Hoax? - Flag moves without being Touched

[najak]

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.

[BertieSlack]

given it's a steady pressure from one direction

Says who?

[najak]

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.

[najak]

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.

[BertieSlack]

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.

[najak]

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.

[BertieSlack]

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.

[TimberWolfAu]

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

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?

[najak]

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.

[najak]

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.

[bknight]

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.

[najak]

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

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.

[TimberWolfAu]

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.

[najak]

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

[najak]

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.