Apollo 15 Flag movement

[bknight]

This is one of Rocky/DavidC/Cosmored's favorite clips.  IIRC Jarrah White supposedly proved the astronaut was close enough to touch it.

Gwak, the blunder dis-proved a HB proposition?  I quit watching his videos after watching the Apollo 1 fire, so that may be the case.

I haven't watched it myself but that's the story supposedly.  I've heard that in the next breath after he says they could have been close enough he makes up some reason why they weren't.

Now that seems more like the blunder

[Count Zero]

Nobody ever mentions the first part of the clip, where the astronaut holding the flag moves quite quickly into the frame, plants it into the base and turns it around, all without the flag flapping any more than can be explained by inertia.

Also, look at their feet throughout the clip.  Every little motion sends dust flying several inches - sometimes more than a foot.  We can see that the dust is fine enough to leave a crisp footprint, yet does not billow at all - it just falls right back to the surface.

We cannot rule-out electrostatic forces on the flag.
We cannot rule-out kicked dirt hitting the flag.
We cannot rule-out ground vibrations causing the flag to move.
We cannot rule-out the astronaut reaching out and touching the flag.

The one thing we CAN conclusively rule-out is atmospheric effects, because the behavior of the flag as they're setting it up and the behavior of the dust kicked as they move is only possible in a vacuum (and in low-gravity to boot).

[Mag40]

There's a tiny movement away from Scott as he runs across, but is too far away to be static surely? It is about a metre away. My favourite is a small spray of regolith from his boot. He is going quite quickly and we can see hundreds of examples where it gets kicked in front of him. It wouldn't need much contact with the flagpole to make it move the flag. He definitely went on to hit it with his arm, I've seen a few vids that show that, one of them indeed is from the blunder.

Didn't someone do a gif showing it to be a video glitch?

[Luke Pemberton]

This is one of Rocky/DavidC/Cosmored's favorite clips.  IIRC Jarrah White supposedly proved the astronaut was close enough to touch it.

Gwak, the blunder dis-proved a HB proposition?  I quit watching his videos after watching the Apollo 1 fire, so that may be the case.

I haven't watched it myself but that's the story supposedly.  I've heard that in the next breath after he says they could have been close enough he makes up some reason why they weren't.

Scrolling down thinking that no one would raise this, but I have been beaten to the punch. Stories certainly travel well from the dark recesses of North Sydney, the above is the story in a nut shell.

The Blunder, for once in his life, actually showed competence with mathematics. I actually think someone helped him with the sums, as based on previous experience it is far too hard for him.

Anyway, he dismissed the calculations out of hand. Error analysis Jarrah?

[bknight]

...

Anyway, he dismissed the calculations out of hand. Error analysis Jarrah?

If he rejected it, IMO the reason would be "Oops, this proves the video was shot on the moon.  I don't believe that men went to the moon, therefore the calculation MUST be in error".

[bknight]

This is one of Rocky/DavidC/Cosmored's favorite clips.  IIRC Jarrah White supposedly proved the astronaut was close enough to touch it.

I just spent the better part of this morning/afternoon reviewing a couple of threads Rocky/DavidC/Cosmored's posted to before banishment.
My thoughts concerning him are: skilled in dealing with questions/answers to his audience.  Reminds me of a lawyer in many respects.  I was interested in his lack of answers/more questions(moving the goal posts) when interacting with Jay.  Although many here took him to task that he failed to answer questions, resulting to ad hominem statements about many here now/long gone.
Has anyone researched him?  He seems like a European, but that may be totally off base.

EDIT:  It does seem that he lived in YouTube land and took all of the hoaxers information as ture, since it fit with his perception of Apollo

[Scott]

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?

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=MoonFaker%3A+The+Flags+Are+Alive
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=MoonFaker%3A+Flagging+The+Dead+Horses


It's pretty clear that air made it move.  This footage was taken in a studio.

[gwiz]

It's pretty clear that air made it move.  This footage was taken in a studio.

It's pretty clear that it didn't, air can be ruled out by the way the flag moves subsequently, see Count Zero's post above for the summary of the situation.
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=993.msg33963#msg33963

[bknight]

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?

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=MoonFaker%3A+The+Flags+Are+Alive
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=MoonFaker%3A+Flagging+The+Dead+Horses


It's pretty clear that air made it move.  This footage was taken in a studio.

Clearly the Blunder has demonstrated that he is rather uninformed with real world observations as he debunks himself in various points.  Take a look at these videos that totally debunk his stupid observations.

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/06/apollo-15-flag.html

[Scott]

  We cannot rule-out electrostatic forces on the flag. 

There is other Apollo footage in which the astronaut is near a flag but isn't moving fast and the flag is not attracted to the astronaut.  The only time a flag moves without being touched is when the movement is consistent with the atmospere explanation.  Try trotting by a similar-sized piece of cloth hanging from a ceiling light and you'll see the same movement that you see in the Apollo flag.

  We cannot rule-out kicked dirt hitting the flag. 

If we put it on full-screen and watch a frame at a time, we can see that the movement is consistent with its having been hit by a wall of air.  There are no depressions in the flag caused by particles.  The forward movement of the flag is completely uniform as it would be if hit by a uniform wall of air.

  We cannot rule-out ground vibrations causing the flag to move. 

Ground vibrations strong enough to cause the flag to move would cause noticeable movement of the rod and pole.  The movement of the flag would also start at the rod and move downward.  The force that moves the flag comes from the direction of the astronaut - not the rod or pole.

  We cannot rule-out the astronaut reaching out and touching the flag. 

The first two videos in my other post clearly show that the flag had already started moving when the astronaut got close enough to touch the flag.

   the behavior of the dust kicked as they move is only possible in a vacuum 

The behavior of the "Dust" is consistent with footage of large-grained sand being kicked in air shown in slow-motion.  Large-grained sand would not billow as dust would.

MoonFaker - Project Sandbox

[frenat]

Hi Rocky/DavidC.

[bknight]

Hi Rocky/DavidC.

Etc. Etc. and Etc.
Switching forums and posting observations that have been debunked since you started posting them, do not improve your spatially and visually challenged viewpoint of this video.

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.

[Scott]

How does the waving of a flag disprove everything else?   

There's no proof that they really went to disprove.  Everything Apollo-believers present as proof has alternative explanations.  One piece of solid proof that they didn't go is all that's necessary.  The bottom line is that the flag wouldn't have moved like that in a vacuum.  Therefore, the footage wasn't taken in a vacuum.  Therefore, they weren't on the moon. 

If they had really gone to the moon, there would be a ton of proof that they really went and no proof that they didn't go. There seems to be a ton of proof that they didn't go and zero proof that they went.

If you think there's something that proves they really went, please post it and we can talk about whether it's really proof.

[bknight]

How does the waving of a flag disprove everything else?   

There's no proof that they really went to disprove.  Everything Apollo-believers present as proof has alternative explanations.  One piece of solid proof that they didn't go is all that's necessary.  The bottom line is that the flag wouldn't have moved like that in a vacuum.  Therefore, the footage wasn't taken in a vacuum.  Therefore, they weren't on the moon. 

If they had really gone to the moon, there would be a ton of proof that they really went and no proof that they didn't go. There seems to be a ton of proof that they didn't go and zero proof that they went.

If you think there's something that proves they really went, please post it and we can talk about whether it's really proof.

Many links have disagreed with your interpretation of how the flag movement was filmed in an atmosphere versus a vacuum.  Simply restating your propositions as proof that they are valid begs the question.

[JayUtah]

Everything Apollo-believers present as proof has alternative explanations.

Irrelevant.  One may always speculate about other causes for observation besides the proffered or commonly held one.  The ability to do that does not itself challenge the prevailing view.  In order to show that some new hypothesis should prevail, one must show it explains the evidence better than the prevailing one.  Noting that hypothetical alternatives exist is not probative.  It is tantamount to setting the standard of proof at the level of proving it is impossible for something to have occurred any other way, not merely that it didn't occur any other way.

One piece of solid proof that they didn't go is all that's necessary.

The Bellwether fallacy (a special case of the Fallacy of Limited Scope).  You must, in fact, explain all the evidence that supports the conclusion you disagree with, because only then does it become a rational theory.  You cannot simply suppose there must be some reasonable explanation for all the evidence if you predicated your theory solely on one piece.

The bottom line is that the flag wouldn't have moved like that in a vacuum.

Begging the question.

If they had really gone to the moon, there would be a ton of proof that they really went...

There is.  You're trying to explain it all away.  That exercise presupposes its existence.

...and no proof that they didn't go.

You have provided no proof that they didn't go.  You have merely speculated about other ways in which you think the evidence could have arisen that the did go.

If you think there's something that proves they really went, please post it and we can talk about whether it's really proof.

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.