
-
Blackbody radiation is very counter intuitive
A statement that can apply to many fields of science and engineering, which many people who insist on using terms like 'basic physics' don't seem to grasp.
I'm not an expert by any means but I did have my little science brain entertained when I changed the door of my garage from a white one to a black one. It faces the sun most of the day. Now the inside of my garage gets like a sauna even in winter if it's a clear sunny day, and if my car is iced up on the driveway the end facing the garage door is often clear of ice before the end facing the sun!
Again memory is hazy; but did the Apollo craft need to rotate in space for reasons of temperature control, and did the astronauts complain that the LM was becoming too cold on the lunar surface?
Indeed. And on Apollo 13 Jim Lovell recalls they made a mistake putting the shades up on the windows to block the sun so they could sleep. Without the majority of the electronics operating the combination of the lack of heat from the internal systems and the blocked incoming solar radiation caused the interior temperature to drop and, as he tells it, it never really improved.
-
The rate at which something loses heat through radiation depends more than you think on the amount of radiant heat it is simultaneously receiving. Objects in Earth orbit lose heat at a slower rate (and thereby generally maintain a higher temperature) simply because Earth is brighter; it reflects more light back into space than the Moon. That reflected light is heavy on infrared wavelengths, but in the Moon's case the albedo difference matters a lot.
Sweet, points to me :)
The first thing I thought of when I was reading the post was 'what was different about Apollo 8 compared to everything else we had done at that point?', with the obvious answer being; they were orbiting the moon. Then a few little 'info-nuggets' in the head kinda rolled together and I'm looking for the different rates at which the Earth and moon emit 'energy', and seeing it's not an insignificant difference. Seemed like the most likely reason, would be that all the manned flight up until then was around the Earth, so while they probably spent more time in the shade around Earth (no, I haven't looked into this, just a rough 'seems right to me' guess), they were also receiving more energy around Earth than they would the moon.
-
May be worth including the fact that both the Moon and Earth radiate thermal IR from their dark sides and well as when in daylight, and this may need to be included in the thermal balance.
-
so while they probably spent more time in the shade around Earth (no, I haven't looked into this, just a rough 'seems right to me' guess),
If I've done the calculations correctly, they actually spent slightly more time in lunar shadow than in Earth shadow. Proportionally speaking, lunar orbit was higher than Earth orbit, so a smaller proportion of the orbital ellipse was in shadow, but it was also a slower orbit. It would appear to be only ten minutes longer per orbit in shadow around the Moon than around Earth, but I can imagine that being significant in terms of thermal transfer.
-
Thermal design is one of those disciplines that cut across multiple aspects of spacecraft design and development. It can be very vexing. Initially you start with purely passive solutions, but in the end you often have to revise large elements of the overall spacecraft chassis either to retain the passive thermal control or accommodate more active elements such as heat pipes and fluid flow systems that become necessary. There is no part or phase of spacecraft design that gets to ignore thermal behavior. But even passive systems rely on assumptions of radiative emissivity in components. Especially at or near the lunar surface, it's hard to stay within reasonable assumptions. Simply having a view factor to the sunlit side of a rock can change the physical properties enough to cause problems in a radiator.
-
Especially at or near the lunar surface, it's hard to stay within reasonable assumptions.
But, but, isn't it just that it's really hot in the sun and cold in the shade? That's what Joe 'never done any thermodynamics courses but who needs them when you have google' Bloggs says all the time when talking about Apollo...
This kind of complexity is why I got drawn into the sciences. The more you learn the more you realise there is to learn, and that many 'solutions' really boil down to 'this is the best we can do and it still might go wrong so we need a contingency for that, which will introduce its own complications, so we create this system that as far as we know should work well enough to complete the thing it is meant to do if all goes well and we've anticipated the problems correctly'. And that that's okay. Too many hoax believers operate on the impossible notion that the designers had to find the perfect solution to every problem (or indeed that such a solution even exists).
-
Especially at or near the lunar surface, it's hard to stay within reasonable assumptions.
But, but, isn't it just that it's really hot in the sun and cold in the shade? That's what Joe 'never done any thermodynamics courses but who needs them when you have google' Bloggs says all the time when talking about Apollo...
This kind of complexity is why I got drawn into the sciences. The more you learn the more you realise there is to learn, and that many 'solutions' really boil down to 'this is the best we can do and it still might go wrong so we need a contingency for that, which will introduce its own complications, so we create this system that as far as we know should work well enough to complete the thing it is meant to do if all goes well and we've anticipated the problems correctly'. And that that's okay. Too many hoax believers operate on the impossible notion that the designers had to find the perfect solution to every problem (or indeed that such a solution even exists).
And/or complain that every mission worked perfectly and how unlikely is that!!!11!!1
-
Apart from those little mishaps they put in to give it an air of verisimilitude, of course.... ;)
-
But, but, isn't it just that it's really hot in the sun and cold in the shade?
Sure. And as soon as you figure out what "it" is you'll be going places.
For a given point on a surface, the amount of heat it can radiate is determined partly by the radiation falling on it from nearby radiant sources—either emitters or reflectors. In the pure language of physics, this is one of those "nasty integrals." Just the geometric part (i.e., "per steradian" irrespective of "per wavelength") is heinous for a single radiant source, let alone all of them. This is what we call the "view factor."
Here's how engineering fudges it.
Imagine a point on the ground surrounded by a smattering of radiant sources. You want to know the total amount of radiant energy incident upon that point. Imagine a circle around your point, of comfortable radius. Now build a hemispherical dome of clear plastic using the circle as your footprint. Put a webcam at your point of interest and aim it in all the various directions. When you get to a radiant source, draw an outline of it in Sharpie on the dome as seen from the center. For the sun, say, you'll have a little circle. For the wall of the next door apartment building, you'll have a certain shape.
Now project all those Sharpie figures downward to the circle, the floor of your little dome tent. Imagine hanging a plumb bob from the outline of each one and then tracing on the floor where that figure lies. Figures near the top of the dome will project downwards in a fairly congruent fashion, since their orientation on the dome means the projection is very nearly perpendicular to the planar approximation of the figure. But for items on the walls closer to the ground, they project obliquely downward. Though they may have significant area on the dome, their projection onto the floor represents the fact that the floor sees them mostly edge on, thus they will be narrower. The area of each projected figure on the floor is a close approximation of its "view factor" to your point of interest—the effect of the geometric relationships (distance, orientation, angle of incidence, etc.). Later you'll come back and add values for intensity and wavelength and all the other physical values you need.
This is a great iterative solution that lends itself well to implementation on a computer without having to analytically derive any nasty integrals. You can set it up to adaptively subdivide the surfaces when it detects that nearby points have markedly different view factors to elements in the environment. Turn on the computer, take a long lunch, and when you come back you'll have a picture (literally) that approximates the radiant influx on each part of your object, including the cases where your object reflects light upon itself. This is why we don't let Frank Gehry build spaceships.
Now they actually did this back in the day for the Apollo lunar module, albeit without the adaptive subdivision. The computer they did this on was about as powerful as an old Apple II, so their results were crude by modern standards. But it was useful information that they wouldn't have been able to get previously at that early stage of design. Now the computer I use for this sort of stuff weighs more than a lunar module...
This kind of complexity is why I got drawn into the sciences. The more you learn the more you realise there is to learn, and that many 'solutions' really boil down to 'this is the best we can do and it still might go wrong so we need a contingency for that, which will introduce its own complications, so we create this system that as far as we know should work well enough to complete the thing it is meant to do if all goes well and we've anticipated the problems correctly'. And that that's okay. Too many hoax believers operate on the impossible notion that the designers had to find the perfect solution to every problem (or indeed that such a solution even exists).
You can forgive people for thinking Apollo had to be perfect because its designers were sort of driven that way too.
The CM's caution and warning system had an irreducible problem in that when you first turned it on, it would shriek and holler because all the things it was supposed to monitor had not yet "warmed up" to full operating status. The engineers went down a rabbit hole on this problem, trying to adapt the system to all that changing state. As the story goes, it was one of the astronauts who drew the parallel to an automobile. Cars at the time did the same thing; when you first turned them on, a lot of the warning lights came on and then cleared after a few seconds—and no one cared. The solution to the irascible C&W dilemma was to let the CM shriek and holler for a minute or so, and then push the reset button.
Similarly, the LM ascent stage was always slightly off balance. If you watch the 16 mm footage, the LM wallowed constantly in one direction and had to be corrected. This was deemed acceptable since the corrective control action wasn't very significant. But it's one of those things that could have been corrected by a design change, but wasn't. The existing design was "good enough." Hence being successful as an engineer means (among other things) realizing when Better is the enemy of Good, and emotionally letting go of the ghosts in existing designs. Every successful design will still harbor "We never fixed that" issues. And every engineer accumulates a list of, "If we had it to do over again..."
-
Apart from those little mishaps they put in to give it an air of verisimilitude, of course.... ;)
After claiming that everything was too perfect, and then being told about all of the documented imperfections, and waving those away as obvious plants to make it more realistic (which they clearly didn't know when they claimed perfection...), I just want to ask them, "What is the correct amount of imperfections for a project this size?" At which point does it become credible that the mishaps are a normal part of the process for something with this complexity without becoming so many that it would be unbelievable that they actually succeeded?
It's a silly question, I suppose, because they've never considered the answer. They're just flailing to maintain their grasp on a conclusion they've decided on without evidence anyway.
-
The solution to the irascible C&W dilemma was to let the CM shriek and holler for a minute or so, and then push the reset button.
"Have you tried turning it off and on again" will never get old as a solution, nor, apparently, will it ever stop being a valid solution. ;D
-
This is why we don't let Frank Gehry build spaceships....
... some might argue we shouldn't let him build buildings either! ;D
-
"Have you tried turning it off and on again" will never get old as a solution, nor, apparently, will it ever stop being a valid solution. ;D
In contrast we can look at Apollo 13 with hindsight and say, "Why sure it's possible to turn on a dormant CSM." But in fact they really didn't know how to do it, or whether it could even be done. This is because no one ever contemplated a survivable scenario in which the CSM would be powered down and then powered back up again in flight. The normal procedure for starting up the CSM took two days and truckloads of ground support equipment. You started up each subsystem appropriately on ground power, let it warm up, took readings, made adjustments, and then moved on to the next step. When you were done, you just let it run continuously on ground power until the crew climbed in and took off. A bootstrapping procedure executed by subject matter experts was so standard that there wasn't even much contemplation of an alternative before being faced with the situation. I'm confident that anyone who has ever worked in a technical capacity understands how and why this is often the best way to get something started.
-
... some might argue we shouldn't let him build buildings either! ;D
Indeed, the neighbors of the Disney Concert Hall can tell you a thing or two about heat loads from reflective surfaces. Coincidentally I was doing a performance gig at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion across the street when the Disney hall was being built. I got to see the structural steelwork, which was all kinds of awesome and unconventional (necessarily). Later I found out Gehry's studio uses CATIA software to design his buildings, the same CAD system we use to design spaceships.
-
The Kapton foil alone is fascinating.
https://apollo11space.com/apollo-11-kapton-foil/
The plumbline, Sharpies and dome, is this the Nusslet analog? Makes for an interesting read.
-
The Kapton foil alone is fascinating.
Today polyimide tape is ubiquitous in science and industry. We use (nonaluminized) Kapton tape basically as science duct tape, which means we go through it like crap through a goose. At any given time there are several cases of it in my warehouse.
The plumbline, Sharpies and dome, is this the Nusslet analog? Makes for an interesting read.
Nusselt, but yes.
-
Nusselt, but yes.
Thanks for the correction. Worth pointing people in the right direction. I've lost my reading glasses and take amitriptyline for osteoarthritis of the neck. I get foggy at this time of night. Well that's my excuse. :) If I stir in the night I'm almost delirious. I was awakened at 2 a.m. the other night, and believed there was a male lion in my room.
Talking of Apollo 13. I never understood the accident was staged as a distraction from Vietnam claim (Ralph Rene). Firstly, Western society was progressing in an increasingly liberal manner by the late 60s and early 70s, and a few astronauts going to the moon was journalistic corn seed in terms of Vietnam and the powerful social movements of the time. In any case, how would a news story with a short half life take Vietnam off the front page for any length of time? Further, why not just explode the Saturn V on the launch pad and end the program there. They had 'hoaxed' the landings twice? Why keep playing it out and risk getting found out? I'm also curious to how much artistic licence Apollo 13 (film) used. Were the switches really dripping with water?
-
...Similarly, the LM ascent stage was always slightly off balance. If you watch the 16 mm footage, the LM wallowed constantly in one direction and had to be corrected. This was deemed acceptable since the corrective control action wasn't very significant. But it's one of those things that could have been corrected by a design change, but wasn't. The existing design was "good enough." Hence being successful as an engineer means (among other things) realizing when Better is the enemy of Good, and emotionally letting go of the ghosts in existing designs. Every successful design will still harbor "We never fixed that" issues. And every engineer accumulates a list of, "If we had it to do over again..."
The Murray and Cox book "Apollo The Race to the Moon" describes Joe Shea constantly emphasising that point, mentioning the use of Passive Thermal Control to manage the effect of extreme low temperatures on the heat shield material, and the lack of a fuel gauge for the SPS engine.
But presumably this sort of mindset is going to be fairly common in a wide range of workplaces?
Over the years I worked in many places where people could see better ways of doing things, but we were told to keep doing things the way they were because "the system works well enough", and "we don't have the money to fix that". Then, if the money became available, perhaps some random selection of those improvements might be actually programmed (can you sense my cynical nostalgia?).
-
Were the switches really dripping with water?
I can't find any definite testimony one way or another, but it's likely that there was notable condensation.
You're probably familiar with the encapsulation of the AGC components, but in fact all the internal components of the CM were internally encapsulated against moisture. Not full potting, but the wired connections were dipped in or painted with sealants to prevent any water-related short circuits.
-
Sure. And as soon as you figure out what "it" is you'll be going places.
For a given point on a surface...
Proving I've got used to using social media more than bulletin boards, I keep looking for the 'like' button around here! Thanks for the illustration. I knew it was complex but I'm very much in the 'well I know the hoax believers are wrong but blowed if I can tell them how to be right' stage, and comfortable there. :)
-
... some might argue we shouldn't let him build buildings either! ;D
Indeed, the neighbors of the Disney Concert Hall can tell you a thing or two about heat loads from reflective surfaces.
As can a number of people who have parked their cars in Eastcheap, a street in London, on particularly sunny days at certain times of year. The infamous 'walkie-talkie' tower has a distressing tendency to melt car parts.....
-
I'm also curious to how much artistic licence Apollo 13 (film) used.
Quite a bit, usually in the service of making a story that played out over several days into a gripping 2-hour movie and keeping the cast of characters manageable. We only see one flight control team, for instance, without even a mention of the others. Ken Mattingly was not the only one in the simulator working on power up procedures. I think it's unfortunate that it plays with the 'let's change the character of the dead guy for dramatic purposes' trope by making much more out of Swigert's last-minute switch into the CMP seat, with far more uncertainty about him from his crewmates and ground controllers than was ever the case in reality.
Ironically, the one moment in the movie that got most flak for excessive dramatic license, when Marilyn drops her wedding ring down the shower drain just before launch, has been confirmed by the Lovells as actually happening! (The ring was recovered from the trap.)
-
Here is a list of differences I noted between the book and the film. http://thatwasnotinthebook.com/diff/lost-moon-vs-apollo-13/0#diffPage
-
Here is a list of differences I noted between the book and the film. http://thatwasnotinthebook.com/diff/lost-moon-vs-apollo-13/0#diffPage
Excellent read. Thank you so much for compiling this.
-
Lovell wanted the scene where Haise and Swigert argued to be removed but was overridden, because it didn't happen. They were all astronauts and trusted in each other.
-
Lovell wanted the scene where Haise and Swigert argued to be removed but was overridden, because it didn't happen. They were all astronauts and trusted in each other.
Lovell said an argument did occur on the flight, but that the crew has agreed they won't ever divulge what it was about.
-
Lovell said an argument did occur on the flight, but that the crew has agreed they won't ever divulge what it was about.
I'd be very surprised if they maintained an upbeat cordial nature for 100% of the journey after the accident given the immense strain they were under.
-
I'd be very surprised if they maintained an upbeat cordial nature for 100% of the journey after the accident given the immense strain they were under.
I doubt any of us could know what that feels like. But having worked with astronauts, I can say I wouldn't have been surprised if no argument had occurred. Astronauts in general are so unflappable you'd swear they were robots.
But to the precise point, I feel like the argument portrayed in the feature film was especially unkind. Jack Swigert literally wrote the book on the CSM emergency procedures. He knew more about how to fly a crippled CSM than any other Apollo astronaut. I think the Apollo 13 crew were damned lucky he was there, and to have the fictitious argument be one that impugned Swigert's competence was unfair.
-
I think the Apollo 13 crew were damned lucky he was there, and to have the fictitious argument be one that impugned Swigert's competence was unfair.
Absolutely. Even more so given that he had long passed and was unable to defend himself. I can also envisage a scenario where those steely-eyed missile men didn't argue. Apollo 13 is truly is a remarkable story of human resilience. Every Mercury, Gemini and Apollo mission has a story within the story. As remarkable as each moon landing was, Apollo 13 holds equal fascination.
-
Lovell wanted the scene where Haise and Swigert argued to be removed but was overridden, because it didn't happen. They were all astronauts and trusted in each other.
Lovell said an argument did occur on the flight, but that the crew has agreed they won't ever divulge what it was about.
That's not how I remembered the interview, but years have passed and I must have misremembered.
-
I must have misremembered.
I suffer from misremembered more and more with each passing year.
-
But to the precise point, I feel like the argument portrayed in the feature film was especially unkind. Jack Swigert literally wrote the book on the CSM emergency procedures. He knew more about how to fly a crippled CSM than any other Apollo astronaut. I think the Apollo 13 crew were damned lucky he was there, and to have the fictitious argument be one that impugned Swigert's competence was unfair.
I completely agree. Sadly it's pretty common for adaptations of real events to change the character (or just emphasise certain aspects) of a person who is no longer alive. Complaints were made after Titanic was released, for example, for its portrayal of some of the ship's crew. But yes, the notion that Swigert was an unknown quantity, that everyone was worried about his ability to fly the mission as a last minute substitute, that Haise would even have suggested the accident might have somehow been his fault, or that the CSM would disparage the other spacecraft as a 'piece of shit' is a horrible misrepresentation of the man and the programme. It is literally the point of a backup crew that they are as well-trained and competent as the prime crew for the planned mission. OK, they make the point that it changes the crew dynamic after months of training together, but these guys are professionals and can work through that. A successful mission is not dependent on that if everyone has learned the procedures in parallel.
As you say, Jay, if there was one astronaut you would have wanted on the CSM in an emergency, Swigert was the man!
I have seen Lovell say there was an argument but they will never say what it was about. I think that's a very media-savvy response, because it allows them to see that these were just humans in a tense situation and there was at least one moment that wasn't just them doing their jobs smoothly and professionally, but gives no details to pick over, as we all know the press would have done. From what I have gathered of the men involved (I'm privileged to have briefly met both Lovell and Haise at a signing event, as well as seeing them in press conferences and interviews and reading many MANY books on the programme in general), I think it's more than likely the one argument was a tension-snap triggered by something entirely trivial like who left a food packet floating around the cabin, but that's just speculation on my part. I can't for a second imagine it in any way involving placing blame, criticising the spacecraft or suggesting mission control are keeping them in the dark about some dangerous situation as the movie suggests.