Conclusive Proof the Moon Landings were Faked

[TimberWolfAu]

But if it were on the moon, we currently do not have a hypothesis that viably explains all 8 movements witnessed on film.

Yes we do, you refuse to entertain it.

The purge valve was on the front of the LM, the flag was in front of the LM, the interior atmosphere being purged caused the flag to move.

A lot easier to understand then the multi-government, multi-country, multi-decade, evidence free conspiracy you seem to think happened.

[Jason Thompson]

Some MLH theory put the studio all inside, so chance of Draft is minimal...  A11/12 small hanger... A15-17 - bigger for the rover.

The 'shot in a hangar' notion fails due to the size required (how do you make Hadley rille in a hangar?!) and the abundant evidence that they are indeed in a vacuum. Dust, sealed plastic bags, mylar thermal blankets, even the hammer and feather drop of Apollo 15 show this.

The flag itself was already a bit starchy - some images have it "statically wrinkled" -- stuck in a wrinkled state...  so not as flappy as a traditional flag.

It IS a traditional flag. It's behaving as expected for a sheet of fabric that's been bundled up for days.

#6: I believe the Landing and Ascent to Docking were not possible to do anywhere close to safely.

Given your lack of expertise in spacecraft engineering, why should your lack of belief matter? Plenty of actual aerospace engineers over the last half century disagree with you, and I'll accept their assurances over your incredulity thank you.

[najak]

But if it were on the moon, we currently do not have a hypothesis that viably explains all 8 movements witnessed on film.

The purge valve was on the front of the LM, the flag was in front of the LM, the interior atmosphere being purged caused the flag to move.

Let's test your hypothesis for viability, by adding specifics:
1. Why could it have been offscreen for 10 minutes prior to the first time it showed up.
2. What could have caused it's first visible motion to show up. (move TOWARDS LM)  It stays on screen for 14 seconds... how?
3. Then it moves off screen for 22 seconds..  What options could explain this?
4. Then comes back on for 33 seconds... How?
5. Then back off for 92 seconds... how?
6. Then back on slightly for 5 seconds.
7. Then back on even more for 6 seconds.
8. Then back off for 2 seconds.
9. Then back On for 1 second.
10. Then back off - not to be seen again on this footage.
11. The final Off/On/Off - was quick and a bit wild.  Much more than other movements.

For each movement in this sequence, need to provide ANY VIABLE explanation... just to show that one could feasibly exist, while also giving due consideration for the notes below.

Note: Decompression of the cabin went like this for EVA1:
1. 28 seconds =>  PSI 5.0 to 2.0  (1 PSI per 9 seconds)  (100%)
2. 23 seconds => PSI 2.0 to 1.0  (1 PSI per 23 seconds)   (40% rate)
3. 30 seconds => PSI 1.0 to 0.4  (1 PSI per 50 seconds)  (18% rate)
4. 30 seconds => PSI 0.4 to ~0.1, near zero (1 PSI 100 seconds)  (9% rate)
5. DONE

Also to note the 30 degree distinct Top Slant of the Flag AWAY from LM - indicating stress on the flag - that it's being PUSH TOWARDS THE LM (no explanation of this on the moon).

[najak]

#1: ...even the hammer and feather drop of Apollo 15 show this.
#2: It IS a traditional flag.
#3: ...I'll accept their assurances over your incredulity thank you.

#1: The fact that the feather/hammer drop appears as "proof" to you is telling.  This is the EASIEST TO EXPLAIN ... the feather was weighted, and they slowed down the replay to 2.4x for this bit.  QED. 
#2: So they claim.  How can this be validated?
#3: I'd like to MEET one of them, and have them answer my concerns/questions regarding the math.  I am preparing to bring this up as a new thread, once LunarOrbit overcomes his fear of it.

[Jason Thompson]

#1: The fact that the feather/hammer drop appears as "proof" to you is telling.  This is the EASIEST TO EXPLAIN ... the feather was weighted, and they slowed down the replay to 2.4x for this bit.  QED.

Oh yet more stuff to be fabricated for a hoax. Occam's razor isn't a thing for you, is it? It can also be explained by that experiment being carried out on the Moon as described. The difference is you have no evidence for a weighted feather other than it must be there in order for this to have been faked.

This also does not address the mylar blankets. There's one instance at least on a mission I can't recall right now, where one of the astronauts setting up the ALSEP flips a mylar blanket around and it very much behaves like it's in a vacuum. You cannot simply pick and choose the methods used to fake specific incidents. It has to work for the whole record.
 

#2: So they claim.  How can this be validated?

There's a paper trail for it, and the words of the people who prepared and set it up, and we can see how it behaves when it's being erected on the Moon. How many of those have to exist for you to consider it 'validated' against your suggestion of some alternative you have created as an ass-pull explanation for an 'anomaly'?

#3: I'd like to MEET one of them, and have them answer my concerns/questions regarding the math.  I am preparing to bring this up as a new thread, once LunarOrbit overcomes his fear of it.

Once again, in 50 years a whole body of relevant expertise has not produced one single qualified person who agrees that the engineering was not there to safely dock the spacecraft or land on the Moon. You shouldn't need to meet one of them to begin to think 'maybe I might not have the right idea here'. There's nothing wrong with wanting to understand in more depth, but to assume it couldn't be done because you don't know how to do it is utterly wrong-headed.

[onebigmonkey]

Also to note the 30 degree distinct Top Slant of the Flag AWAY from LM - indicating stress on the flag - that it's being PUSH TOWARDS THE LM (no explanation of this on the moon).

Gibberish.

Add 'perspective' to the list of things apparently beyond you.

[onebigmonkey]

#1: ...even the hammer and feather drop of Apollo 15 show this.
#2: It IS a traditional flag.
#3: ...I'll accept their assurances over your incredulity thank you.

#1: The fact that the feather/hammer drop appears as "proof" to you is telling.  This is the EASIEST TO EXPLAIN ... the feather was weighted, and they slowed down the replay to 2.4x for this bit.  QED. 
#2: So they claim.  How can this be validated?
#3: I'd like to MEET one of them, and have them answer my concerns/questions regarding the math.  I am preparing to bring this up as a new thread, once LunarOrbit overcomes his fear of it.

If you put some effort into it, you could meet the person holding the hammer and feather and ask him how he might have faked the live TV broadcast.

[ApolloEnthusiast]

#5: "Conclusion First" - yes, this is how a Hypothesis works - as part of the process, you test it, to see if it "holds any water".  My hypothesis objective is "testing the viability of the MLH claims" - and my first things to focus on, are the things where, if they faked it -- looks like these might be strong indicators.  In the end, compare the two Hypotheses -- Apollogy vs. MLH - then decide.  Since I currently favor MLH - I'm starting with this top level hypothesis.

Conclusions and Hypotheses are two different things. Conclusion first is not at all how hypothesis works. You have already decided Apollo was faked and have gathered what you think is evidence to support it, and you seem to think that declaring it to be a settled issue unless someone comes along to disprove your evidence is testing a hypothesis.

If you were actually testing the hypothesis that the Moon landings were faked, you would need to hold off on any conclusion until you've gathered all of the data and done a comprehensive analysis to see what it shows. If you believe that all of the available data, not just the minutiae that you've cherry picked, indicates a hoax, then you could present your findings. Those findings should include all of the data and the analysis you used, in detail, to reach your conclusion, so people can attempt to either replicate your results or find any specific errors you've made along the way.

#6: I believe the Landing and Ascent to Docking were not possible to do anywhere close to safely.   Very very fragile operations where so many small failures would spell certain death...  You'll note that Apollo's "docking operations" were performed in a matter of minutes -- compared to the hours it takes for the ISS.  This will be the topic of my next Thread, if @LunarOrbit musters up the courage to let me post about it.

What is your definition of "safely"? Sending people a quarter of a million miles away to land a spacecraft in an unprecedented manner in a hostile and unfamiliar environment is going to assume a level of risk. This is why hundreds of thousands of people spend billions of dollars on engineering, training, and simulation preparing for the missions, to mitigate the risk as much as possible and try to prevent simple problems from compounding into fatal situations.

There is a good reason for the disparity in docking times between Apollo and the ISS. I'm not a science professional and I'm aware of it, which means it is plenty accessible to anyone with an actual motivation to find it. Before you waste one of your thread opportunities on something like this, I would suggest you look into it independently first, as you should have done with almost everything you've posted.

I would also recommend that if you get an opportunity to start a new thread that you use it to present your most well researched, thoroughly vetted, slam dunk evidence of the hoax instead of minutiae you find personally suggestive but that carries little weight.

[Mag40]

Also to note the 30 degree distinct Top Slant of the Flag AWAY from LM - indicating stress on the flag - that it's being PUSH TOWARDS THE LM (no explanation of this on the moon).

The orientation of the flag, just before ingress and camera being tugged over shows the flag pointing towards the LM. When the camera was repositioned the flag is right on the cusp of the right hand edge.



The lines in the centre of your image show the angle. Your 30 degree claim is cobblers unless they used a special "fake-proof" stretchy flag - they match the last known orientation on my image.

[LunarOrbit]

People are still free to read the thread and form their own opinion. They are even free to start a new thread, if they want.

My personal opinion is that you failed to make your case. You did not convince me.

The closing statement holds special power - like a headline.   It's one of the most-read things - the "summary" which you made INACCURATELY and with bias.

I made a strong case.

The other members made a stronger case. You didn't disprove their claims, you merely ignored and dismissed them.

And when people have tried to lead you to discover the answers for yourself you have attacked and insulted them.

If it didn't convince you, that's fine.  But your conclusion was that I "didn't address the points" -- which is false.

It's 100% true and available for anyone to see.

There were 8 flag movements in 175 seconds.  STILL, no one has put forth a viable scientific hypothesis to explain these all.

   

They provided very reasonable explanations for the movements of the flag. You didn't disprove those explanations, you merely declared them wrong. That isn't satisfactory. You failed to make your case.

I'd like you to undo this summation

And I'd like you to acknowledge the explanations that disprove your claims. But we don't always get what we want, right?

But in the absence of being able to create new threads

I have explained why that restriction was imposed on you, and provided a way for you to get it lifted. It's up to you.

My preference is that when someone brings up something new -- create a new post specifically for that one thing...  Keep threads as clean and narrow-scoped as possible

And yet you repeatedly try to circumvent my moderation by taking other threads off topic.

Please do the world a service, and make your forums into a place that doesn't operate like the Salem Witch Trials for HB's.  The world will be a better place for it.

This is how it works: you make a claim, and we hold you responsible for defending that claim. If you are unable to make your case you should be honest enough to admit it.

#1: Right, let's flip that around then. .... The whole notion fails on logic, which is something you purported to test us on earlier.
#2: ... you are resistant to any and all attempts to explain.

#1: Imagine it was faked, and that this "flag waving" was a mistake.

You have no idea how ridiculous this sounds.

It makes absolutely zero sense for NASA to make a stupid mistake like that... and then continue to proudly show those videos to the public 50+ years later. It's far more reasonable to believe that your interpretation of the information is wrong.

Back in 1970's there was no internet, no ONLINE social groups, no way to reach out to like-minded folks, nor any way to do easy image/video analysis as we can now.   They didn't plan for the tech that became prevalent post-2000..  It was a "1 showing and done" deal.   No reason to be perfect.

As I have said before, this is why the hoax fails logically.

NASA would have known they could not maintain the hoax forever and that there would be major consequences WHEN (not if) they were exposed. It doesn't make sense to believe they would commit an entirely unnecessary fraud when they knew they would fail.

#2: Please show me ANY VIABLE HYPOTHESIS which explains how these 8 movements could have happened on the moon?  Be specific for the entire 175 seconds.

This has been provided. You have merely declared it wrong without providing any satisfactory explanation for why.

I have a list -- but @LunarOrbit won't let me finish this list.

The only one holding you back is you. The restrictions I placed on you are intended to keep you focused so that your threads can be properly resolved. Defend you claims if you want to move on.

[bknight]

At 94, Buzz Aldrin Finally Reveals EVERYTHING In A Shocking Interview 

[najak]

#1: Oh yet more stuff to be fabricated for a hoax. Occam's razor isn't a thing for you, is it?
#2: This also does not address the mylar blankets.
#3: There's a paper trail for it.
#4: Once again, in 50 years a whole body of relevant expertise has not produced one single qualified person who agrees that the engineering was not there to safely dock the spacecraft...

#1: For me, the engineering feat was near impossible, and shady evidence surrounding this development of the impossible - wasn't adequate to produce the end product.  For me, Occam's razor is "they invented another mini-Religion that was sure to catch fire... an easy sell.  And failure wasn't an option in their mind."

#2: PLEASE - Start a NEW THREAD - that specifically addresses the ONE SLAM DUNK that you have...  Pick ONE.   Then I'll Pick ONE -- we can start two threads...one for each of us.  No Gish Gallop for the Apollogists... just tell me the ONE THING that couldn't have been faked.   I'd be happy to take this approach.  Not a Gish Gallop, but just pick your favorite ONE item, and I'll give you mine.

#3: ... and paper can't lie. 

#4: This Industry itself is largely tied to Govt grants/funding!  There's little-to-no real commercial value in going to space or the moon, or studying the moon etc.  And so NO ONE IS PAID TO DO SUCH A THING... in fact, if they did, they might get fired, as it would "officially make their whole organization look bad" -- like NASA could say "what kind of pseudo-science whackos are you hiring?"

In this industry, there might even be fine print that harmlessly prohibits them from talking about their work, or even matters of NASA/Apollo, outside of work.   I worked under one of these contracts, for 4 years initially with Lockheed-Martin (originally GE Aerospace)... and then for two more years starting in 2009...  So these "experts" would risk lawsuit of breaking their simply "non-disclosure" statements, all for no pay, and to fight against a whole mainstream.

==
So please start a new thread and give me your best slam dunk.   See if you can prove Impossibility.   If you can, it would sway me.

[najak]

#1: There is a good reason for the disparity in docking times between Apollo and the ISS.
#2: I would also recommend that if you get an opportunity to start a new thread that you use it to present your most well researched, thoroughly vetted, slam dunk evidence of the hoax.

#1: And that "good reason" might be because A11/A12 simply weren't the "real deal", and the Boomer generation was easily faked.
#2: Yes, would love to address BOTH my concerns and yours -- one at a time.

[najak]

#2: Please show me ANY VIABLE HYPOTHESIS which explains how these 8 movements could have happened on the moon?  Be specific for the entire 175 seconds.

This has been provided. You have merely declared it wrong without providing any satisfactory explanation for why.

Please show me ANY hypothesis that can explain all 8 flag movements.   My conclusion here is that no one has.   So please prove me wrong by showing me the one argument that I missed.

For reference it goes like this:

Let's test your hypothesis for viability, by adding specifics:
1. Why could it have been offscreen for 10 minutes prior to the first time it showed up.
2. What could have caused it's first visible motion to show up. (move TOWARDS LM)  It stays on screen for 14 seconds... how?
3. Then it moves off screen for 22 seconds..  What options could explain this?
4. Then comes back on for 33 seconds... How?
5. Then back off for 92 seconds... how?
6. Then back on slightly for 5 seconds.
7. Then back on even more for 6 seconds.
8. Then back off for 2 seconds.
9. Then back On for 1 second.
10. Then back off - not to be seen again on this footage.
11. The final Off/On/Off - was quick and a bit wild.  Much more than other movements.

For each movement in this sequence, need to provide ANY VIABLE explanation... just to show that one could feasibly exist, while also giving due consideration for the notes below.

Note: Decompression of the cabin went like this for EVA1:
1. 28 seconds =>  PSI 5.0 to 2.0  (1 PSI per 9 seconds)  (100%)
2. 23 seconds => PSI 2.0 to 1.0  (1 PSI per 23 seconds)   (40% rate)
3. 30 seconds => PSI 1.0 to 0.4  (1 PSI per 50 seconds)  (18% rate)
4. 30 seconds => PSI 0.4 to ~0.1, near zero (1 PSI 100 seconds)  (9% rate)
5. DONE

===
For each point, it does not need to be "likely" -- just "feasible/viable".  Give me your best, so that we can assess the full viability.

You've made the claim that such a hypothesis exists - so show me.

[najak]

At 94, Buzz Aldrin Finally Reveals EVERYTHING In A Shocking Interview 

Thanks for the entertainment.  The first 20 minutes was quite educational.  The last part is an attempt to equate Moon Landing Denial with "alien life evidence" of which this obelisk doesn't even look unnatural...  I'm sure this who theme will catch a fair number of non-scientific minds who love Hoax theories, and hate govt.  I'm not a Hoax lover, nor a govt' hater - despite my beliefs that the best explanation for Apollo, doesn't match the mainstream narrative.