Hoax? - Flag moves without being Touched

[najak]

I have only begun to delve into this phenomenon.   For sake of this debate, let's keep this limited to ONLY the case for Apollo 14 where the flag moves 8 times while the astronauts are inside.

As my thesis, I'll show the surely-famous clip from Jet Wintzer.

https://youtu.be/p_66cqMQsW4

He seems to do a good job with this presentation, but I'm guessing it's flawed.

I've also read some debunking that suggests it was the result of "cabin depressurization" where the air was expelled close enough to move the flag.

However, I've not seen the proof of alignment of the Flight Journal aligned to these cases of flag motion to prove a feasible correlation.

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. 

How do PNA's explain this motion?   

(PNA = Pro-Nasa-Advocate -- is there a better term to use here.   I assume my acronym here is HB - Hoax Believer)

[TimberWolfAu]

The video is between EVA 1 and 2.

Given the horizontal bar of the flag pole could pivot freely, I doubt it would have taken a lot of pressure to cause the flag to rotate, once the expelled gasses from the depressurisation prior to the 2nd EVA reached the flag (while gas will expand in a vacuum, its main impulse will still be towards the flag, which was in front of the LM).

But you know what else happened either side if the footage? This picture, showing the flag pointing towards the LM, post EVA 1, and away from the LM post EVA 2.

Simple explanation, requiring no unsupported variables.

[najak]

@TimberWolfAu - thank you for the contribution.   I was aware of those two photos as well, and the way they have been used in attempt to fully debunk this flag motion on film.

Here's the fully unexplained issue - in the film we see it spend most of it's time off-screen, but 4 of it's 8 movements are TOWARDS the LEM??

Is it possible that they noticed the flag motion, and so adding those two photos of the before/after was "damage control"?  How many such photos are there to demonstrate this before/after?  I'm downloading the full gallery from Apollo 14 now, to see for myself these photos.

[Allan F]

If "they" noticed the flag motion, why then publish it?

[najak]

If "they" noticed the flag motion, why then publish it?

Good question, but with a good answer.   In 1969, this was a 1-shot showing.  People only got to see it once.  So their "fixing of mistakes" only needed to be "easy" - no reason to reshoot everything or omit their "continuous footage" on account of something that probably not many would notice - and if they did - they'd be treated worse than HB's today...   With no way to find a support group, etc... 

Even today, lying or ignorant PNA's (Pro-NASA-Advocates) repeat the known-to-be-false claim that "the flag only moves when being touched", but not daring to mention these critical exceptions.  This lying claim is mainstream -- it's all most people will ever hear.   They've been denied access to the true MLH arguments that undermine the "Apollo Truth" defined by the system for us today.

So clearly, this "fix" was good enough to last 55 years, and PNA's are still clinging to it tight.   So it worked.  That's why they didn't need to reshoot the scene or omit this footage..   Just "add a few photos" that we can point to later, if needed.

I haven't fully researched this one.   Am in the process of doing this now.

[najak]

Did more research - downloaded all 680 photos from FLICKR for Apollo 14.  There are only 3 shots (with a couple dupes) of the Flag in all.

In the two photos that PNA's (Pro-Nasa-Advocates) use as "evidence", it's blatantly clear that a LOT of activity happened right near this flag between these shots.  (altering of foot prints + the equipment right next to it was moved).

So for PNAs to be smug about "look at our proof" while ignoring the likely hood that someone touched the flag during this activity - is silliness.   I haven't dug into the video footage, but wouldn't be surprised if it's caught on camera them touching this flag, and PNA's ignore it.   For all the accusations PNA's have against HB's for "ignoring evidence" - you might want to look in the mirror.

We have blatant evidence of flag motion that is fully unexplainable, even by this very weak (dishonest?) attempt here with these two photos.

[TimberWolfAu]

Here's the fully unexplained issue - in the film we see it spend most of it's time off-screen, but 4 of it's 8 movements are TOWARDS the LEM??

Is it possible that they noticed the flag motion, and so adding those two photos of the before/after was "damage control"?  How many such photos are there to demonstrate this before/after?  I'm downloading the full gallery from Apollo 14 now, to see for myself these photos.

Yes, half of the motion of a rotating object will be towards the LM, while the other half will be away from the LM, that's how rotation works.

And if you're convinced that the photos were staged AFTER the event, why don't you do the one thing no HB has ever done; have the original transparencies investigated. To date, every single claim of anomalies in the photographic record have been based on either digital scans (at different resolutions and loss rate) or on copies of copies (even to the point where people complain of anomalies in black and white photos that were originally taken in colour), and even to the extreme of complaining of anomalies in what is claimed to be a single photo when it is in fact a composite of several photos at different times.

[najak]

Yes, half of the motion of a rotating object will be towards the LM, while the other half will be away from the LM, that's how rotation works.

And if you're convinced that the photos were staged AFTER the event...

The PNA theory is that they decompressed the cabin, and this is what hit the flag like a breeze... the flag can ONLY move AWAY from this breeze...  if it tried to turn past 180 degrees, then this "breeze" would push it back from the other side - causing it to stabilize at 180 degrees AWAY.  End result, if this were cabin pressure caused, is a flag pointing away about 180 degrees...  once in this position, there would be NO WAY for decompression "breeze" to PULL IT BACK.  This is the simplest type of physics here; why does this not register with you?

And no, I am NOT convinced it was AFTER (all else);  but I was only suggesting it, as there were only about 6 of the 650 photos that showed the flag orientation, and the final one "luckily" (for NASA) showed up to give a (weak/invalid) excuse for the moving flag..   Since it was last, they may have simply noticed this before being done with all the shots, and so added it as a sort of "easy damage control" should anyone make note of the atmospheric drafts that moved this flag.   As we can see, even a weak/invalid argument works even for smart people, when that argument helps confirm their beliefs.

@Allan Folmerson - promised me smart scientific minds here.   So far, I'm not sensing it.   Where are the good scientists here, who understand high school physics concepts, at minimum?

[Allan F]

The really good ones can't really be arsed with your infantile blabber. You have NOTHING that hasn't been seen before, and dismissed as nonsense.

[najak]

The really good ones can't really be arsed with your infantile blabber. You have NOTHING that hasn't been seen before, and dismissed as nonsense.

Then surely you can at least Parrot their previous answers.  Let's hear it.

I think it's because they know they cannot refute this main issue -- "what would PULL the flag back towards the LEM?"  This is simple physics here, and there is no viable answer in the context of "the moon with no atmosphere".   It would be a losing battle for them, is my guess.   Even the smartest person or the mightiest govt organization cannot break physics.

[TimberWolfAu]

This is the simplest type of physics here; why does this not register with you?

Ah, that would be because you haven't provided any physics, only baseless claims. Surely you can provide the amount of force that the depressurisation would have applied to the flag? How long did this pressure apply for? Was there enough pressure to cause the flag to rotate on it's axis multiple times? Remember, this isn't Rasa's FB group, here you're expected to show your work to support your claim.


Remember, you're the one claiming there was a breeze (which only affected the flag), which would imply that this was filmed in a studio. Yet when we look at the photos and footage from Apollo 14, it would have to have been an extremely large studio, so where was it? Who filmed it? Who dressed the set? And, most improtantly, why have none of these people ever come forwards?

[Kiwi]

Did more research - downloaded all 680 photos from FLICKR for Apollo 14.  There are only 3 shots (with a couple dupes) of the Flag in all.

You might have missed some.

In case it's of use, the Apollo 14 Lunar Surface Journal has sixteen photos that include all or part of the US Flag, and none of them are duplicates. The sequential photos are mostly parts of panoramas, which all have slightly different views of the lunar scenery. Below are the numbers of each photo which shows the flag:--

AS14-66-9231
AS14-66-9232
AS14-66-9233
AS14-66-9236
AS14-66-9255
AS14-66-9256
AS14-66-9257
AS14-66-9276
AS14-66-9277
AS14-66-9303
AS14-66-9304
AS14-66-9305
AS14-66-9324
AS14-66-9325
AS14-66-9338
AS14-66-9339

Please, when referring to Apollo lunar surface still photos, include their numbers, like the ones above. Most people would be reluctant to wade through hundreds of photos to find the ones you're talking about. Each photo is described in the Image Library in the Lunar Surface Journal for each mission -- many with up to half a page or more of information.

PS And please use the correct abbreviation for the Lunar Module, which is LM, and usually pronounced Lem. In the planning stage it was originally called the Lunar Excursion Module, but that was eventually dropped in favour of a shorter version of Astronymish, maybe because somebody realised that it wasn't going to do any excurdging on the lunar surface.

[Kiwi]

The really good ones can't really be arsed with your infantile blabber. You have NOTHING that hasn't been seen before, and dismissed as nonsense.

Allan: Most of we ApolloHoax long-termers don't talk like that to HBs, which is a fairly rare thing that I've appreciated about his forum for a little over 20 years. (This is about the third or fourth incarnation of the forum, so most membership durations refer to this incarnation only.)

Newer members have recently lowered the standard of debate, and it's a pity that grown-ups would do that. Additionally, the quote at the bottom of your posts implies that you shouldn't talk like that either. If you need a good example, read some of JayUtah's posts. He vigorously attacks erroneous claims about Apollo, but he never uses bad language and never insults other members. That's something we should all do.

[Allan F]

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.