Hoax? - Flag moves without being Touched

[bknight]

TimberWolf seems to agree with it.  Your physics lacks in depth as has been seen by all, so the pot should not call the kettle black. 

[najak]

TimberWolf seems to agree with it.  Your physics lacks in depth as has been seen by all, so the pot should not call the kettle black.

@TimberWolfAu, what say you?  Do you agree with his logic?
===
His last statement was:
"I already gave you this scenario many posts back.  Look at it like this dynamic energy stored as static energy that must be released to come to equilibrium and the flag oscillates.  There is no gravity function other than the flag hanging down from the cross bar. "
===

I don't even understand what he's trying to say here.   Maybe it's just above my head, and I really don't understand physics as well as @bknight.

[onebigmonkey]

A few observations.

Firstly, depressurisation did not take 8 minutes. The 8 minutes in the table refers to a phase in the EVA  between the commencement of depressurisation and physically leaving the cabin. The LMP depressurisarion phase is given as 13 minutes. Actual depressurisarion was much shorter.

Secondly, you seem to be arguing that a directional air movement was more than capable of either rotating the flag completely on its pole or making it oscillate back and forth. Why is such a thing not possible with directional air movement from a depressurising LM? An air movement coinciding precisely with the LM depressurising, and with recordings made elsewhere on the landing site.

Finally, movement of the flag independent of human contact was observed numerous times after RCS hot fires. The only difference is that the actual movement was not recorded, just the 'before and after' parts.

[najak]

The LMP depressurisarion phase is given as 13 minutes. Actual depressurisarion was much shorter.

Secondly, you seem to be arguing that a directional air movement was more than capable of either rotating the flag completely on its pole or making it oscillate back and forth. Why is such a thing not possible with directional air movement from a depressurising LM? An air movement coinciding precisely with the LM depressurising, and with recordings made elsewhere on the landing site.

Finally, movement of the flag independent of human contact was observed numerous times after RCS hot fires. The only difference is that the actual movement was not recorded, just the 'before and after' parts.

How long was the cabin depressurization?  Do they ever say?

My math assumed 7 lbs (112 ounces) expelled over 112 seconds, just under 2 minutes.   1 oz/sec of Oxygen emitted at 5 PSI from 8 meters away doesn't seem to have enough mass to move a flag, and much less the whole pole - -and even less - to make the pole have so much momentum that it does a 360  (thus comes back) - has enough momentum to turn the last 180 degrees all by itself?? (and against the breeze?)

===
MLH theory does not require moving the pole at all.. the flag is just BARELY OFFSCREEN - for many minutes, you can see the smallest scant sliver of it.  And then for fairly brief durations we see this flag cloth PUSHED TOWARDS the LM, and then it subsides back to just barely offscreen.

Here's Jet Wintzer's link to the footage, as the footage that should be there from NASA's Surface Journal is conveniently (for NASA) missing.
https://youtu.be/p_66cqMQsW4?t=207

As you can see here, starting at 3:27 - top right side, you can see the tiniest sliver of flag for quite some time before it "blows on screen".

When it blows on screen, note the slant at top (that makes the top white strip mostly hidden).. this is an indicator that the flag is blowing away from the horizontal pole.

This is all there is to the MLH theory here --  slight steady draft - barely moves flag.   But since it's barely off screen, it highlights the motion for us very well.

The PNA theory of "spinning a 360" or "pendulum motion" are non-sense.

The first 2 instances occur here, at 1:29 mark:
https://youtu.be/p_66cqMQsW4?t=87


(this first one is clearly not a pendulum action)
(the 2nd one cannot possibly be 360 full rotation action)

This is a REAL STUMPER for Pro-Apollo Faith.   There exists No Legitimate Way to explain this one away.

[Mag40]

How long was the cabin depressurization?  Do they ever say?

Go fetch.

My math assumed 7 lbs (112 ounces) expelled over 112 seconds, just under 2 minutes.   1 oz/sec of Oxygen emitted at 5 PSI from 8 meters away doesn't seem to have enough mass to move a flag, and much less the whole pole - -and even less - to make the pole have so much momentum that it does a 360  (thus comes back) - has enough momentum to turn the last 180 degrees all by itself?? (and against the breeze?)

I would say your math is correct. It's enough to maybe jiggle it about. So there must be something else doing it, yes?

The first thing anyone should do when looking at Apollo "anomalies" is watch the whole thing. You haven't done that at all. I must confess I hadn't seen this 180 degree flag direction before. But luckily I have a great method to work it out.

Watch the bloody footage:

Clear as day, they are tossing out the second PLSS and lo and behold 10:17:50 it hits the flag pole and we see the flag turn accordingly.

We're done.

MLH theory does not require ....

Looking at the bloody footage!

This is a REAL STUMPER for Pro-Apollo Faith.   There exists No Legitimate Way to explain this one away.

Run along now, fully explained.

End of thread.

[Zakalwe]

Clear as day, they are tossing out the second PLSS and lo and behold 10:17:50 it hits the flag pole and we see the flag turn accordingly.

We're done.

I'm not so sure about that.
AS14-66-9338 shows the resting place of the PLSS and it is not near the flagpole. You can also see the track marks in the regolith where the PLSS tumbled. It shows that the PLSS path  didn't take it near the pole.

[najak]

I'm not so sure about that.
AS14-66-9338 shows the resting place of the PLSS and it is not near the flagpole. You can also see the track marks in the regolith where the PLSS tumbled. It shows that the PLSS path  didn't take it near the pole.

Zakalwe, you are my new favorite PNA. (Pro-Nasa-Advocate)    Love seeing PNA's police the bad logic of other PNA's.  That's a great sign of integrity.

@Mag40 - your tone was ironic, with the absolute certainty you had here, with no real evidence.  You made a blind assumption of hitting the flag, and called it a "conclusive win".

Is this an indicator of your Confirmation Bias, or your skillset - which lead you to such an easy-to-see erroneous conclusion with so much certainty.   Confirmation Bias can make us dumb and blind.

I'll forgive your mistake here, because I cherish your involvement, but perhaps you can tone it down a bit on your "certainty".

====
I suppose this means that the "Impossibility of the Flag moving towards the LM, remains 100% unrefuted".  It's still King of this Hill.   Try again.

It's been 20 years, so why hasn't this already been long-debunked by now?  We're got 20 year veterans who keep telling me that they've already heard and debunked every-single-MLH argument.

[TimberWolfAu]

So your belief is the following?
1. 7 lbs of oxygen was emitted during an 8 minute "depressurization phase" from 8 meters away.   1-2 lbs of oxygen per minute...  1 ounce per second, max.
2. This 1 ounce per second of air, which spreads out evenly in all directions... hit this flag with enough force to move it 180 degrees?

I have no "beliefs" in regards to Apollo. I accept the historical record of Apollo.

Regards, the flag movement, again, no beliefs here. All I have is an untested hypothesis.

Quick update though, looking at the Apollo 14 transcripts, and the EMU related events, it looks like the time between the dump valve being opened, and the pressure reducing to the point where the hatch could be opened (less than 0.2psi) was around 1 minute 51 seconds for EVA 1, EVA 2 drops about a pound of pressure in about 22 seconds, then a further three pounds in about 1 minute 31 seconds. For the PLSS dump, there is about 3 minutes 50 seconds between the final confirmation of being ready to start the dump and Shepherds comment that they are "going to jettison now", but no actual call outs on dump valves being opened or the hatch being opened.

An interesting comment is made by Ed Mitchell in the debrief concerning their 'clean up' after EVA 2;
"A lot of that dust, I believe, kind of got whipped outside when we did our dump repress. The cabin dust kind of swirled around. A lot of that went out through the relief valve at that point, which might have reduced it somewhat ."

So it would seem that more than just the internal atmosphere was ejected, but physical dust as well.

https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a14/a14.html
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a14/a14tecdbrf.html
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a14/A14HistorclEMUAccnt.pdf

[najak]

Quick update though, looking at the Apollo 14 transcripts, and the EMU related events, it looks like the time between the dump valve being opened, and the pressure reducing to the point where the hatch could be opened (less than 0.2psi) was around 1 minute 51 seconds for EVA 1, EVA 2 drops about a pound of pressure in about 22 seconds, then a further three pounds in about 1 minute 31 seconds. For the PLSS dump, there is about 3 minutes 50 seconds between the final confirmation of being ready to start the dump and Shepherds comment that they are "going to jettison now", but no actual call outs on dump valves being opened or the hatch being opened.

An interesting comment is made by Ed Mitchell in the debrief concerning their 'clean up' after EVA 2;
"A lot of that dust, I believe, kind of got whipped outside when we did our dump repress. The cabin dust kind of swirled around. A lot of that went out through the relief valve at that point, which might have reduced it somewhat ."

So it would seem that more than just the internal atmosphere was ejected, but physical dust as well.

https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a14/a14.html
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a14/a14tecdbrf.html
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a14/A14HistorclEMUAccnt.pdf

THANK YOU FOR THIS!  This is good info to add to the KB, related to this "Decompression of Cabin" claim.

Do you know how to figure out the exact timing of this footage?   If this guy is now supposed to be the "official repo" for these videos, it seems he should add in the comment the "Mission time stamp - start/end"

[Mag40]

I'm not so sure about that.
AS14-66-9338 shows the resting place of the PLSS and it is not near the flagpole. You can also see the track marks in the regolith where the PLSS tumbled. It shows that the PLSS path  didn't take it near the pole.

That will teach me The issue remains though. Clearly the moment the PLSS hits the lunar surface, the flag pole jolts enough for it to swing around. I'm ok with ground impact vibration. What is that, a 30lb (1/6th) object coming down onto a compacted surface from about 12ft?

It also begs the question that it is easy to see, so if it was damning why would they leave it visible in the first place? It's always this same scenario. NASA are amazing at constructing this hyper-unrealistic hoax to such extreme levels of intricacy but miss totally obvious things like this. It just doesn't make any logical sense.

[najak]

It's always this same scenario. NASA are amazing at constructing this hyper-unrealistic hoax to such extreme levels of intricacy but miss totally obvious things like this. It just doesn't make any logical sense.

MLH theory is that NASA was NOT awesome at creating a physics-correct simulation - but it was "Good enough", clearly as it's been 55 years.

NASA's main defense of this "flawed simulation" was:

1. that until post-2000, no one could easily obtain, replay, and analyze NASA photos, videos, PDF's, transcripts.  Their simulation was "good enough" for the 1970's where you "saw it once" and done.   And in that era of "celebrating success" to be a denier would be like standing up in a Fundamentalist Christian church and trying to convince the congregation that "the bible is flawed/corrupted" - no matter how strong your arguments, and how intelligent the congregation - they will disbelieve you, and you'll become the lonely object of scorn.

Additionally, if you were a denier -- it was near impossible back then to find others "like minded" -- all deniers operated in a lonely vacuum with NO SOURCES to question, as they couldn't view the photos, documents, nor video footage.

So pulling off the hoax, didn't require "physics perfection" - most mistakes would never be noticed -- until post-2000.

2. NASA made MANY mistakes... but only some of them are EASY TO PROVE.  (this flag waving mistake is one of them)

3. The parts that were HARD TO FAKE-- NASA destroyed (or "Lost") - such as the entire set of Apollo source video footage and telemetry data!  And 99%+ of the LM/AM design/tech documents!

This is the MLH theory.   NASA messed up a lot -- but this was "GOOD ENOUGH" -- clearly.

Now, the defense of Apollo is shouldered mostly by Google/YouTube/etc - which classify MLH as Misinformation and so suppresses the pro-MLH articles/videos, except for the bad ones (like Sibrel, he's easy to find, and those who latch onto his flawed arguments end up looking like fools) -- so casually curious "very smart" people who dare to question Apollo - spend a few hours researching it, but the ONLY things they find are "Moon Hoax Debunked" articles and videos -- 100's of them.    But Google/Youtube shows them NO LINKS to the good arguments.   They spend a few hours, and thus become convinced that Moon Hoax believers also must think the world is flat, and are stupid.

Easy-peasy.

[Mag40]

MLH theory is that NASA was NOT awesome at creating a physics-correct simulation - but it was "Good enough", clearly as it's been 55 years.

It's perfect for all industry experts. Fringe HBs don't count.

NASA's main defense of this "flawed simulation" was

It is neither flawed or a simulation. You simply have no critical thinking skills, no logic and there also appears to be an integrity vacuum you are drawing around in every denial post.

1. that until post-2000, no one could easily obtain, replay, and analyze NASA photos, videos, PDF's, transcripts.  Their simulation was "good enough" for the 1970's where you "saw it once" and done.   And in that era of "celebrating success" to be a denier would be like standing up in a Fundamentalist Christian church and trying to convince the congregation that "the bible is flawed/corrupted" - no matter how strong your arguments, and how intelligent the congregation - they will disbelieve you, and you'll become the lonely object of scorn.

Complete bollocks. They released it all in box sets, numerous formats of memorabilia, copies of the processed images and transparencies etc.

Additionally, if you were a denier -- it was near impossible back then to find others "like minded" -- all deniers operated in a lonely vacuum with NO SOURCES to question, as they couldn't view the photos, documents, nor video footage.

Not finding other equally mistaken individuals is actually a positive.

So pulling off the hoax, didn't require "physics perfection" - most mistakes would never be noticed -- until post-2000.

There was no hoax and no mistakes. The endless claims have all been debunked to the satisfaction of honest, critical thinking and objective people.

2. NASA made MANY mistakes... but only some of them are EASY TO PROVE.  (this flag waving mistake is one of them)

They made no mistakes and you have proven nothing.

The issue remains though. Clearly the moment the PLSS hits the lunar surface, the flag pole jolts enough for it to swing around. I'm ok with ground impact vibration. What is that, a 30lb (1/6th) object coming down onto a compacted surface from about 12ft?

This is what is visible on the footage. The PLSS impacts and the flag does a clear ripple.

3. The parts that were HARD TO FAKE-- NASA destroyed (or "Lost") - such as the entire set of Apollo source video footage and telemetry data!  And 99%+ of the LM/AM design/tech documents!

Oh dear, you appear to be regurgitating a claim without checking it. All the telemetry exits in other formats. And lying about the LM design when you have been told specifically that a group of people have built a perfect replica from design documents.

This is the MLH theory.

It sucks.

They spend a few hours, and thus become convinced that Moon Hoax believers also must think the world is flat, and are stupid.

Most of them do.

Easy-peasy.

Your evasion is very telling.

[najak]

#1. They released it all in box sets, numerous formats of memorabilia, copies of the processed images and transparencies etc.

#2:

3. The parts that were HARD TO FAKE-- NASA destroyed (or "Lost") - such as the entire set of Apollo source video footage and telemetry data!  And 99%+ of the LM/AM design/tech documents!

Oh dear, you appear to be regurgitating a claim without checking it. All the telemetry exits in other formats. And lying about the LM design when you have been told specifically that a group of people have built a perfect replica from design documents.

#3: Your evasion is very telling.

#1 - True, and thanks.  My claim was overstated.  The widespread tech in homes to digitize these videos and analyze them frame-by-frame mostly happened post-2000, for mainstream.   Also post-2000 was the rise of FB and social media, where like-minded MLH theorist could start to find each other, rather than working within a vacuum.   My core claim here is that for 1970's, imperfections/mistakes could easily go unchallenged.  Perfection not required.

#2: Correct?  I'm a rookie, and am susceptible to putting too much stock in things I've heard, that might be exaggerated or even false.   Can you show me any links that substantiate your claim here?  I'm doing the same among the MLH group as well, so that I can witness the evidence from both sides, and see which one is more compelling.   If you are correct -- THANK YOU..  I will adjust my claim to reflect the objective truth as best as I can.

#3: Never evading truth here.  I'm here inside the PNA forum, because I want to meet Truth head-on, which is best done in the presence of sincere/serious opposition.  I do find your skillset at providing "serious" opposition to be lacking.   Your inclination is to jump to "certainty" based on far too little evidence, while ignoring some key concepts.   You seem to accept weak evidence as "certain proof" far too readily.

Please show some math and more detailed science to explain how a 30 lbs PLSS landing 12' away  would justify causing the "flag to do a  180", which is your theory, right?