Hoax? - Flag moves without being Touched

[najak]

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

I have more to be discussed -- and have completed more than twice-over the threads already opened.

You banning me for not-agreeing is like Salem.  If that's who you want to be -- then that's who you are.

If no one wants to discuss other point, they'll just not respond.  No one is forcing their response, nor forcing you to read any of this.

[najak]

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.

Small 2-lb lead weigh is my best explanation currently and I'm satisfied with that, and instructing them to move faster is also satisfactory to me.   Note away.  So this discussion has ended, with nothing new to be added.   If an audience doesn't like what I'm proposing -- this works well for you. 

[Luke Pemberton]

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

The SOMEHOW is your addition. Don't insert this embellishment to imply that others are handwaving. You are putting words into the mouths of others to detract from being given a viable explanation and not accepting it. Depressurisations that are consistent with the record.

But let us examine your burden of proof further in context of your demands. Ralph Rene arrived at moving flags because someone opened the stage door. Just what sort of wind must have blown through the door across a massive stage to cause the flag to flutter? Please answer this point?

The idea of fluttering flags (in reality, slight movements) originally came from Ralph Rene, you know: the one that disproved Newton, Einstein and Archimedes, and proposed an electric universe because he made two connections on a gold electroscope and earthed one of the gold leaves. The original theory was based on a stage that was kept secret, with a film crew that didn't whistle blow and a massive gust of wind. You accept the words of someone who simply said the flags waved because of a gust of wind, but demand further proof when a perfectly cogent reason has been given? You want others to provide scientific proof over the word of a man who made up a story, a man who didn't grasp basic physics?

[bknight]

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

I have more to be discussed -- and have completed more than twice-over the threads already opened.

You banning me for not-agreeing is like Salem.  If that's who you want to be -- then that's who you are.

If no one wants to discuss other point, they'll just not respond.  No one is forcing their response, nor forcing you to read any of this.

The phenomenon has been discussed ad infinitum.  The vehicle is on the Moon, and something moved the flag towards the LM.  Now it can't be your favorite somebody left the door open on purpose or by accident since there is no door.  So, we're left outgassing did the movement as the most likely.  Now whether you explain that or not doesn't make it correct, but it the only plausible explanation.  Your thesis in invalid.

[bknight]

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.

Small 2-lb lead weigh is my best explanation currently and I'm satisfied with that, and instructing them to move faster is also satisfactory to me.   Note away.  So this discussion has ended, with nothing new to be added.   If an audience doesn't like what I'm proposing -- this works well for you.

Now you come up with a "Small 2-lb lead weigh", but where is the weight?  In a near zero atmospheric condition the tape does not NEED anything to perpetuate the motion.  It would have continued for a very long time had it not encountered some other piece of the LM and then it stopped.  Just because you can't envision something doesn't invalidate, get over yourself.  You are not the smartest person on this thread or forum.  Just have some integrity and say I don't understand it without any stipulations added.

[Luke Pemberton]

Further to my last post, as I am busy at the moment. I can't hold a candle to people here, their experience, their erudition and their enthusiasm for Apollo. But I will tell you this, I keep the receipts and don't bemoan those who don't reply to my questions. That's LO's job to moderate. But by quietly poking about, asking questions I've opened you up with all the skill of a QC. I blindsided you and hung you by your own petard.

I asked you a question about film rates and in your arrogance you asked me if I was new to the moon hoax. You then schooled me about the theory, giving me several film rate changes and the reason for each. I explained to you that I was familiar, and your schooling was internally inconsistent. I gave you evidence that prominent theorists had moved the goal posts regarding film speed because they had been caught out, and used the rebuttal to double down on their own mistake. So, what sort of theory uses the rebuttal of their critics to make the same circular argument, doubles down on their own mistake; but then demands the most rigorous proofs of their challengers? I am waiting for an answer to this question, and have been for several days.

Oh, before I go. Something else has been bothering me...

[LunarOrbit]

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

I have more to be discussed -- and have completed more than twice-over the threads already opened.

You banning me for not-agreeing is like Salem.  If that's who you want to be -- then that's who you are.

If no one wants to discuss other point, they'll just not respond.  No one is forcing their response, nor forcing you to read any of this.

I'm not banning you for not agreeing. I'm not banning you because you believe the moon landings were faked. I'm banning you because you repeated dismiss every explanation you are given without any form of counter argument. It's always just "that's not viable". I'm banning you because you're arrogant. I have no patience for people like you.

If you can't respect the time that other people are putting into their research and explanations then you're just trolling.

[Mag40]

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.

Small 2-lb lead weigh is my best explanation currently and I'm satisfied with that, and instructing them to move faster is also satisfactory to me.   Note away.  So this discussion has ended, with nothing new to be added.   If an audience doesn't like what I'm proposing -- this works well for you.

No. That is most certainly not your best explanation. It is the one that seeks to deny and creates the absurd scenario to do so.

There are so very many of these episodes that were filmed as part of the record. It beggars belief that you think the effort and exposure danger in doing this was ignored in all those cases. This wasn't even an official experiment. Somebody noticed it a few years back and di the analysis. Where is your logic here?

You are happy in conceding things that have no 100% irrefutable proof of lunar landing but in every case are "finding" explanations at all costs for items that do prove they are on the Moon. That's just not scientific at all.

[Jason Thompson]

You banning me for not-agreeing is like Salem.  If that's who you want to be -- then that's who you are.

It just doesn't go in, does it? The reasons for your banning have been explained over and over and over again in very simple terms, as well as ways you can avoid it and keep on having the conversations you claim to want. Instead you double down on your arrogance and insist you can just say 'that's not viable' as if your opinion on what is viable carries any weight at all. You have dismissed the efforts of others to show you the flaws in your reasoning and expand your understanding. You have tried to skirt the restriction on opening other threads by asking others to start them for you. You are not being banned because you believe Apollo was faked, you are being banned because you cannot abide by the rules of reasonable discussion and are consistently rude about it.

Once again, I will say in the vain hope it penetrates, you are NOT NEW OR ORIGINAL here. You exhibit arguments and attitudes we have seen many many times over the last 20+ years. You're not the fresh set of eyes uncovering a big lie, as much as that might appeal to your ego. You're just another in a long line of people with the same gaps in their knowledge and the same Dunning-Kruger issue reacting poorly to a dose of reality. You won't be missed, and almost certainly we'll have someone else just like you along before too long.

[Luke Pemberton]

I had been waiting for days to insist he answered my question about the way in which theorists advanced the theory by using rebuttals, and why in this case should the the hoax theory stand up to the scrutiny he demands of others. Days I tell you, days LO, and you ban him.   

It was the right thing to do, and a case in point was the top heavy LM question. It took me 30 minutes of research to understand the basic principles of LM stability. He was pointed in the right direction to find the answers himself. He was allowed 1000+ posts to posit his ideas, but at the same time waved away answers and offered vague alternatives based on tired old ideas. I don't know how much more people here could face his pseudo-philosophical pontification, namely that the hoax theory was to put forward 'viable' alternatives until those 'alternatives' could be proved wrong with a level of scientific proof that he arbitrated.

[LunarOrbit]

I had been waiting for days to insist he answered my question about the way in which theorists advanced the theory by using rebuttals, and why in this case should the the hoax theory stand up to the scrutiny he demands of others. Days I tell you, days LO, and you ban him.   

Sorry.

Something tells me you would still be waiting for an answer a year from now even if I hadn't banned him.

[Luke Pemberton]

I had been waiting for days to insist he answered my question about the way in which theorists advanced the theory by using rebuttals, and why in this case should the the hoax theory stand up to the scrutiny he demands of others. Days I tell you, days LO, and you ban him.   

Sorry.

Something tells me you would still be waiting for an answer a year from now even if I hadn't banned him.

 I sensed a ban today, that's why I went a little dramatic in my last post to him.

[onebigmonkey]

He's protesting about the injustice of it all on Facebook.

Boohoo.

[smartcooky]

He's protesting about the injustice of it all on Facebook.

Boohoo.

What name does he post under?

[onebigmonkey]

He's protesting about the injustice of it all on Facebook.

Boohoo.

What name does he post under?

Brian Knox on the The Apollo Moon Hoax (No Flat Earthers) group.