Hoax? - Flag moves without being Touched

[TimberWolfAu]

Got a link?  Do you have records of how many copies of stuff they sent out to requesters in the 1970's?   Not "how many applications", but "how much was sent out"?  Did they charge for it?  What all would they send you?

The Lunar Surface Journal and Flight Journal pages have a wealth of documents, reports, interviews, and such.

https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/main.html
https://www.nasa.gov/history/afj/

[TimberWolfAu]

I checked your site, and didn't see this "Flag Waving" for Apollo 14 covered.

Would you weigh in here, to give me a theory as to how you might explain these 8 flag movements?

So far, this one seem irrefutable.

When you reject anything that is provided to you, then sure, I imagine it would seem irrefutable.

In the end, all we have is a flag that has moved. The reason for the move is speculative at best, both 'sides' consider theirs the correct explanation, but in the end, we simply don't have enough information to account for all the confounding variables (mainly the details on the flag/flag pole itself), and so ar eleft with basic speculation. Of course, one option requires manned flight to the moon, while the other requires a multi-decade, multi-country, multi-governmental conspiracy, that is still adding conspirators to this date, never having 'suffered' any leaks, if HB's are to be believed.

I believe there might be one or two Razors that apply here, hmmm?

[Kiwi]

Soon after reading Najak's first few posts here I trotted off to the Apollo 14 Lunar Surface Journal, went past the links to the Journal, paged down to Background Material, and clicked on the fourth link, Image Library, did a quick search for "flag", and got 25 hits.

Plain text below has their full details and a lot of information, such as the azimuth the US flag points to.

Usually I would include links, so I apologise to other members for not including them, but I'm trying to encourage Najak to do his own research. Just like I did. :-)

Hits 1 to 7 are in training photos before the mission and the remainder are on the moon, but hit 25 is not of the US flag, it's the little red geophone/thumper anchor flag at the ALSEP site. So the most useful hits are numbers 8 to 24, and the handy thing about them is that all the photos are on roll 66.

Note that below we are told five times to look at the discussion following 131:09:18 in the Journal. It's good advice, because it has 11 paragraphs about flag azimuth changes, depressurisations and all sorts of other fascinating stuff. The link in the Image Library sends us direct to 131:09:18 but the discussion is a little further down between 131:09:46 and 131:10:48.

Hit 1
S70-46153 ( 237k or 989k)
Al Shepard photographs Ed Mitchell and the flag during indoor EVA training. The S-band antenna is just beyond Ed. July 1970. Research by J.L. Pickering.

Hits 2 & 3
70-H-1119 ( 128k )
Al Shepard pulls the top of the U.S. flag taut. The top of the flag has a hem shown on so that it will slip onto a telescoping crossbar that will hold it out on the airless moon. Al may checking to make sure the crossbar is fully extended. Note the dirt-filled box at the lower right into which Shepard will plant the staff. 28 August 1970. Scan by J.L Pickering.

Hit 4
S70-53483 ( 148k )
Al Shepard practices the flag deployment in the KC-135. 4 November 1970. Scan by J.L. Pickering.

Hits 5 & 6
KSC-70P-503 ( 136k )
Ed Mitchell (left) pushes the lower section of the flagstaff into some lunar soil simulant inside the Training Building at the Cape. Al Shepard (right) walks toward him, apparently completing extension of the telescoping crossbar at the top of the flag. The MET can be seen in the plus-Y footpad beyond the S-Band antenna. 8 December 1970. Scan by Kipp Teague.

Hit 7
APOLLO14-KSC-NOID ( 120k )
Ed Mitchell (left) goes toward the LM mockup while Al Shepard works with the telescoping crossbar at the top of the flag. Scan by J. L. Pickering.

Hit 8
AS14-66-9231 (OF300) ( 88k or 720k )
114:44:02 Down-Sun Al at the U.S. flag. S-Band antenna shadow, Ed's shadow, the LM shadow. Al's OPS antenna is up.

Hits 9-11
AS14-66-9232 (OF300) ( 85k or 707k )
114:44:39 This is one of two tourist pictures of Al Shepard taken after deployment of the U.S. flag. Before taking this series, they turned the flag so that it was face on to the 16-mm DAC mounted on the MET. After they finished taking these three tourist pictures, they turned the flag so it was face on to the TV camera. See a discussion following 131:09:18.
At this point Ed passed the camera to Al Shepard. Note that unlike on Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 there are no pictures of the LMP descending the ladder.

Hit 12
AS14-66-9233 (OF300) ( 89k or 732k )
114:45:46 Down-Sun portrait of Ed at the U.S. flag. Note that the top flap of the strap-on pocket on his left thigh is open and we can see the Velcro strips on the inside suface that mate with corresponding strips on the front of the pocket to keep the top flap secure.

Hits 13 & 14
AS14-66-9257 (OF300) ( 96k or 806k )
Looking west-southwest, the last picture in this pan shows the S-Band antenna and the flag directly behind it. Towards the right side of the picture, the glare of the Sun at its zero phase point washes out many of the details of the surface. The flag is pointing on a azimuth of about 120. See a discussion following 131:09:18.

Hits 15 & 16
AS14-66-9276 (OF300) ( 172k or 900k )
Rightward of 9275, LM shadow, ladder, U.S. flag, S-Band antenna shadow. The LRRR (Laser Ranging Retro-Reflector) is in the west footpad, waiting for Al to carry it out to the ALSEP deployment site. By illuminating the LRRR with laser pulses and measuring the time of return, experimenters on Earth can accurately measure the distance between their telescope and the LRRR and, over time, do such marvelous things as test Einstein's theory of General Relativity and look for evidence of crustal motions in the Moon. To the right of the LRRR, we see a second ALSEP package. Notice the craters to the West and North that Al narrowly avoided. The flag is full face to the TV camera, pointing on an azimuth of about 120. See a discussion following 131:09:18.

Hit 17
AS14-66-9303 (OF300) ( 86k or 659k )
Rightward of 9302, showing Ed, the U.S. flag, the S-Band antenna.

Hit 18
AS14-66-9304 (OF300) ( 136k or 917k )
Up-Sun, but without a great deal of glare, perhaps because part of the LM shadow may be falling on Al's camera lens. Without the sun glare, we can see some detail on the Cone Crater ridge. Flag, S-Band antenna, ladder, the LRRR in the west footpad.

Hit 19
AS14-66-9305 (OF300) ( 125k or 881k )
114:57:20 Similar to 9304. Up-Sun from Al's 12 o'clock pan taken near the LM at the start of EVA-1. There is relatively little glare, perhaps because part of the LM shadow may be falling on Al's camera lens. Without the Sun glare, we can see some detail on the Cone-Crater ridge. Flag, S-Band antenna, ladder, the LRRR in the west footpad.

Hits 20 & 21
AS14-66-9324 (OF300) ( 181k or 1102k )
119:42:01 Leftward from 9323. This frame was taken out Ed's window between the two EVAs at about 20:45 GMT/UTC on 5 February 1971, and shows the flag and the MET at the LM between the EVAs. Note that, in addition to parking the MET in the shadow of the S-Band antenna, as per checklist they have put the S-Band cover on it. Good footprint and tire track definition. The flag is face-on to the TV camera, pointing on an azimuth of about 120. The Sun's elevation was about 16.4 degrees. See a discussion following 131:09:18.

Hits 22-24
AS14-66-9338 (OF300) ( 115k or 759k )
Ed Mitchell took this splendid picture after he and Al Shepard jettisoned the PLSSs in preparation for launch. Of particular interest are the tracks made by the crew and the MET during the traverse to the ALSEP deployment site and during the return to the LM. Apollo 17 astronaut Jack Schmitt speculates that the descent plume sweeps away the fine particles of soil, leaving a surface dominated by small rock fragments that reflect sunlight from the down-Sun direction and make the surface look lighter in color than normal. In places where the surface is disturbed, the normal reflectivity of the surface is restored. Whatever the detailed explanation for this phenomenon, it is related to the fact that, from orbit, the area immediately surrounding a LM looks noticeably lighter in color. The ALSEP Central Station is about 180m from the LM. Note the excursions the crew made around the rimless crater in the foreground and the large depression in the middle distance that they traversed in both directions. Without the visual clues provided by the tracks, the depression is not easy to pick out in this down-Sun photo. Note that the flag is now pointing on an azimuth of about 335 and undoubtedly moved from it prior pointing of about 120 as a result of the cabin depressurization done for the jettison. See a discussion following 131:09:18.
Journal Contributor Yuri Krasilnikov has created a comparison between 9338, a 16-mm frame taken before the pre-launch RCS hot-fire check and a frame following the hot-fire check. Although the orientation of the first two images are different because of camera mounting, the flag orientation relative to, say, the PLSS, is the same. The final frame shows the result of the large flag motion during the hot-fire check. Krasilnikov also calls attention a difference in the orientation of the access flap on the flap shown as it was before the hot-fire check, closeest to the LM in a detail from 9338.

Hit 25
AS14-67-9376 (OF300) ( 190k or 1233k )
117:24:33 Geophone/thumper anchor flag, mortar pack, Central Station, CPLEE, and assorted packing material.

[LunarOrbit]

And you think it makes perfect logical sense to believe that NASA would provide all of that to the public so that they could closely analyze it and potentially expose the hoax?

"Perfect" is an overstatement.  Most things are muddied.

You respond to a simple question with a whole lot of words that didn't come close to answering it.

If Apollo was faked, it would make zero sense for NASA to provide all of it's photographic & video footage online for free so that desk chair detectives like you can expose them. They would make it as difficult as possible to get ahold of that information, if not outright impossible.

The fact that they have made all of that available to the world tells me that they are confident that it verifies Apollo's authenticity.

With most things that might be conspiracy, they "go away" - e.g. JFK assassination.   The older it gets, the more irrelevant it becomes.

That's the thing about the Apollo hoax that doesn't make sense. They couldn't have just faked it in 1969 and then let it be. They would have had to maintain the lie forever in order to avoid the disastrous embarrassment on the world stage. It would be impossible to maintain that lie for very long.

But Apollo is different.   They are "holding back science", and very soon we're going to find out the Lie, because GenX/Y/Z will NOT dirty their hands with the Lies of the Boomers.  That's what I believe will happen, and hope will happen.

It's precisely why they wouldn't have committed a hoax in the first place. They could not have guaranteed that future generations would go along with it. Why do something that would destroy the reputation of the United States forever once discovered? If going to the Moon was impossible, it would be easier to just say so... there is nothing to be gained from faking it.

So what to do?  One thing they've done is mostly distance themselves from ongoing Lies.

By publishing every photo, video, audio, and technical document for the world to see?

For example the ISRO Chandrayaan hi-resolution images that supposedly show Apollo 11/12 (and weren't modified) -  neither ISRO nor NASA sites/galleries show these images...  no press announcements.  Nothing.

Nonsense. You are trying to rewrite history. We know about those photographs because they made press announcements at the time.

ISRO/NASA operate collaboratively, starting with a framework signed by 2009...   NASA even sometimes retrieves the images from Chandrayaan, and is integrated into the pipeline for reception and processing.    Yet 3rd Party Apollogists (ok to use this term?) - are claiming "Victory" and also framing it as "Why would India lie for the USA?"   A gross overstatement and misrepresentation of the situation, ignoring the collaborative partnership that exists here, and by conflating ISRO with "all of India".

And what is stopping a hostile foreign government, a private company, or even an individual from building a lunar probe to photograph the Apollo landing sites at some point? Like I said, this isn't something they could have faked in 1969 and then ignored... the landing sites are going to be there pretty much forever. Eventually technology will be so capable that the government won't be able to prevent amateurs from sending cameras to the Moon, and at that point the hoax would be exposed.

So why fake something if you are 100% guaranteed to get caught and be embarrassed globally forever?

I believe it's because SpaceX is about to deliver "the news" -- within the next few years.

Oh... Elon to save the day again! Because he never lies... right?

Do you find this SILENCE suspicious at all?

What silence? All I see is your willful ignorance. You close your eyes & ears to any information that contradicts your beliefs, and then say the information doesn't exist.

I don't know what all thought went into putting all materials online 20+ years ago.  Maybe they simply didn't realize all of mistakes that would be noticed...  until it was too late..  And it's been proven that they've done damage control, changing sources, removing content, etc...   now it's scrubbed, and everyone takes NASA's "current renditions as Original, gold-standard, the true source".

More nonsense. If Apollo was faked the last thing NASA would want to do is publish thousands of photographs, hours of video and audio, and tons of documents for the world to scrutinize. You are clearly incapable of thinking logically.

[Mag40]

Would you weigh in here, to give me a theory as to how you might explain these 8 flag movements?

So far, this one seem irrefutable.

The thing has been explained to you and here you are still acting the goat. It's not "irrefutable" at all. You haven't defined any alternative or feasible explanation for why the depressurisation and PLSS impact aren't the simple reasons.

The footage is showing all sorts of "shifting around" artefacts. This could even just be related to how the camera recorded it. You are showing no objectivity or logic and exhibiting classic HB behaviour. It still evades the issue that NASA freely releases this without checking it. It's the worst footage of any mission by far and it just doesn't make any sense for them not to have checked it.

Your comments about the edge of the video being different are just classic HB posturing and question begging. Numerous versions of the footage were made available without any restriction. What a certain type of software does to the display is not NASA's fault.

[onebigmonkey]

The photos were widely published in books, popular magazines, professional magazines and scientific papers. You can find many examples that I own here:
https://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/ephemera/ephemera.html

I checked your site, and didn't see this "Flag Waving" for Apollo 14 covered.

Would you weigh in here, to give me a theory as to how you might explain these 8 flag movements?

So far, this one seem irrefutable.

Why should I cover it? I deal with things as I see fit.

You've already had my explanation, it's the same as everyone else's. Here it is again.

A directional air current from the LM causes the flag to move from one position to a point where air stops it moving. It oscillates back to a point where it can be influenced by it again.

There is plenty covereing it here:

https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a14/a14.eva2prep.html

Your position is identical, with the exception that you can't explain why there is a directional air current in a studio, where that studio is, who is operating it, how the studio replicates details of the lunar surface that were not known about prior to Apollo, and how the evidence of human activity on the surface can be seen in lunar rpobes sent be several different countries. That, and your refusal to accept the real explanation no matter how many times it's presented to you in words of one syllable.

[onebigmonkey]

Do you find this SILENCE suspicious at all?

So this web presentation in June 2021 is silent?

First off, my observations of China's Brown moon are a bit viral.  I'm waiting to see how it turns out.   Just noting it as a potential "sign" for now.   So won't argue the case.

Viral does not mean valid. Download the images yourself and see what colour they are.

Regarding your SILENCE dispute, I have covered the ISRO case in this document:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xpYHdfFNGjDRbIVIKnoVFSpIb657gNTUtHH1b_79N6U/edit?usp=drive_link

I'd be pleased to have you look over it, and give feedback/corrections.

Your specific counter-claim to SILENCE is addressed on page 7, like this:
===
Lone Anomaly: Low-Level ISRO Employee Presents the Image, buried in Webinar:
Here is the link which shows the imagery for 133 seconds, buried midway into a 3.2 hour webinar targeted at hiring new employees.  The presenter has 1.7 yrs of tech school, and no stated degree (so maybe an Associate’s degree at best?).

Here is the presenter’s info, Amitabh.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Amitabh-Amitabh

===

Again, ISRO made two presentations showing Apollo 11 & 12 sites imaged by ISRO. Your disappointment at them not proclaiming it from the highest mountain tops does not invalidate the information in those images. They do not have to do things the way you want. The presenter is an expert in those images, he's happy with what's in them. I'm willing to bet he doesn't care about your view of them.  Does a lack of formal qualification mean lack of knowledge and capability to comment on a subject? Don't his masters degress count? What are your qualifications in the subject? If you don't have a masters degree and 20+ years experience in image processing in the space sector, maybe you should keep quiet.

Given that ISRO's high-res coverage of the moon is < 1% of the surface area so far - and that of this < 1%, both Apollo 11 and 12 were targeted...  but never mentioned anywhere on their public sites.

It's not even shown in the Chandrayaan gallery -- lots of ordinary shots in there, but showing the FIRST EVER HIGH RESOLUTION IMAGES of Apollo 11/12  (contested/disbelieved by 100's of millions worldwide) -- DID NOT MAKE THE CUT?

It would have taken them 1 hr to post these..  Not worth their time?

Or are they distancing themselves?

Again, ISRO don't have to do things the way you want.

I realize the image was labeled as received by India - fine.  It would look more suspicious otherwise.   However, NASA is a TRUSTED partner.  How hard would it be for them to get ahold of this 1 GB of source data, modify it, and then save overtop the existing image? 

Very hard. Prove me wrong.

All ISRO would have to do is "be a little negligent" - after all, they "trust" NASA, so why would they be guarding against foulplay by a single NASA agent equipped with a little knowledge about how to conduct the edits?

That's my running hypothesis on this.

Then provide some evidence that this happened. Do some research for yourself. Download the images for yourself and figure it out. Here. this is how you do it:

Meanwhile, the dishonest Apollogists will continue to frame this as "India Validated Apollo!" (when it 's ISRO, not India, and a tight collaborator with NASA, not independent, and neither organization will even announce or show in their gallery these images)

Dishonest? Really? Prove there's dishonesty. As far as I'm concerned the ISRO images validate Apollo because every detail in them matches the Apollo photographic record. For me to to be dishonest I would have to be saying that knowing it not to be true. Don't be accusing me of being a liar.

But India haven't validated Apollo, have they - at least as far as you're concerned. They haven't come out and made a big deal over the images. NASA make a big deal over their own images via the LRO, so are those ones genuine?

If NASA comes out in a year to state, "we think Apollo never landed humans on the moon", how would you react?

Moot point. Not going to happen, because Apollo did land humans on the moon.

You have a whole site entrenched in defending NASA's truth.  What would you do if you found out that it was at least partly a Lie (i.e. just the landing on the moon part, perhaps)

And you have absolutely nothing that can discredit the information on there.

If NASA comes out and says that, I will delete everything I have ever put on the web about it. Never going to happen.

[najak]

(Flag Waving)
You've already had my explanation, it's the same as everyone else's. Here it is again.
A directional air current from the LM causes the flag to move from one position to a point where air stops it moving. It oscillates back to a point where it can be influenced by it again.

I am honored by your involvement here.  My beliefs are sincere, and I appreciate you.

In your rationale, when the flag is "at rest" (not impacted by an air current) - is that resting position on-screen or off-screen? 

In my mind, "at rest" is off-screen, until a draft blows "towards the LM" which then brings it on screen.  But this could only happen on earth, with an atmosphere.

I believe your theory requires that "at rest" is ON screen, until the "LM depressurization exhaust" pushes it OFF-screen, correct?

The major contenders against your theory are:
1. It's off-screen far more than on-screen.. and many say the decompression was "fast" (2 minutes?)... and this doesn't provide enough time to account for your theory.
2. When it's onscreen (in your theory, "at Rest") - the top white stripe is bent and almost gone -- and the top part is SLANTED towards offscreen, where it attaches to the horizontal pole.   It's clear from this slant that "on screen" is NOT "at-rest" but is in a state of "being pushed by something -- towards the LM".   In short it can't be "At Rest" when on screen.

The "slant" gives it away.  Shows it is "being pushed" on-screen.   Do you disagree?  If so, how?

===
Drafts inside of a 1200' x 300' hanger are possible.
1. Air leaks... wind outside blows, goes through the leaks, and causes a draft.  A huge hangar probably isn't so air tight.
2. Someone has a door open, or worse a door on both sides open.  Maybe then wanted some ventilation.
3. Central AC.. can cause drafts.

Sound feasible?

While on the moon, an air current going TOWARDS the LM - isn't explainable. 

Unless you can defend "At Rest" being "on Screen" - your current theory Fails.  And this "Flag pushed towards LM" theory stands unrefuted.

[najak]

1: The fact that they have made all of that available to the world tells me that they are confident that it verifies Apollo's authenticity.
2: (Chandrayaan) Nonsense. You are trying to rewrite history. We know about those photographs because they made press announcements at the time.
3: And what is stopping a hostile foreign government, a private company, or even an individual from building a lunar probe to photograph the Apollo landing sites at some point?
4: So why fake something if you are 100% guaranteed to get caught and be embarrassed globally forever?

1. I have ideas. But it's muddy.  30 years afterwards, those who were "in power" (who decided to fake the landing) were dead or feeble by then -- Johnson, Nixon, other leaders.
I don't think the "faking" was common knowledge at NASA at all... they all held to the Apollogy, and weren't paid to question it, nor motivated to do so.  There's no personal gain in what I'm doing now; only cost.

2. Chandrayaan  - Can you find any "Press Announcements FROM ISRO or NASA officials?"  Show me the best you can find.  This was a HUGE DEAL - the FIRST EVER HI-RES images of Man's Greatest Achievement! ... and they aren't even in the Chandrayaan photo gallery!  No where on any of their public site!

And YES, I downloaded the 500MB imagery from their data site that requires login.   I saw the imagery first hand.  Easy to photoshop this... if just ISRO looked the other way while a single NASA agent did this work.  What hurts NASA, hurts ISRO - they are collaborators.  Interdependent.

3. SpaceX will beat them to the punch.  It's not about "Elon is honest" -- although he seems considerably more honest than most at-the-top....  it's that GenX/Y/Z will NOT dirty their hands in this Lie, and are going to come clean within the next few years, IMO.  They'll present it as "we were suspicious, but still surprised to find this out."

4. "Forever" -- those who made this decision were only thinking about their own lifetime, or their "career time"...   Relatively short-sighted.  And it worked fine -- everyone Loves Apollo.  And it's easy to sell ANYTHING if the audience "Loves the thought of it".   Apollo is a religion with no Hell --  only the good stuff.

===
I will continue to focus on my area of most strength -- Physics, Science, Logic.

My focus will be to show the various ways where "Apollo did the Impossible" and repeatedly "the Highly Improbable".

I'm doing this for Thomas Baron, and the other unheard of Whistleblowers...  as Baron himself only became known to us because Apollo 1 killed the crew.   If that hadn't happened, the media had ALREADY dismissed him as a crank... a liar.   But then... Apollo 1-- now he's got the floor -- for a few months, until he gets killed late at night with no witnesses by a fast moving one car train...  and his 500-page report with other witness names and detailed incidents -- went MISSING -- even the one he submitted to Congress.

After Baron was out-of-the-way -- NASA resumed by cutting a full YEAR out of their schedule, skipping steps, and cramming...  magically "it worked".  This was "Plan B" -- gonna have to fake it.

[onebigmonkey]

2. Chandrayaan  - Can you find any "Press Announcements FROM ISRO or NASA officials?"  Show me the best you can find.  This was a HUGE DEAL - the FIRST EVER HI-RES images of Man's Greatest Achievement! ... and they aren't even in the Chandrayaan photo gallery!  No where on any of their public site!

And YES, I downloaded the 500MB imagery from their data site that requires login.   I saw the imagery first hand.  Easy to photoshop this... if just ISRO looked the other way while a single NASA agent did this work.  What hurts NASA, hurts ISRO - they are collaborators.  Interdependent.

Then photoshop one. Photoshop a RAW file, without trace. Let's see it.

Show us the Apollo 11 and 12 sites without the hardware on.

ISRO's images of Apollo 11 and 12 are not the first high resolution images of the Apollo sites, they are the highest resolution of two sites. If all that's required for you to accept their validity is publicity, then I guess the Korean and LRO images of the Apollo sites are absolutely genuine.

Like all other space agencies, their lunar probes imaged Apollo sites because it allows them to check how their own equipment is performing. They know what's there, how big the equipment is, and they know the physical parameters of the ground thanks to the samples returned. They are not doing it to prove Apollo, they are doing it to validate their own equipment, and they certainly aren't doing it to appease some cranks.

[onebigmonkey]

(Flag Waving)
You've already had my explanation, it's the same as everyone else's. Here it is again.
A directional air current from the LM causes the flag to move from one position to a point where air stops it moving. It oscillates back to a point where it can be influenced by it again.

I am honored by your involvement here.  My beliefs are sincere, and I appreciate you.

In your rationale, when the flag is "at rest" (not impacted by an air current) - is that resting position on-screen or off-screen? 

In my mind, "at rest" is off-screen, until a draft blows "towards the LM" which then brings it on screen.  But this could only happen on earth, with an atmosphere.

I believe your theory requires that "at rest" is ON screen, until the "LM depressurization exhaust" pushes it OFF-screen, correct?

The major contenders against your theory are:
1. It's off-screen far more than on-screen.. and many say the decompression was "fast" (2 minutes?)... and this doesn't provide enough time to account for your theory.
2. When it's onscreen (in your theory, "at Rest") - the top white stripe is bent and almost gone -- and the top part is SLANTED towards offscreen, where it attaches to the horizontal pole.   It's clear from this slant that "on screen" is NOT "at-rest" but is in a state of "being pushed by something -- towards the LM".   In short it can't be "At Rest" when on screen.

The "slant" gives it away.  Shows it is "being pushed" on-screen.   Do you disagree?  If so, how?

===
Drafts inside of a 1200' x 300' hanger are possible.
1. Air leaks... wind outside blows, goes through the leaks, and causes a draft.  A huge hangar probably isn't so air tight.
2. Someone has a door open, or worse a door on both sides open.  Maybe then wanted some ventilation.
3. Central AC.. can cause drafts.

Sound feasible?

While on the moon, an air current going TOWARDS the LM - isn't explainable. 

Unless you can defend "At Rest" being "on Screen" - your current theory Fails.  And this "Flag pushed towards LM" theory stands unrefuted.

Here is the flag before it is moved:

It stays in that position for some time. It begins to move after depresurisation starts.

AS14-66-9304

AS14-66-9324

Also show the flag pointed at the LM, with the first one showing the lean on the pole, which can freely rotate.

You're correct: an air current towards the LM would not be possible. Just as well there isn't one, just like there is no studio.

At some point people are going to stop spoon feeding you, because all the questions you are asking can be answered with the same resource everyone else has: Google.

[Mag40]

Then photoshop one. Photoshop a RAW file, without trace. Let's see it.

Show us the Apollo 11 and 12 sites without the hardware on.

ISRO's images of Apollo 11 and 12 are not the first high resolution images of the Apollo sites, they are the highest resolution of two sites. If all that's required for you to accept their validity is publicity, then I guess the Korean and LRO images of the Apollo sites are absolutely genuine.

Like all other space agencies, their lunar probes imaged Apollo sites because it allows them to check how their own equipment is performing. They know what's there, how big the equipment is, and they know the physical parameters of the ground thanks to the samples returned. They are not doing it to prove Apollo, they are doing it to validate their own equipment, and they certainly aren't doing it to appease some cranks.

I read a really good summary about this from "Gonetoplaid" talking about Deconvolving and the sheer complexities of introducing changes into streamed data. It basically places Arizona State Uni into collaborators. Where does this mad anti-logic end? We're already multiple generations into NASA turnover staff, other space agencies etc.

I'm going to see if I can find it, can't recall where I saw it.

[najak]

Soon after reading Najak's first few posts here I trotted off to the Apollo 14 Lunar Surface Journal, went past the links to the Journal, paged down to Background Material, and clicked on the fourth link, Image Library, did a quick search for "flag", and got 25 hits.

Plain text below has their full details and a lot of information, such as the azimuth the US flag points to.

Usually I would include links, so I apologise to other members for not including them, but I'm trying to encourage Najak to do his own research. Just like I did. :-)

THANK YOU for the links.  You are correct, I should have dug this up myself. 

Before I'm done with the associated KB, I will incorporate this long commentary inserted into the Surface Journal, starting at 131:09:46.  It appears are trying to imply an Apollogist theory to explain the mysterious (impossible?) flag waving.

So thank you very much for this.   And I apologize that I didn't find this myself.

[najak]

I read a really good summary about this from "Gonetoplaid" talking about Deconvolving and the sheer complexities of introducing changes into streamed data. It basically places Arizona State Uni into collaborators. Where does this mad anti-logic end? We're already multiple generations into NASA turnover staff, other space agencies etc.

My own theory about these imagery edits, could be the following:

1. They edited the final non-streamed data.   Which would mean if they were to RE-PROCESS the original stream, it would NOT included these graphics... showing that they are MISSING.

OR

2. They modified the streamed data itself (not in real-time) but after it was done being received.   Which might mean they were using the research done by ASU to build a software tool that reverse generates the streamed data, from the modified output imagery.

So if #2 is not possible... then I would be stuck with #1 -- which means it could be uncovered by simply re-processing the streamed data.  Which might be why neither organization is directly Proclaiming "we saw Apollo!" -- despite the huge significance of this supposed imagery.   Because if they "open the door" by proclaiming it, they might be asked -- "Can you please reprocess the data stream to validate it?"... which they may simply not want to do... as it would expose the "security breach, of which they are currently officially unaware".

The gig would be up.

Or we could use Presidential executive order (or some shit) to Open up the "Apollo Capsule" recovered from Russian waters the day after Apollo 13 launch .... where the serial # evidence inside would reveal this to be the Apollo 13 capsule....   but NOPE, they sealed it up, never to be opened until 2070...  I'd like to see that Serial#.... it could reveal EVERYTHING.  So why are we respecting the 1970 decision to keep this sealed?  What are they hiding?

[najak]

Here is the flag before it is moved:...

THANKS!  I found the flag motion at 5:22:38.  It moves the horizontal pole a LOT.
https://youtu.be/LK97hd3U4b8?t=19355

How does your footage align in time-line to the footage I was showing here, where there appears to be a draft TOWARDS the LM?
https://youtu.be/HpXQBYohV9Q?t=697
[/quote]