Conclusive Proof the Moon Landings were Faked

[najak]

If there was any wind blowing hard enough to create that level of flappage there would be highly visible amounts of dust in the air.

I'm not claiming "flappage" here at all.  Just noticing some stiffness that seems unnatural.  You say "rolled up tightly" - but not WADDED UP...  If rolled and deformed from a tight roll,  does this explain the random crinkles that pull it UPWARDS, in random spots.

I'll seen "roll deformity" -- carpets have this...  but this doesn't look at all like we see this flag.

This isn't a sticking point for me, especially if someone can demonstrate a normal nylon flag that was tightly rolled up - exhibit these type of wrinkles that keep it from hanging down straight, for so long.

In which direction was it "rolled up"?

[najak]

Easy. A mass of gas hits the flag. The flag, suspended by a horizontal cross bar, and attached to the flag pole on one side vertically, only has a single corner that is free to move. The mass moves the flag, which can now swing back and forth, since there is no air resistance to slow it down, only gravity and the structure of the flag itself, resulting in longer movement than we would expect to see on Earth, even in a vacuum chamber. As the venting happens in stages, this allows for multiple mass' of gas to strike the flag.

You mention "swinging back/forth" - the pendulum period on the moon is simply 2.4x more than on earth.  Other than the final finale before it goes off screen (at the end of 175 seconds) where do you see any signs of "pendulum" action?  Yet your hypothesis is entirely dependent upon it...

We see it nearly "stationary" for many seconds at a time, with no sign of "swinging".

In your hypothesis here too - you have "the flag is on screen when not being pushed away", which has two critical flaws:
1. How do you explain MINUTES offscreen before the first time it shows?
2. How do you explain 116 seconds of off screen time during this 175 seconds?  The decompression doesn't have that much air to spare.   To hold it off for the 90 seconds-continuous in the middle of this excerpt, would require 92 seconds straight of relentless decompression, following the first 22 seconds.  And the issue of how it wasn't visible for many minutes prior to the first appearance.

There's just not enough air to accomplish this.

Your hypothesis is proven to be unviable.  If I'm mistaken - then add the appropriate amount of detail to show where I'm wrong.

Is this the BEST explanation that Apollogists can offer?

[TimberWolfAu]

In which direction was it "rolled up"?

Why, this way.

[ApolloEnthusiast]

I'm not playing this game with you. This is something you should have been aware of before mentioning it as a possible evidence. That fact that you weren't aware is evidence of your sloppy and lazy approach.

Aware of what?  You are the one playing a game -- writing lots of words, wasting time, when you could just say something quickly that is more specific.  Is this some form of teaching technique?

Yes, I'm trying to teach you to be accountable for your words. You've made an accusation that the docking disparities between A11/12 shouldn't exist and are evidence of a hoax. I happen to know that your accusation is false, and that the disparities have a good explanation. I also happen to know that the explanation is very easy to find and to understand, which means I also know that you have made this accusation without doing even the minimum amount of work to verify it before presenting it. That is unacceptable.

Before you make these types of accusations you have an obligation to vet them yourself. You have claimed something and you haven't bothered to substantiate it. I'm telling you you're wrong and I have no burden to provide evidence if you can't even bother to do a 15 second Google search that would show you that you're wrong.

The way you discuss and debate is lazy and discourteous. Do better.

[najak]

Why, this way.

THANKS!!  Mystery solved well enough.

[najak]

Before you make these types of accusations you have an obligation to vet them yourself. You have claimed something and you haven't bothered to substantiate it. I'm telling you you're wrong and I have no burden to provide evidence if you can't even bother to do a 15 second Google search that would show you that you're wrong.

The way you discuss and debate is lazy and discourteous. Do better.

You are unfamiliar with science collaboration methods.  You may have one thing in mind, thinking "it can only be one thing" but there are many.  Instead of just saying what's on your mind, you posture it, and make me guess.   Just say it -- as you spend far more time not saying it...

I will take a "guess" here at what I think you MIGHT have in mind.  But this is a dumb way to work together and collaborate.

Here's the Google AI response:
"The Apollo missions were able to perform lunar rendezvous much faster than ISS rendezvous primarily because of the significantly higher orbital velocities around the Moon compared to Earth's low Earth orbit, allowing for quicker "catch-up" maneuvers, combined with the specific "Lunar Orbit Rendezvous" technique which optimized the spacecraft's trajectory for a rapid rendezvous with the lunar lander; whereas the ISS operates in a much lower, slower orbit requiring more gradual maneuvers for docking with visiting spacecraft."

Is this what you have in mind?

[ApolloEnthusiast]

Before you make these types of accusations you have an obligation to vet them yourself. You have claimed something and you haven't bothered to substantiate it. I'm telling you you're wrong and I have no burden to provide evidence if you can't even bother to do a 15 second Google search that would show you that you're wrong.

The way you discuss and debate is lazy and discourteous. Do better.

You are unfamiliar with science debate methods.

One of us is, that's for sure, but I'm trying to help you learn about the responsibilities that you've shirked to this point.

You may have one thing in mind, thinking "it can only be one thing" but there are many.  Instead of just saying what's on your mind, you posture it, and make me guess.   Just say it -- as you spend far more time not saying it...

You shouldn't need to guess. You should be versed enough in the content to have this conversation intelligently, instead of blindly flailing through ridiculous ideas and then expecting people to provide the proof that your your ideas are ridiculous when you could have found that yourself with a tiny amount of initiative. You are the one wasting time by not being properly prepared to discuss these issues.

I will take a "guess" here at what I think you MIGHT have in mind.  But this is a dumb way to work together and collaborate.

It sure is a dumb way, so maybe you'll prepare yourself better so that you know the things you need to know before trying to make your accusations.

Here's the Google AI response:
"The Apollo missions were able to perform lunar rendezvous much faster than ISS rendezvous primarily because of the significantly higher orbital velocities around the Moon compared to Earth's low Earth orbit, allowing for quicker "catch-up" maneuvers, combined with the specific "Lunar Orbit Rendezvous" technique which optimized the spacecraft's trajectory for a rapid rendezvous with the lunar lander; whereas the ISS operates in a much lower, slower orbit requiring more gradual maneuvers for docking with visiting spacecraft."

Is this what you have in mind?

Not at all. As we've established in other threads, AI is not reliable. Did you bother fact checking any of this? It's laughably wrong, and again, I'm a music teacher with no formal science background. How can you believe you're prepared to discuss anything space travel related when you don't see at a glance how ridiculous this passage is?

[LunarOrbit]

You are unfamiliar with science debate methods.

[najak]

Not at all. As we've established in other threads, AI is not reliable. Did you bother fact checking any of this? It's laughably wrong, and again, I'm a music teacher with no formal science background. How can you believe you're prepared to discuss anything space travel related when you don't see at a glance how ridiculous this passage is?

I didn't think it was a good point at all.  Given that you are a music teacher, I assumed you might think this was it.

This isn't how science collaboration works.  You are treating me like an adversary, not a collaborator.  You are purposefully hindering progress here.

The most popular retort I've heard is that the AM was lighter (3000 kg at docking) compared to the CST-100, which is more like 15,000 kg.  Is this what you had in mind?

This is how people behave when they have weak stances; slow down the process.

[Mag40]

You mention "swinging back/forth" - the pendulum period on the moon is simply 2.4x more than on earth.  Other than the final finale before it goes off screen (at the end of 175 seconds) where do you see any signs of "pendulum" action?  Yet your hypothesis is entirely dependent upon it...

We see it nearly "stationary" for many seconds at a time, with no sign of "swinging".

In your hypothesis here too - you have "the flag is on screen when not being pushed away", which has two critical flaws:
1. How do you explain MINUTES offscreen before the first time it shows?
2. How do you explain 116 seconds of off screen time during this 175 seconds?  The decompression doesn't have that much air to spare.   To hold it off for the 90 seconds-continuous in the middle of this excerpt, would require 92 seconds straight of relentless decompression, following the first 22 seconds.  And the issue of how it wasn't visible for many minutes prior to the first appearance.

There's just not enough air to accomplish this.

Consider this. We know that in this timeframe it is where there is depressurisation of the cabin. It occurs during the whole of this period of time. It stops. Then they begin to toss things out.

Now why are you attributing the flag as pendulum/swinging when all that could have occurred is the oxygen current mainly struck the base of the pole housing and very little of the fabric. AFAIK, The vertical upright pole is not held tightly in the ground housing. Oxygen going to ground could simply be hitting the lower support and causing the flag pole itself to just shift its orientation very slightly. I looked at the patch of ground behind the flag and how that same patch aligns post camera position change, and it's bang on the right edge of the video.

Yes, of course that is speculation, but then again what the hell explanation are you offering? They left the bloody door open? Then someone noticed and shut it, Nobody yelled "CUT" because they were lax and didn't know what they were doing?

Pre EVA2 cabin depressurisation:
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a14/a14.eva2prep.html
131:06:21

Video Time stamp of - 5:18:40

That footage is way too grainy and glitchy to see any movement, but right at the end the flag shifts orientation.
131:09:46 on the ALSJ transcript.

Another time the flag moves and it's depressurisation.

Is this the BEST explanation that Apollogists can offer?

Your incredulity means sweet FA. Depressurisation works fine since you have absolutely no idea of the discharge path and what was being struck.

Leaving a bloody door open right at the end? And at the exact time they are depressurising! Is that the best crap you can come up with, when every scrap of both Apollo 14 EVAs with the flag in, shows no movement at all?



I have loads of little things I have bookmarked over the years that show "attention to detail" that your "careless NASAX" bollocks doesn't gel with:
 

[ApolloEnthusiast]

Not at all. As we've established in other threads, AI is not reliable. Did you bother fact checking any of this? It's laughably wrong, and again, I'm a music teacher with no formal science background. How can you believe you're prepared to discuss anything space travel related when you don't see at a glance how ridiculous this passage is?

I didn't think it was a good point at all.  Given that you are a music teacher, I assumed you might think this was it.

Don't try to anticipate what I may or may not find convincing. Just find the actual facts and present them. What you posted is so bad that I'm embarrassed for you, honestly.

This isn't how science collaboration works.  You are treating me like an adversary, not a collaborator.  You are purposefully hindering progress here.

It sure isn't how science collaboration works. You are an adversary until you bring your working knowledge of the material up to a level that is respectful of the people you're trying to have a discussion with. Would you take me seriously if I told you I could program software by typing what I wanted to happen in plain text and then converting that to wing dings font so the computer would understand? I would hope you would tell me to stop wasting your time. You are hindering progress by not being adequately prepared.

The most popular retort I've heard is that the AM was lighter (3000 kg at docking) compared to the CST-100, which is more like 15,000 kg.  Is this what you had in mind?

Nope. Maybe don't rely on "what you've heard" and actually find some solid information.

This is how people behave when they have weak stances; slow down the process.

You're "slowing down the process" by presenting factually wrong information that you are responsible for vetting. I'm tired of engaging with you (and seeing others engaging with you) on points that you should have already studied before posting.

Why did someone have to provide evidence that your "fake moon rock from Denmark" was riddled with flaws? Why did someone have to show you how the flag was folded when you asked? What makes you so incapable of finding even simple information? Why do you not know why docking at the ISS takes longer than during Apollo before making a claim about it? How do you not know that the ISS orbital velocity is higher than lunar orbital velocities, not lower? You are so far out of your depth it's not even funny. You claim to have integrity and intellect, and yet you're unable or unwilling to find even the easiest information required to have an intelligent discussion.

[najak]

#1: of course that is speculation, but then again what the hell explanation are you offering?
#2: oxygen current mainly struck the base of the pole housing and very little of the fabric. AFAIK, The vertical upright pole is not held tightly in the ground housing. Oxygen going to ground could simply be hitting the lower support and causing the flag pole itself to just shift its orientation very slightly.

#1: Feasibility speculation is all you NEED to do here... just show that there exists a feasible/viable hypothesis that explains all 8 motions.

#2: Is this the most viable hypothesis you can come up with, to cover the entire 175 seconds period.

Strengths:
1. Both EVA2 prep and Launch Prep show a flag big motion upon opening the hatch, when PSI was about 0.1.  At least they are consistent.

Potential weaknesses:
1. Does the Pole have enough profile area catching this wind to make it shift in a way that would take the flag off screen?
a. Are you suggesting that it rotates it off?  Or Tilts it off?
b. What force then brings it back on screen? 4X

2. Is PSI 0.01 on opening the hatch going to cause this type of flag motion?

3. What caused the 4 movements which began 161 seconds earlier?  Including the force of bringing in screen.

4. What explains the top slant of the flag itself... why is it slanting off screen?


As you derive your answers, make note of the expected PSI inside the cabin after each depressurization.  Also to note, 1 PSI of cabin pressure weighs 1 lb each.   (7 lbs total, at 5 PSI)

Calculate the surface area of the pole, along with a simple model to estimate the pole's aerodynamic profile, and the mass of the flag... just estimates to work with for now -- see if even a generous model can justify flag motion based upon oxygen hitting it.

[Mag40]

#1: of course that is speculation, but then again what the hell explanation are you offering?
#2: oxygen current mainly struck the base of the pole housing and very little of the fabric. AFAIK, The vertical upright pole is not held tightly in the ground housing. Oxygen going to ground could simply be hitting the lower support and causing the flag pole itself to just shift its orientation very slightly.

#1: Feasibility speculation is all you NEED to do here... just show that there exists a feasible/viable hypothesis that explains all 8 motions.

#2: Is this the most viable hypothesis you can come up with, to cover the entire 175 seconds period.

Strengths:
1. Both EVA2 prep and Launch Prep show a flag big motion upon opening the hatch, when PSI was about 0.1.  At least they are consistent.

Potential weaknesses:
1. Does the Pole have enough profile area catching this wind to make it shift in a way that would take the flag off screen?
a. Are you suggesting that it rotates it off?  Or Tilts it off?
b. What force then brings it back on screen? 4X

2. Is PSI 0.01 on opening the hatch going to cause this type of flag motion?

3. What caused the 4 movements which began 161 seconds earlier?  Including the force of bringing in screen.

4. What explains the top slant of the flag itself... why is it slanting off screen?


As you derive your answers, make note of the expected PSI inside the cabin after each depressurization.  Also to note, 1 PSI of cabin pressure weighs 1 lb each.   (7 lbs total, at 5 PSI)

Calculate the surface area of the pole, along with a simple model to estimate the pole's aerodynamic profile, and the mass of the flag... just estimates to work with for now -- see if even a generous model can justify flag motion based upon oxygen hitting it.

What? Dude, that's your job. All you've done here is offered incredulity. Your understanding of what would happen is nil. Your ability to offload confirmation bias is also nil.

It's all speculation but it beats the hell out of "whoops we let the bloody door open"!

[bknight]

All in all the flag was on the Moon, shown conclusively that najak hand waved away.  Film IRT + transmission delay of ~1.25 seconds.  So no, it was not filmed and shown at 40% speed.  It was live the pendulum was not on the Earth, it was on a surface with gravity less than Earth's, and the only place I could envision is on the Moon.  It is not in orbit unless you want to orbit a stage complete with the LM.  najak, all your handwaving con't rid the fact that physics blows your scenario out of the water, give it up.  I proclaim victory, again, for those tat know Apollo happened as history tells us.
Go back and rethink your positions, they are weak.

[najak]

As you derive your answers, make note of the expected PSI inside the cabin after each depressurization.  Also to note, 1 PSI of cabin pressure weighs 1 lb each.   (7 lbs total, at 5 PSI)

What? Dude, that's your job. All you've done here is offered incredulity. Your understanding of what would happen is nil. Your ability to offload confirmation bias is also nil.
[/quote]
You made a hypothesis of "air hitting the pole itself" having an impact.  All along you've been trying to delve into the physics/logic as though you are qualified.  So figured you might like to give a shot at doing some of the math.  In this case, I gave you the steps... calculate the ability of this pole to be impacted by the oxygen breeze.

If you cannot do this, I'll do it for you - to determine the feasibility.

Is this the best hypothesis that the Apollogists can muster?