Apollo 15 Flag movement

[Scott]

  You are the one claiming it was hoaxed.  You have the burden to prove it was hoaxed.  Merely speculating other ways in which the evidence may have arisen that they did go does not meet that burden of proof. 

I maintain that the flag's moving withoug being touched is proof that the footage was taken in atmosphere which closes the whole case.  There's other proof such as the size of the reflection of the sun in the astronaut's visor seen at the beginning of this video.

Look at the size of the reflection of the sun in the astronaut's visor at the beginning of this video.

The reflection of the sun on a convex surface is much smaller than that.  That's the reflection of a large light.


There's more stuff here.

What Happened on the Moon

Was it only a Paper Moon - James Collier - LEM Analysis

Conspiracy Theory : Did We Land on the Moon ?. (FULL) (February 2001)

[frenat]

Look at the size of the reflection of the sun in the astronaut's visor at the beginning of this video.

The reflection of the sun on a convex surface is much smaller than that.  That's the reflection of a large light.

Prove it.  Prove that it is ONLY consistent with a large light.  I'm betting you can't because it isn't.  The reflection can vary based on the camera used and the surface it is reflected off of.  In this case the surface may be scratched and/or have dust on it which will affect the reflection as well.  You are making the fallacious claim that it ONLY happens one way when you haven't proven that.

[JayUtah]

I maintain that the flag's moving withoug being touched is proof that the footage was taken in atmosphere...

You present the affirmative hypothesis that ambient air is what caused the movement.  You purport to establish this by ruling out a few alternatives.  This is not how an affirmative proof goes.

...which closes the whole case.

Fallacy of Limited Scope.

There's other proof such as the size of the reflection...

Start a new thread, if this isn't about the Apollo 15 flag.  Do not Gish Gallop.

There's more stuff here.

All of which was long ago debunked.  If you cannot address the debunking already on the table, do not simply attempt to reset decades-old claims as if they were new.

[Scott]

  All of which was long ago debunked. 

I've never seen it debunked.  I've seen people try to obfuscate it and then consider it to have been debunked.

The flag anomaly has already closed the whole case.

Jarrah proved that the astroanut didn't brush the flag.

 Initial Apollo 15 Flag Movement

This video also shows that it had already started moving before he got close enough to touch it.

The flag that moved

This video shows that the flag movement is consistent with atmosphere.

windyz.wmv

(00:50 and 1:50 time marks)


So does this one.

Physics of the Moon Flag

(18:50 time mark)


Here's some more stuff.

Moonfaker: LRO, Flag or no Flag?

We can talk about the other stuff but it won't be about whether they faked it.  It will about how they faked it.

[JayUtah]

I've never seen it debunked.  I've seen people try to obfuscate it and then consider it to have been debunked.

Good thing the validity of the debunking doesn't depend on your opinion of it, especially now that you've confessed to being FatFreddy88/RockyC/Cosmored/etc.  Your reputation precedes you.

[JayUtah]

We can talk about the other stuff but it won't be about whether they faked it.  It will about how they faked it.

No.  You may not simply wave your hands and declare your hypothesis proven, nor do you get to control what is or isn't talked about on a public forum.

[gillianren]

And from Conmoquest a question you evaded or chose not to answer

Gillianren

2013-Aug-10, 11:44 AM

My serious question is this.

 How does the waving of a flag disprove everything else?

 You see, it has to, if it's going to prove a hoax "by itself." You have to somehow have faked every single other piece of evidence, from the Saturn V to the rocks to the telemetry. All of it. That means that no piece of evidence has any weight, somehow, because of one thing that frankly doesn't even make sense as an argument. You can't even just claim that it proves that this piece of footage was faked unless you can explain how it was faked. If you can't explain that, the more logical explanation is that the flag moves through some unconsidered mechanism that was available on the Moon. Certainly that's easier than faking the movement of the regolith, the movement of the astronauts, and so forth. (I'm not even bothering to argue against the "washed sand" explanation, because I can't quite believe there's anyone who doesn't understand why you can never remove all the fine particles for long.) This is where the "smoking gun" claims fail. There's no such thing, because you still have to explain everything else that points to a Moon landing.

Aw, thanks!  I freely admit to not being an expert on the radiation question, photogrammetry, and so forth, but I can ask a simple question!

[ka9q]

Jarrah proved that the astroanut didn't brush the flag.

Actually, I seem to remember him proving exactly the opposite in another video.

Do you know how the Apollo TV system worked? Do you understand its rather unique and unfamiliar artifacts?

[bknight]

Jarrah proved that the astroanut didn't brush the flag.

Actually, I seem to remember him proving exactly the opposite in another video.

Do you know how the Apollo TV system worked? Do you understand its rather unique and unfamiliar artifacts?

Are you saying that he both proved that Dave Scott didn't touch the flag and then turned around and proved he did?

[bknight]

And from Conmoquest a question Aw, thanks!  I freely admit to not being an expert on the radiation question, photogrammetry, and so forth, but I can ask a simple question!

Your question got me to thinking differently, one can't prove that Apollo was a hoax by showing one aspect was faked, but all the aspects must be proven wrong.  But the hoaxers will look at it like, one aspect proves the whole program was faked.

[gillianren]

We're conditioned by society, I think, to look for smoking guns.  But, when it comes to this sort of thing, there aren't any.  Everything is a part of the picture.  Every piece must fit or else you're looking at the puzzle wrong.

[JayUtah]

Are you saying that he both proved that Dave Scott didn't touch the flag and then turned around and proved he did?

I have only hearsay, but I distinctly remember someone else reporting that Jarrah had made some sort of photogrammetric computation that allowed for Scott to have been close enough to the flag to have brushed it.  In general I don't consider Jarrah competent to make any computation involving specialized techniques such as photogrammetry.

[bknight]

Are you saying that he both proved that Dave Scott didn't touch the flag and then turned around and proved he did?

I have only hearsay, but I distinctly remember someone else reporting that Jarrah had made some sort of photogrammetric computation that allowed for Scott to have been close enough to the flag to have brushed it.  In general I don't consider Jarrah competent to make any computation involving specialized techniques such as photogrammetry.

Since I haven't watched any videos since I finish the series on Apollo 1 I can't say either, but raven posted a video that shows Dave was likely close enough to touch it.
Shane video here

[bknight]

We're conditioned by society, I think, to look for smoking guns.  But, when it comes to this sort of thing, there aren't any.  Everything is a part of the picture.  Every piece must fit or else you're looking at the puzzle wrong.

It is a bunch of woo-woo voodoo to attempt to show that they are smarter than all the people who worked on the project over the dozen or so years.

[BertieSlack]

Look at the size of the reflection of the sun in the astronaut's visor at the beginning of this video.

The reflection of the sun on a convex surface is much smaller than that.  That's the reflection of a large light.

Watch this video:

and read Blisterhiker's excellent comment.