Conclusive Proof the Moon Landings were Faked

[najak]

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.

Note that in all 4 instances where the flag is blown on-screen, the top white stripe is almost entirely missing -- because it's part of this slant.... just the top stripe of the flag... 

This is how non-stretch flag behave... the force of a draft gently pushed them, but since it's attached to the horizontal pole-- the top part cannot move... so we see this slant.

[LunarOrbit]

Please show me ANY hypothesis that can explain all 8 flag movements.

I'm not going to waste my time rehashing things that you ignored when other people said it.

You haven't explained why NASA makes this footage available to the public if it's proof of a massive crime. That tells me that you haven't really thought this through logically and haven't considered the possibily that you're wrong.

My conclusion here is that no one has.

Which is why it's a waste of time to discuss this with you. The responses exist, you're just choosing to ignore them, and will do the same with anything I say.

It's all in the other thread for anyone to see. You merely dismissed it and declared it wrong.

[Mag40]

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.

Note that in all 4 instances where the flag is blown on-screen, the top white stripe is almost entirely missing -- because it's part of this slant.... just the top stripe of the flag... 

This is how non-stretch flag behave... the force of a draft gently pushed them, but since it's attached to the horizontal pole-- the top part cannot move... so we see this slant.

So your "expert" photogrammetry skills say that instead of a crap TV picture distorting an image at the edge. It's a weirdly distorted flag that only you, once again, have the true explanation for!

You are a time waster extraordinaire. Every single thing you argue is tinged with absurd confirmation bias!!

The flag is stiff. The stripes show direction and you are again talking out of your backside.

[najak]

#1: I'm not going to waste my time rehashing things that you ignored when other people said it.
#2: You haven't explained why NASA makes this footage available to the public if it's proof of a massive crime. That tells me that you haven't really thought this through logically and haven't considered the possibly that you're wrong.

#1: Just "paste it" -- you can't because this hypothesis does not exist.  If it does, SOMEONE here can surely find it and paste it.  Get me your best.  You simply "claim the hypothesis exists" without anyone here having actually presenting it.  Prove me wrong, please.

#2: "massive crime..." -- Nope, not a crime, if it was tied to "national security"...  our govt' has the "license to lie" and Patriotic military men in leadership positions understand this very clearly.  Sometimes, in order to deceive the enemy, you have to also deceive your own citizens.   But it was done "for the good of America" - so that makes it "fully forgiven" - not a crime.  Anyone granted Top Secret clearance who defies this clearance and reveals national secrets, is by contract, a Traitor committing treason.   They "did their duty" - "failure was not an option, and Gene Kranz played a key role in ensuring American success."  And as you can clearly see - it was a success, having achieved the FULL BENEFIT of actually having landed men on the moon, despite us not having the capability of doing this at the time (nor even now -- not yet, 2027 now??  7 years delay from original plan, and may delay even more).

===
I've made a thesis about the 8 flag motions, that there is no comprehensive viable hypothesis which can explain all 8 movements.

Present it, and I'll address it.  If no one can - this narrow thesis stands, and your posted summation is dishonest.

[najak]

#1: .. instead of a crap TV picture distorting an image at the edge.
#2: It's a weirdly distorted flag that only you, once again, have the true explanation for!
#3: You are a time waster extraordinaire. Every single thing you argue is tinged with absurd confirmation bias!!

#1: Please outline your theory for how edge distortion explains it ONLY impacted the flag, but nothing else.  Then see if you can find anyone here to agree with your theory.

#2: Not "weird" but rather "expected".  Cloth is flexible, no stretching required here.

#3: Of all the people commenting, "ditto".  Maybe you should consider saving your time then. I would appreciate this as well.  Others here seem more qualified to give responses, so rely on them.

[TimberWolfAu]

I've made a thesis about the 8 flag motions, that there is no comprehensive viable hypothesis which can explain all 8 movements.

Present it, and I'll address it.  If no one can - this narrow thesis stands, and your posted summation is dishonest.

No, you haven't made a "thesis". All you have done is reject any hypothesis thrown at you (remember, a hypothesis doesn't need much in the way of details, that's what the testing is for), and the only counter you have boils down to, essentially, you don't like it.

And what's your explanation again? Oh, that's right, the mythical studio, that no one has ever provided any evidence for it's existence, including you. So if you're going to complain about people not providing you the intricate details you think are necessary to explain the movements, when are you going to get around to providing the same level of detail for your studio?

So, again, the purge valve is on the front of the LM, the flag is in front of the LM. The idea that the flag could be affected by purged oxygen is quote acceptable, especially when we have the additional details from the experiment package 180m away that also registered the purges. To this, we can add the flag, being a fairly typical nylon flag, only had the resistance of gravity and its own 'stiffness' to stop any movement, the top of the flag poles could rotate, the pole wasn't 90° vertical, and the poles themselves had a certain level of 'springiness' to them, and I find it quite acceptable that the purge covers the movement of the flag. Definitely a damn site more believable than the worlds longest running, evidence free, perfectly secure conspiracy.

And on the side, oh noes, people have signed NDAs, so would never be able to talk about what they worked on........*cough* *deepthroat* *cough*

And the person who brought actual, repeat, actual, verifiable evidence that Apollo was faked? They would become an instant celebrity, news studios around the world would be paying them big bucks for exclusives to the point that their very existence in the public eye would keep them safe.

Oh, and you know TimberWolfAu isn't my real name, right? I can tell you all about the confidential things I do for my work, and I seriously doubt they'd ever find out. Or perhaps I could use a different name, and speak about all my *secret* work with CNSA, because China doesn't monitor FaceBook *wink wink*

[najak]

All you have done is reject any hypothesis thrown at you (remember, a hypothesis doesn't need much in the way of details, that's what the testing is for), and the only counter you have boils down to, essentially, you don't like it.

Correct.  Hypotheses are weak-theories.  The first step is to address if the hypothesis "fails" the impossibility test.  Such as if it implies "1 + 1 = 3"... then it fails, making it NON-VIABLE.

Please present to me a comprehensive viable theory that explains all 8 flag motions.  And show that the failures I'm claiming are not failures.

I like hypotheses that do not fail simple tests.  So far, for this - have you seen one???  If so, please show it to me.

[najak]

And the person who brought actual, repeat, actual, verifiable evidence that Apollo was faked? They would become an instant celebrity, news studios around the world would be paying them big bucks for exclusives to the point that their very existence in the public eye would keep them safe.

Breaking a Top Secret clearance can qualify as Treason.  Breaking most other NDA's are "Civil offenses"...  Big difference.   For Treason, you are now classified as "enemy of the nation" for which a military is now ordained.  In order to have credibility in your anti-Apollo claims, you'd have to have irrefutable proof of your credentials - a clear traitor to your top secret clearance, revealing National secrets to the world.

Snowden did this.  A traitor.  Treason.  Want to trade shoes with him?   If they could have known ahead that he'd do this -- he might have simply become "disappeared" and no one would have ever known his name.   For each "traitor" that becomes famous and survives into the spotlight -- how many others "tried, failed, and were simply never known to the public".

The DoD IS the Law in the USA.  So long as they justify that their actions are "to benefit America" while tied remotely to "National security" -- their actions are legal/justified -- no matter how insidious or ethical they might seem.

[najak]

So, again, the purge valve is on the front of the LM, the flag is in front of the LM. The idea that the flag could be affected by purged oxygen is quote acceptable, especially when we have the additional details from the experiment package 180m away that also registered the purges. To this, we can add the flag, being a fairly typical nylon flag, only had the resistance of gravity and its own 'stiffness' to stop any movement, the top of the flag poles could rotate, the pole wasn't 90° vertical, and the poles themselves had a certain level of 'springiness' to them, and I find it quite acceptable that the purge covers the movement of the flag. Definitely a damn site more believable than the worlds longest running, evidence free, perfectly secure conspiracy.

So lay this out in a detailed sequence.  Break it down to explain each of the 8 movements, along with the consistent top-slant indicating pressure coming TOWARDS the LM, with due consideration for the amount of actual cabin pressure available.

Do you have the readout for the 180m away package?  I'd like to include this reference, as it's an important detail for your case.

If a car has a 10 gallon tank, and 50 mpg efficiency -- you can't just say "he drove 1000 miles non-stop because it's clear that this man can drive a car", ignoring the shortage in gas.  Because the math has to add up, or the hypothesis fails.

[ApolloEnthusiast]

#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.

No, you clearly don't know the actual reason if you'd speculate something so ridiculous to explain it. The reason is not especially difficult to find or understand, so this is just more evidence of you winging it with bizarre hypotheses to explain things you haven't looked into at all.

[najak]

No, you clearly don't know the actual reason if you'd speculate something so ridiculous to explain it. The reason is not especially difficult to find or understand, so this is just more evidence of you winging it with bizarre hypotheses to explain things you haven't looked into at all.

Please enlighten me.  See if I can learn this one.

[TimberWolfAu]

So lay this out in a detailed sequence.

Sure, right after you break down the detailed sequence on how it was faked. No speculation, no 'it could be this', provide the very details you are demanding everyone else provide for you. As it seems with all your 'smoking guns' so far, you are conclusion shopping your hypothesis. The simple point remains, that over 50 years later, it is highly unlikely anyone could provide the intricate details you seem to think are required. But we don't need to provide the exact forces that created the exact movements seen, all we need to do is present the plausible possibility, and that's been done.

along with the consistent top-slant indicating pressure coming TOWARDS the LM

Have you considered you're reading too much into what can easily be attributed to barrel distortion from the lens, seeing how it's right on the edge of the fov? Incidentally, can you do a quick drawing (MSPaint is fine) of how you think the entire flag appears, based on your 30° claim?

Do you have the readout for the 180m away package?  I'd like to include this reference, as it's an important detail for your case.

?? You mean the details you provided with your very first post on the flag topic?

If a car has a 10 gallon tank, and 50 mpg efficiency -- you can't just say "he drove 1000 miles non-stop because it's clear that this man can drive a car", ignoring the shortage in gas.  Because the math has to add up, or the hypothesis fails.

Has anyone ever mentioned you suck at analogies? The world record for a non-stop flight was in a Cessna 172, which has a range of 1,200km. The total distance flown was about 240,000km, without landing. The very first thing that came to mind with your analogy was, 'easy, just refuel without stopping'.

[Dalhousie]

So lay this out in a detailed sequence.

Sure, right after you break down the detailed sequence on how it was faked. No speculation, no 'it could be this', provide the very details you are demanding everyone else provide for you. As it seems with all your 'smoking guns' so far, you are conclusion shopping your hypothesis. The simple point remains, that over 50 years later, it is highly unlikely anyone could provide the intricate details you seem to think are required. But we don't need to provide the exact forces that created the exact movements seen, all we need to do is present the plausible possibility, and that's been done.

along with the consistent top-slant indicating pressure coming TOWARDS the LM

Have you considered you're reading too much into what can easily be attributed to barrel distortion from the lens, seeing how it's right on the edge of the fov? Incidentally, can you do a quick drawing (MSPaint is fine) of how you think the entire flag appears, based on your 30° claim?

Do you have the readout for the 180m away package?  I'd like to include this reference, as it's an important detail for your case.

?? You mean the details you provided with your very first post on the flag topic?

If a car has a 10 gallon tank, and 50 mpg efficiency -- you can't just say "he drove 1000 miles non-stop because it's clear that this man can drive a car", ignoring the shortage in gas.  Because the math has to add up, or the hypothesis fails.

Has anyone ever mentioned you suck at analogies? The world record for a non-stop flight was in a Cessna 172, which has a range of 1,200km. The total distance flown was about 240,000km, without landing. The very first thing that came to mind with your analogy was, 'easy, just refuel without stopping'.

This sent me down the rabbit hole to find out more about this extraordinary achievement which I had not heard of previously.  Read more here:

Compared to this marathon, 14 days in a Gemini seems nothing!

[Jason Thompson]

#1: For me, the engineering feat was near impossible

And your qualifications to judge that are what, exactly?

#2: PLEASE - Start a NEW THREAD - that specifically addresses the ONE SLAM DUNK that you have...  Pick ONE.

No, because that's not how this works. Apollo is not a matter of a single irrefutable proof that renders it either all fake or all inviolable truth. It's not about single arguments, it's about the weight of available evidence.

#3: ... and paper can't lie. 

And here is why it's pointless. Paperwork might lie, the feather might be weighted, the flag might be starched. You simply dismiss evidence as faked and invent explanations out of thin air to explain it away. Why exactly are you here?

In this industry, there might even be fine print that harmlessly prohibits them from talking about their work,

More speculation to explain away the absence of any person involved actually providing evidence of the fakery you say they were involved in. So basically the evidence that does exist supporting Apollo 'might be' faked, while the absence of any conclusive proof from anyone involved in the fakery 'might be' because they have an NDA.

See if you can prove Impossibility.

And you're starting position makes your proposal impossible. You have started from the position it was impossible. Not that you don't understand how it was possible, but that it was impossible. Those two are not the same, and you have demonstrated an unwillingness to accept any argument to the contrary, handwaving them all away with speculation and fabrication. I have better things to do with my time, thank you.

[najak]

So lay this out in a detailed sequence.

#1: Sure, right after you break down the detailed sequence on how it was faked. No speculation, no 'it could be this', ...
#2: Have you considered you're reading too much into what can easily be attributed to barrel distortion from the lens.

#1: The MLH theory is that the footage we saw was pre-filmed, with chief objective of making it seem like it was "on the moon".  Therefore, we have "human ingenuity with a high budget" at work here.  Just as you might not be able to ever know how David Copperfield did ALL of his magic - that doesn't mean "well then you must conclude he is magic."   Instead, you simply conclude that "the things he's done break physics (or biology)" -- therefore the assumption is "he's found a way to make it LOOK real", not that the magician actually broke physics.

MLH primary burden of proof is to "show things that were NOT possible" or a "string of circumstantial evidence".   The "impossible things" are the best meat for this argument.  Not matter how much you love Apollo, they aren't allowed to Break Physics.  Can't be done...  If your Apollogy involves the breaking of physics -- it means your Apollogy isn't what you thought it was.

MLH is not asking Apollogists to say "how we KNOW the flags moved", but simply "how COULD they have been moved!"... In response, Apollogists are permitted to speculate... your ONLY burden of defense here is to show "feasibility"... that it wasn't "Impossible".

And the same burden rests on MLH - for the best Apollogist claims, we only need to show it was "feasible".  Likewise, this involved speculation. 

So whichever side can prove their hypothesis involves the LEAST amount of Impossibilities - has a strong, non-dismissible case.

I'm going down the route of seeing what all claims of MLH can be qualified as "Impossible" or "Irrefutable" (at least, so far).

This is not Gish Gallop, but spending DAYS on each major proof.    For the 8 flag motions - we have no viable Apollogist hypothesis (yet).

You can do the same-- instead of using the flimsy "Gish Gallop" approach of "abundant stuff" -show us your Best Argument - the one thing that couldn't possibly be refuted as "feasible to have faked".

I get that you don't want to go down this path -- because MLH just may win then.


====
#2: Barrel distortion doesn't happen that suddenly/sharply.  The flags entire edge is very straight, except for the very top, where it folds back to obscure the top white stripe.   Barrel distortion is more gradual, not sudden, and not "just one small well-defined part".   

Yes, it could be a wrinkle, but for it to be at-the-top - is particularly troubling, because that's the last place it should occur, plus we don't see this in the other photos of this flag.  So this [barrel-distortion] too seems to be a non-feasible claim to try and excuse the evidence "pressure against the flag from the other side".

It behaves JUST LIKE something being push on screen by wind... when the wind subsides, the flag returns off screen -- where it's been for ALL but 59 seconds total in this continuous footage.