Hoax? - Flag moves without being Touched

[najak]

But it was filmed live +1.25 second delay at 60 frames per second North American standard.  You are just idly speculating

Other than idle speculation, you have proof of this?  Has anyone actors or crew stepped forward and corroborated this?  No

And you are presuming that everything we saw on TV was honest/genuine.  The MLH theory is that all (or most all) of the Moon footage was pre-filmed, possibly in June 1968, per this man's father's Deathbed confession, who was the Chief of Security for the Hanger in 1968 at Canon AF base, NM.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu5Z75ji3aU

Just because they say it's "live footage" - does that make it fact?

[Mag40]

#1: I'm juggling a dozen commenters.  You only have one.

That's gish gallup  HB bingo for you.

I made this point very clearly.  The video you showed chose to put a SMALL (2-ounce?) lock on the end of it.  MASS MATTERS. 

Mass makes no difference. You can put 10 tons on or 10lb and it makes no difference!

If you change this to a 2 lb lead weight - that changes the rate of decay a LOT.

Edit: misread your post. The decay weight is not relevant, the Apollo 14 example doesn't use a weight.

  In fact, in the Moon video, we see this amplitude approximately cut-in-half!!  So shows this decay, which could indicate air resistance IS at play.

The decay is caused by the jutting edge friction initiating smaller pendulum.

#2: ... except if you simply speed up their film by 2X -- then it matches Earth's period EXACTLY.

Sure does but the rate is 245%. But....you didn't watch the video properly. The same experiment on Earth is significantly slower by air resistance.

https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a14/a14pendulum.html

[najak]

Let's see "proof by speculation".

The "proof" is a combination of factors:
a. when Apollo breaks physics, or there is behavior that was necessary for the hoax (such as losing all telemetry tapes, or discarding key LM design docs).
b. the feasibility of faking it - such as pre-filming and changing the frame rates.

[Mag40]

The "proof" is a combination of factors:

In quotes.

a. when Apollo breaks physics

You can repeat the crap all you want but you've evaded key rebuttal.

or there is behavior that was necessary for the hoax (such as losing all telemetry tapes, or discarding key LM design docs).

Is this done to irritate? The only telemetry data lost that could have been significant was the SSTV data for Apollo 11. The discussion on design docs resulted in you demonstrating how you don't properly read extensive links.

b. the feasibility of faking it - such as pre-filming and changing the frame rates.

Nothing proven, no evidence provided.

[LunarOrbit]

#1: I'm juggling a dozen commenters.

And you want to start more threads? If you have time for more threads you have time to respond to the questions and comments that have been directed at you in your existing threads. You will not be starting any new threads until you do.

[LunarOrbit]

I'm going to lock this thread. It has gone way off topic and Najak doesn't seem interested in defending his original claim.

I will try to separate the off topic posts into a new thread when I have time, but please don't allow Najak to skirt the rules by starting new threads inside his other threads. I imposed this restriction on him specifically to keep him (and us) focused on a small number of threads until they can be resolved.

Update:

The off-topic posts have been moved to the "Najak potpourri" thread. It's a dumpster fire of posts of various different topics.

[najak]

This thread has been unlocked to continue this debate.

Here is my summary of the TD's attempts to explain these movements:
1. It swung back like a pendulum.
2. The pole itself did 360's...
3. The pole was leaning towards the LM, and so "resting position was on-screen"

#1 and #2 are too easy -- the motion onto the screen is steady/slow, holds steady for 5-15 seconds at a time... so CLEARLY is NOT a pendulum motion, nor a 360 swinging motion.

Only #3 merits some discussion - and so I addressed it in my doc:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KnnsXE97fKJZ-CJYv7j_G9eVdgwW960LUeOCGz5uarE/edit?usp=sharing
(See page 2.)

I've Pasted Page 2 text here for convenience (and ensuring a snapshot):

Apollogist Hypothesis #1: Leaning Pole
1. Pole is slanted, so when exhaust pushes the flag off screen, and when the exhaust subsides (e.g. they close the valve for equipment/safety checks) -- the flag comes back on screen, because of this tilt.
2. The flag will be on screen when "at rest", and off screen as it is pushed by the Exhaust.

===
Non-Feasibility of Apollogist Hypothesis:

1. Depressurization procedures only allow for higher pressure evacuation for about 1 minute (from PSI 5 to down 1).  Yet this hypothesis has this exhaust breeze holding the flag away for about 116 seconds total, after its first appearance to its final appearance.  And this does not include the “minutes beforehand” where it started offscreen.

2. What brought the flag onto the screen to start with? (continuation from #1)

3. Why was the top of the flag always SLANTED off screen to the top pole?  This is a sure sign of "breeze pushing it on screen", and not being "at rest".

4. This hypothesis has a "grand finale" where the PSI is about 0.1 PSI - that flows the flag to do a 90 degree full turn, and then stay there.

[Mag40]

Here is the hoax-claimant position:

Some bloke left the door open and this gust of wind came in and did things. These do not explain the flag movement. This occurred during the first videoed depressurisation. Then, that same pillock came along and did the very same thing again, equally with no explanation and also during the next depressurisation.

Logic of a toaster.

[bknight]

From the A12 antenna thread.

I point out a glaring error in your thesis concerning A14 and all you can do is rant about bias.  You are really terrible at this.  Point blank do you believe that A14 was not on Earth?

"glaring error" - can you be more specific?

Point blank, I don't think we landed humans on the moon... yet.

The live video of the tape oscillating gives zero weight to your thesis.  Yes, that is a glaring error on your part and you don't have the courage to ad mit that you have made a mistake.  You mention that the pendulum moves too fast. 
Well lets put it another way it made 18 oscillations in 86 seconds that was 4.8 seconds per oscillation.  Now IF that pendulum was on Earth it would need to be ~5.7 meters long.  4.8=2Pi*sqrt(L/G) where G is 9.8 on Earth as you believe.  Do you really believe that the tape is 5.7 meters long, or expect the rest of us to believe that it is?  Your thesis fails miserably.  The LM was not on Earth.  So where could it have been?  Could it be on Mars, no the "ground" doesn't appear to be oxidized.  The only object that NASA planned and executed in the late 60's early 70's was land on the Moon.  You are not as smart as you think you are.  And yes, this is physics.
If you need to refer to the video, look on page 8 if you don't remember.

[najak]

The live video of the tape oscillating gives zero weight to your thesis.  Yes, that is a glaring error on your part and you don't have the courage to ad mit that you have made a mistake.  You mention that the pendulum moves too fast. 

Your rebuttal here ignores the fact that MLH proclaims they slowed the frame rate to about 50% for this footage, and instructed the astronauts to "make movements double-speed for the next minute"...  the slowdown should have been to 40%, not 50%... thus the pendulum that they DID show was "too fast"...  but the worst part is that it was decreasing in amplitude considerably, a sign of air resistance.

So the MLH theory for the SEQ Tape pendulum is that... they slowed frame rate to about 50%, and told them to move "double-time" for a minute, so they could give the NASA TD's some fodder... but oops, the amplitude reduced showing the air resistance, so this fodder didn't work out as well as they had hoped.

There is nothing non-feasible here about the MLH proposal.  But there is potentially a fatal flaw for the TD's because the amplitude is decreasing, showing air resistance.

[najak]

Some bloke left the door open and this gust of wind came in and did things. These do not explain the flag movement. This occurred during the first videoed depressurisation. Then, that same pillock came along and did the very same thing again, equally with no explanation and also during the next depressurisation.

That's a good counter argument -- the unlikeliness of this "mistake" being also timed with the depressurization.

But it STILL offers no viable explanation for what force moved these flags TOWARDS the LM in the manner we see filmed.

[bknight]

The live video of the tape oscillating gives zero weight to your thesis.  Yes, that is a glaring error on your part and you don't have the courage to ad mit that you have made a mistake.  You mention that the pendulum moves too fast. 

Your rebuttal here ignores the fact that MLH proclaims they slowed the frame rate to about 50% for this footage, and instructed the astronauts to "make movements double-speed for the next minute"...  the slowdown should have been to 40%, not 50%... thus the pendulum that they DID show was "too fast"...  but the worst part is that it was decreasing in amplitude considerably, a sign of air resistance.

So the MLH theory for the SEQ Tape pendulum is that... they slowed frame rate to about 50%, and told them to move "double-time" for a minute, so they could give the NASA TD's some fodder... but oops, the amplitude reduced showing the air resistance, so this fodder didn't work out as well as they had hoped.

There is nothing non-feasible here about the MLH proposal.  But there is potentially a fatal flaw for the TD's because the amplitude is decreasing, showing air resistance.

What you claim and what you prove are two different things.  Proof of this live broadcast has been slowed by 50 %.

[LunarOrbit]

Some bloke left the door open and this gust of wind came in and did things. These do not explain the flag movement. This occurred during the first videoed depressurisation. Then, that same pillock came along and did the very same thing again, equally with no explanation and also during the next depressurisation.

That's a good counter argument -- the unlikeliness of this "mistake" being also timed with the depressurization.

But it STILL offers no viable explanation for what force moved these flags TOWARDS the LM in the manner we see filmed.

It shows how ridiculous your claims is.

[Luke Pemberton]

Your rebuttal here ignores the fact that MLH proclaims they slowed the frame rate to about 50% for this footage, and instructed the astronauts to "make movements double-speed for the next minute"...  the slowdown should have been to 40%, not 50%.

Are you saying the film should be slowed to 40% of the original value or the playback speed when put into modern video software should be reduced from 100% playback speed to 60% playback speed?

[dwight]

I ask again. Do you agree that the color TV cameras used on Apollo operated at 30 frames per second?