Hoax? - Flag moves without being Touched

[najak]

...

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.

[Mag40]

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.

[najak]

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.

[onebigmonkey]

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.

[Mag40]

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:




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.

[najak]

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

[najak]

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.

[najak]

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?

[Mag40]

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!

[Mag40]

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.

[Mag40]

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.

[bknight]

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

No tricks here just you inability to understand what occurred.  You lose, again.

[najak]

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.

[najak]

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.

[najak]

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?