Hoax? - Flag moves without being Touched

[najak]

The video is of a landing, why don'y you watch the link you provided?

Hmm, for me it shows the 2-frame pendulum.  Trying again here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AEVLayLGbfEPmjx7AVy67R1fmq6oV5WK/view?usp=drive_link

[bknight]

The video is of a landing, why don'y you watch the link you provided?

Hmm, for me it shows the 2-frame pendulum.  Trying again here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AEVLayLGbfEPmjx7AVy67R1fmq6oV5WK/view?usp=drive_link

Again the audio is not of the tape, the fuzziness of the video could be described by any number of Moon actions.  Did you watch the entire sequence of the tape oscillations?  That is much more important than your fuzzy video .

[najak]

Again the audio is not of the tape, the fuzziness of the video could be described by any number of Moon actions.  Did you watch the entire sequence of the tape oscillations?  That is much more important than your fuzzy video .

This is a close-up of the tape itself.. I put two red dots, to show the middle and end of it... to highlight the decreased angle.   You can do the same... capture two images of the video... then overlay end of Period 2 and 18 -- you should see the same thing.   I used KRITA, it's free, but discarded my project, only saved this video capture.

[Luke Pemberton]

Do you agree that MLH theory must have a consistent set of premises from the start if it is to be a viable theory?

"From the start" - if you are talking "history/calendar start" - no.   MLH theory matures, as it is corrected, or new ideas emerge that make more sense.

With MLH we are dealing with "deliberate secrets/tricks - unrevealed" - like trying to guess how the magician did his trick... it might take you a few rounds of guessing... but in the end, even if you don't guess it "correctly", if "it's a trick, it's a trick" - either way.

That's not even being close to being a theory then is it? A theory is not built on a few rounds of guesses.

But it's worse than that. Bill Kaysing said the film speed was reduced to 50% original speed, Ralph Rene and then Jarrah White propagated the 50% as gospel. People like myself pointed out that objects need reduction to 41% if lunar gravity is to be simulated. Despite this Jarrah and his band of stalwarts stuck with the 50%. So it was this side of the fence that arrived with the 41% value, not the hoax believers in their round of guessing as 'new ideas came along.'

It gets better: the about 60% figure for rising astronauts does not come from the hoax believers either. It arises because Jarrah did not understand how to double film speed in video software. So in haste, and to save face, Jarrah decided to repeat his film speed demo. Using the same circular logic he showed 1 = 1 and declared the film speed correction to be 67%. Again, not a guess, not because a new idea emerged, not because it refined the theory in light of new evidence. No, it was due to Jarrah making a foolish mistake to discredit someone, only to see his rebuttal backfire; and when the penny dropped he began handwaving and behaved like a petulant child.

You might find these Jarrah videos worth watching to see the debacle unfold.

So, this doesn't really fit well with your idea of the 'moon hoax maturing as new ideas become available after a few rounds of guessing' does it?' There's no theory, there is only blind conjecture, handwaving and shifting the goalposts while all the time doubling down when one has been found out.

[bknight]

Again the audio is not of the tape, the fuzziness of the video could be described by any number of Moon actions.  Did you watch the entire sequence of the tape oscillations?  That is much more important than your fuzzy video .

This is a close-up of the tape itself.. I put two red dots, to show the middle and end of it... to highlight the decreased angle.   You can do the same... capture two images of the video... then overlay end of Period 2 and 18 -- you should see the same thing.   I used KRITA, it's free, but discarded my project, only saved this video capture.

So you say but the fuzziness of the video accompanied with a landing audio is most confusing and does not prove anything, except what you say it proves.  This is not evidence it is handwaving accompanied with "trust me on this"
Moving on, have you watched the tape for the full 86 seconds?  Yes or No.  If No why not?

[bknight]

najak, you posted this in a different thread.

Again, it's clear you don't really understand, so I'll try to make it more clear. Gish Gallop is when you attempt to support a claim with an overwhelming amount of arguments, regardless of whether those arguments are strong, or even correct.

You wrote: "STRONG":
You can argue with the dictionary and Wikipedia on this one.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/gish-gallop

"a style of arguing in which someone tries to win a debate (= a political, etc. discussion) by using so many different arguments so quickly that their opponent cannot answer them, although these arguments may not be true, correct, or reasonable"

==
All have been discussed at length -- so "not too fast".  And I'm making what I believed were GOOD/TRUE arguments.

I'm NOT trying to win the MLH debate here.   I'm trying to figure out which claims of MLH are solid, ambiguous, skewed, overstated, or entirely false.

Gish Gallop RELIES upon not providing time for the arguments to be scrutinized/cross-examined...  That's never been my goal for ANY of these.

Sometimes a thousand smaller but true/compelling details CAN make a case.

I'm not deleting any of the wall of text that you love so much.  You talk out of both sides of your mouth, and they say different things.  I presented you with a compelling video that proves that the A14 LM is not on Earth, so the first thin you do is to indicate that "MLH claim the video has been increased by 50%, or words to that effect", instead of saying it might be true, thus destroying your whole thesis.  But then you double down and indicate that the tape decreases in amplitude by more than 50% in the second cycle attaching a fuzzy video that can prove nothing.  After some disagreement on what the video is in your words marking the end of the tape, but without any clear image it could really be anything, especially when accompanied by a landing sequence of one of the missions, I ask you to watch the full 86 seconds of the pendulum movement.  To which you have not answered whether you watched it or not.  It still does not appear to me that you act in good faith in dealing with discussions that oppose your beliefs.  You don't have the courage to say "I am wrong" without any stipulations attached.  Just "I am wrong".

In a case where an institution is lying, the truth can only be revealed through smaller mistakes/mess-ups (assuming they did a reasonable job of constructing their lie).  It's the ONLY VIABLE METHOD to discover the Lie.

There were a lot of times where NASA/Astronauts messed up, but none of those mess-ups are not through any conspiracy, they just made a mistake and they ultimately take the blame, not shirk away from the mess-up.  The MLH jumps on these as proof of a conspiracy without looking at the whole picture the evidence of what made up the incident.  You come onto the stage "claiming" you use physics to prove the incidents and that NASA broke physics.  The physics that you understand, but you are short on physics understanding the real world.   And still you don't admit you were wrong, except with the following stipulations---.

If there is No Lie with Apollo - then that should become obvious, even after discussing the various other points I'd like to bring up.  And no seemingly better place than ApolloHoax.net.

It is obvious that there is no lie concerning Apollo, just inaccurate observation/computation, poor image analysis, and definitely poor physics application.
Your recent life is wasted trying to prove something that is not true and you can't have the courage/integrity to admit failure and move onto something that will benefit you.

[najak]

Moving on, have you watched the tape for the full 86 seconds?  Yes or No.  If No why not?

Yes, of course.  And captured two frames with Windows "Snippet" then pasted into 2 layers for KRITA and created the video.  It's a close-up of the two frames aligned - and tape for Period 18 is at a significantly lower angle than it was for Period 2.   Do you know how to do this type of analysis yourself?   It was very easy, so I didn't save-my-work, except the outputted video.

This is all off-topic for this thread.   If you want to discuss more, let's create a thread dedicated to the SEQ Tape Pendulum.   Otherwise, I'm not using this as any form of claim/evidence for MLH.  It's too weak.

[najak]

... just inaccurate observation/computation, poor image analysis, and definitely poor physics application.

Please relate your accusations specifically to the 8-flag-motions - the topic of this thread.

[bknight]

Moving on, have you watched the tape for the full 86 seconds?  Yes or No.  If No why not?

Yes, of course.  And captured two frames with Windows "Snippet" then pasted into 2 layers for KRITA and created the video.  It's a close-up of the two frames aligned - and tape for Period 18 is at a significantly lower angle than it was for Period 2.   Do you know how to do this type of analysis yourself?   It was very easy, so I didn't save-my-work, except the outputted video.

This is all off-topic for this thread.   If you want to discuss more, let's create a thread dedicated to the SEQ Tape Pendulum.   Otherwise, I'm not using this as any form of claim/evidence for MLH.  It's too weak.

The tape was moving at the same amplitude at 18 as it was in 1, therefore there is no amplitude decrease over time.  This means of course tat there is no reduction due to any atmosphere, and with the time calculates to be not on Earth and is certainly on topic for this thread.  Defeats one of your pet and incorrect theses that wind blew the flag back.  And as I indicated you have no courage to admit where you are incorrect.  I asked a question early on in this current piece, how did they reduce a live TV broadcast.  No response, that figures.  Early in this thread you indicated that the astronauts moved really fast for short durations.  Which is it really fast or really slow?  The answer is whatever narrative that you piece together at the time to "prove" your thesis.  You can't even say the same thing all the time, because you are making this stuff up instead of observing facts.  You aren't using it because it defeats your story.

[bknight]

... just inaccurate observation/computation, poor image analysis, and definitely poor physics application.

Please relate your accusations specifically to the 8-flag-motions - the topic of this thread.

I believe they have been noted over and over and you just hand wave then away because it doesn't fit your ideas.  Depressurization of the ascent module.

[najak]

The tape was moving at the same amplitude at 18 as it was in 1.

On what basis do you make this claim?

[najak]

... just inaccurate observation/computation, poor image analysis, and definitely poor physics application.
I believe they have been noted over and over and you just hand wave then away because it doesn't fit your ideas.  Depressurization of the ascent module.

Please be more specific.  For the 8-flag motions - how have I exhibited these flaws specifically?

[bknight]

... just inaccurate observation/computation, poor image analysis, and definitely poor physics application.
I believe they have been noted over and over and you just hand wave then away because it doesn't fit your ideas.  Depressurization of the ascent module.

Please be more specific.  For the 8-flag motions - how have I exhibited these flaws specifically?

You indicated that the only possible answer was someone left the door open.  Since the LM is not on Earth, there is no door to leave open ans almost zero atmosphere.

[Mag40]

Moving on, have you watched the tape for the full 86 seconds?  Yes or No.  If No why not?

Yes, of course.  And captured two frames with Windows "Snippet" then pasted into 2 layers for KRITA and created the video.  It's a close-up of the two frames aligned - and tape for Period 18 is at a significantly lower angle than it was for Period 2.   Do you know how to do this type of analysis yourself?   It was very easy, so I didn't save-my-work, except the outputted video.

This is all off-topic for this thread.   If you want to discuss more, let's create a thread dedicated to the SEQ Tape Pendulum.   Otherwise, I'm not using this as any form of claim/evidence for MLH.  It's too weak.

The tape was moving at the same amplitude at 18 as it was in 1, therefore there is no amplitude decrease over time.  This means of course tat there is no reduction due to any atmosphere, and with the time calculates to be not on Earth and is certainly on topic for this thread.  Defeats one of your pet and incorrect theses that wind blew the flag back.  And as I indicated you have no courage to admit where you are incorrect.  I asked a question early on in this current piece, how did they reduce a live TV broadcast.  No response, that figures.  Early in this thread you indicated that the astronauts moved really fast for short durations.  Which is it really fast or really slow?  The answer is whatever narrative that you piece together at the time to "prove" your thesis.  You can't even say the same thing all the time, because you are making this stuff up instead of observing facts.  You aren't using it because it defeats your story.

At timestamp 3.43 proof, not that any were needed, that this cannot have been filmed on Earth. I put this up earlier in the thread and am 100% sure he hasn't watched this version:

The small loss of periods noted here:
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a14/a14pendulum.html

[najak]

Please be more specific.  For the 8-flag motions - how have I exhibited these flaws specifically?

You indicated that the only possible answer was someone left the door open.  Since the LM is not on Earth, there is no door to leave open ans almost zero atmosphere.

That was not my claim.  I was being coerced into some guesses, not claims.  Just guesses, in the context of MLH.

My Claim is simply this:  "The 5 flag motions towards the LM do not currently have a viable explanation within the Lunar context".

It's a SIMPLE LUNAR CONTEXT -- with no way to explain it that we know of.

Where is the fault in this claim?