Hoax? - Flag moves without being Touched

[najak]

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

Stay up with us, this was already addressed.  He chose to put a small weight.... lighter weight will dissipate faster.  For the Apollo example, the end weight could have been a few pounds of lead.  The guy here is either not smart, or not genuine in his test.   If he's a TD, with truth on his side -- why does he see the need to be deceptive, by using a light weight when he knows that if it were being faked, they'd use something heavier?

Are you going to make a proposal related to this thread?  Give me an intelligent vialbe explanation for the 5 movements TOWARDS the LM?

[Jason Thompson]

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?

That you fail to draw any distinction between 'no way we know of' and 'no way I will accept'. They're not the same.

[LunarOrbit]

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?

The fault is that you haven't considered the possibility that your interpretation of the matter is wrong.

You're like people who see an object in the sky that they can't explain, jump to the conclusion that it's aliens, and can't be convinced otherwise even when a more plausible explanation is provided. You see a flag moving on the Moon and immediately jump to the conclusion that the Apollo landings were faked.

The others have provided you with a very plausible explanation for the flag movements. But even if they are wrong (and I don't believe they are) that doesn't automatically validate your belief that the landings were faked.

But your arrogance does not allow you to even consider the possibility that your interpretation is wrong.

[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.

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

I never had seen this in ALSJ, but thanks.  Any good comment other than the amplitude drops by at least 50% during cycle 2, najak?  These two didn't see your point and neither do I.  The pendulum was an the Moon attached to A14 Descent module.  No open doors, nobody accidentally on or purpose moving the flag to give away the secret.  Give up your weak comments on this.

Notice how they talk about the TV camera, that is because it was live, plus the transmission time.

[bknight]

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?

What you really mean is no way I can envision.  But you haven't fully looked into degassing of the LM.  You say you have but how do you know what the time stamp on the video has been synched with Mission Elapsed Time?  You really need to give up on this one and just say, "I'm wrong."

[Mag40]

Stay up with us, this was already addressed.  He chose to put a small weight.... lighter weight will dissipate faster.  For the Apollo example, the end weight could have been a few pounds of lead.

Coulda-would-shoulda. Clearly there is no weight at the end of the tape on the lunar surface. Your deception is very obvious here. 

The guy here is either not smart, or not genuine in his test.

Bollocks  - he's actually skewed the results in favour of the HB claim.

Are you going to make a proposal related to this thread?  Give me an intelligent vialbe explanation for the 5 movements TOWARDS the LM?

This IS related to the thread. You call into question Apollo 14 footage by observations made with extreme bias / blinkers and the rebuttal shows how the footage was not faked.

[Mag40]

AS requested. I have no interest in defending any speculation here:

 Cabin depressurisation.
1. Venting strikes the pole, the pole support and/or the flag.
2. Unpredictable results based on random vacuum gas motion.
3. Maybe random static attraction with the gas venting against the nylon flag - not even looked into it.
4. The venting could be partially striking the surface around about where the flagpole is - static attraction with the oxygen / nylon.
Pure speculation.

Some "whistleblowing-hero" opening the door in all instances (coincidences in stupid conspiracy theories) and still providing no coherent explanation, doesn't quite work.
Pure bollocks.

[najak]

1. The fault is that you haven't considered the possibility that your interpretation of the matter is wrong.
2. But your arrogance does not allow you to even consider the possibility that your interpretation is wrong.

1. "The matter" is simply this -- a flag in a vacuum moves TOWARDS the LM gently and is held there for 5-15 seconds at a time.  NOBODY can come up with a viable scientific explanation for this.  I'm not even going to say "THEY NEVER WILL" or even that "IT'S IMPOSSIBLE".   Simply that they haven't yet.   THIS IS TRUE.  Plain and simple.  It's undeniable. 

Does this mean there's not some UNEXPLAINED CAUSE - Sure -- but at this point, NOBODY KNOWS what this something is.


2. My "arrogance" has submitted to new knowledge time and again.   I conceded the Lunar Launches thread entirely, and also conceded that "It's reasonable that other people see something different than me for the sand falling - because it's ambiguous" (while others far more arrogant cannot seem to figure this out).

You mistake my "strong stick man" approach to "arrogance"..  And simply telling people about my ACTUAL testing scores as arrogance -- this is just factual.  I do VERY WELL academically.   Is it arrogant for a strong man to say "I can bench 500 lbs?"  - it's just fact.   I'm sorry I ever shared this truth -- seems to make everyone so mad.

[ApolloEnthusiast]

1. The fault is that you haven't considered the possibility that your interpretation of the matter is wrong.
2. But your arrogance does not allow you to even consider the possibility that your interpretation is wrong.

1. "The matter" is simply this -- a flag in a vacuum moves TOWARDS the LM gently and is held there for 5-15 seconds at a time.  NOBODY can come up with a viable scientific explanation for this.  I'm not even going to say "THEY NEVER WILL" or even that "IT'S IMPOSSIBLE".   Simply that they haven't yet.   THIS IS TRUE.  Plain and simple.  It's undeniable. 

Does this mean there's not some UNEXPLAINED CAUSE - Sure -- but at this point, NOBODY KNOWS what this something is.

IT IS THE AIR FROM A DEPRESSURIZING LM. IT IS NOT UNEXPLAINED. THE MOTION NOT CONFORMING TO YOUR EXPECTATIONS DOES NOT MEAN PHYSICS IS BROKEN OR THERE IS NO EXPLANATION. IT MEANS YOUR EXPECTATIONS ARE WRONG.

[najak]

IT IS THE AIR FROM A DEPRESSURIZING LM. IT IS NOT UNEXPLAINED. THE MOTION NOT CONFORMING TO YOUR EXPECTATIONS DOES NOT MEAN PHYSICS IS BROKEN OR THERE IS NO EXPLANATION. IT MEANS YOUR EXPECTATIONS ARE WRONG.

OK - I'll change my claim to:

For the A14 9 flag motions, 5 of which are towards the LM, the best explanation offered by TDs is that it's caused by the LM Depressurization, but currently without a viable explanation for how the physics of this context could induce such movements.

Is this not accurate?

[onebigmonkey]

IT IS THE AIR FROM A DEPRESSURIZING LM. IT IS NOT UNEXPLAINED. THE MOTION NOT CONFORMING TO YOUR EXPECTATIONS DOES NOT MEAN PHYSICS IS BROKEN OR THERE IS NO EXPLANATION. IT MEANS YOUR EXPECTATIONS ARE WRONG.

OK - I'll change my claim to:

For the A14 9 flag motions, 5 of which are towards the LM, the best explanation offered by TDs is that it's caused by the LM Depressurization, but currently without a viable explanation for how the physics of this context could induce such movements.

Is this not accurate?

No, it is not accurate.

[bknight]

IT IS THE AIR FROM A DEPRESSURIZING LM. IT IS NOT UNEXPLAINED. THE MOTION NOT CONFORMING TO YOUR EXPECTATIONS DOES NOT MEAN PHYSICS IS BROKEN OR THERE IS NO EXPLANATION. IT MEANS YOUR EXPECTATIONS ARE WRONG.

OK - I'll change my claim to:

For the A14 9 flag motions, 5 of which are towards the LM, the best explanation offered by TDs is that it's caused by the LM Depressurization, but currently without a viable explanation for how the physics of this context could induce such movements.

Is this not accurate?

No, it is not accurate.

Agreed

[najak]

For the A14 9 flag motions, 5 of which are towards the LM, the best explanation offered by TDs is that it's caused by the LM Depressurization, but currently without a viable explanation for how the physics of this context could induce such movements.

Please then offer the viable explanation using physics/science, other than "it must have been Depressurization SOMEHOW", else my conclusion remains accurate.

Otherwise this thread is done.  I've documented/acknowledged your counter-claim, in full.

[LunarOrbit]

For the A14 9 flag motions, 5 of which are towards the LM, the best explanation offered by TDs is that it's caused by the LM Depressurization, but currently without a viable explanation for how the physics of this context could induce such movements.

Please then offer the viable explanation using physics/science, other than "it must have been Depressurization SOMEHOW", else my conclusion remains accurate.

Otherwise this thread is done.  I've documented/acknowledged your counter-claim, in full.

What part of "say your goodbyes because I'm done with you" didn't you understand?

[Mag40]

Please then offer the viable explanation using physics/science.

You first!

Otherwise this thread is done.  I've documented/acknowledged your counter-claim, in full.

Nobody cares what you have "documented". There is still counter evidence.

Stay up with us, this was already addressed.  He chose to put a small weight.... lighter weight will dissipate faster.  For the Apollo example, the end weight could have been a few pounds of lead.

Coulda-would-shoulda. Clearly there is no weight at the end of the tape on the lunar surface. Your deception is very obvious here. 

The guy here is either not smart, or not genuine in his test.

Bollocks  - he's actually skewed the results in favour of the HB claim.

Are you going to make a proposal related to this thread?  Give me an intelligent vialbe explanation for the 5 movements TOWARDS the LM?

This IS related to the thread. You call into question Apollo 14 footage by observations made with extreme bias / blinkers and the rebuttal shows how the footage was not faked.

May we have a viable alternative that works rather than the invisible-huge-weight? Everything about the SEQ suggests it is on the Moon and nothing suggest it is on Earth. Your augmented shite about instructing the astronauts to move around quicker during this and the unsupported speeded up footage are noted.