For turbonium, because I care ...

The setup: 1/6 scale LM pseudo-mockup with Dragon Models Buzz Aldrin figure kneeling just inside the hatch. Single 50 Watt halogen spotlight at elevation similar to sun during Apollo 11 landing. Dark gray asphalt driveway similar in color to the lunar surface.


Camera set for proper exposure of "lunar surface" (f/2.8, 1/2 sec, ISO-800):



Increased exposure 1 stop for shadow photography (best I could do with this little camera -- can't get more than a 1-second exposure) (f2.8, 1 sec, ISO-800). Adjusted levels with Photoshop in a manner similar to the corrections performed on the Apollo images:


Note that the house in the background is being lit by reflections from the driveway and by a large amount of fill light from the brightly-lit gold mylar on the back side of the LM mockup. As before, the only light source on the front side of the LM is fill light reflected from the dark gray driveway. My spotlight only illuminates a small circle of driveway around the mockup. On the moon, the sun illuminates the entire visible surface, so much more reflected light would be available for filling shadows than in this demonstration. Even so, I managed to get a decent exposure of the shadowed side of the "LM" with only a 1-stop increase in exposure over that necessary for proper exposure of the "sunlit" surface.

And yes, Turb, Buzz is visible inside the hatch. I'll ask again: Based on the evidence presented, will you retract your claim that it is impossible for the lunar surface to illuminate the shadowed side of the LM?

In that case, why does it stay so still the rest of the time?

Looks to me like it moves towards him.

Are we getting into another "looks to me like this...no, it looks to me like that" argument like the Apollo 12 TV one? I remember you were outvoted on that one.

Turbonium, so you are actually trying to claim that MID really claimed that attempting to look at the stars by shading your eyes with your hand will make you lose consciousness and die.


You are being willfully obtuse.

I really don't understand your logic here, either you have not grasped this or you are deliberately employing a distraction technique. Either way let's go through it again, bit by bit.

postbaguk is arguing that if there was an atmosphere then the movement of the flag would be dampened by air resistance.

He is saying that the motion of the flag continues longer than would be expected were such dampening to occur.

If there is no such dampening then there can be no atmosphere.

Got it so far turbs?

If there is no atmosphere THERE CAN BE NO GUST OF AIR.

Hence the arm brushing argument is supported by this observation but the gust air can not be. The static argument is also supported as are several other hypothsised causes including vibrations from the ground caused by the astronaut causing the flag pole to vibrate and hence the flag to move.

The point is that the lack of atmospheric dampening of the flag supports an almost infinite number of reasons as to why the flag might move... except the one you are relying on.

Now we come to the burden of proof, it is up to you to prove your case, if ANY of the other explanations are possible you do not have a case. So far postbaguk has provided evidence to suggest that the one thing it can not be is a draft of air.

What he can't grasp is that proving MID wrong in what he said does not magically make his own argument correct. turbonium is employing a common CT tactic. He is trying to show that MID made a small mistake. If he can do that he believes he can show MID to be unreliable and hence anything he says can be dismissed. This is a tactic CTs commonly use to avoid haveing to actually back up their own claims with real evidence. It is all about winning rather than the truth.

What he is trying to distract people from is the fact that he has claimed that the fact that Apollo 11 astronauts didn't see stars is proof that the Apollo programme is fake. To do this he knows that he must show that this is the only explanation. He has failed to do this. The expert he tried to use to support him, not only does not do so but considers his claim crackpot. Turbonium has been made to look foolish by being forced to attack the very person he held up as an expert witness. He knows all this and is trying to distract attention away from it.

Of course turbonium could easily prove me wrong, he could demonstrate that my posts are just "tirades" and "wasteland". All he needs to do is present the evidence he demands form others and stops puting forward the personal opinions which he rejects from others. He can cut the double standards and present the evidence that the burden of proof requires him to do. The evidence he has been asked to present several times and which he failed to do. I am betting I will be waiting a very long time for this to happen.

Here's a nifty little filmclip: You can only get to it by clicking the long link on this webpage:
http://www.gaiaguys.net/moontruth.htm

Despite all the nonsense on the page the link takes you to, that is quite obviously a joke video.

What makes it 'quite obviously a joke" do you think? Even though I thought it was hilarious actually...........
That website is not nonsense, it is a serious website exposing paedophiles in our Australian Government and Police Force via Illuminati connections, it's probably one of the least nonsense websites you will ever read, check out Back to Homepage, but to this particular moon video, they state they do not necessarily believe it but would like anyone to prove it genuine or not. So, can you debunk it?

For a start, in the real Apollo 11, Armstrong says "I'm about to step off the LM" when he is ready to do just that, ie standing on the footpad. In this film he says it while he is still way up the ladder.

Yes, but if the "real" film is just another take on this one, because obviously they couldn't use this one, he could have said it lower down the ladder in the next take..............

I have little to add but this short film I made. It shows the flag starts moving before the astronaut walks by.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0

EDIT: About that "failed take video": Snopes pretty much tells it all. Also, even though the "moontruth.com" website, where the video came from, is down, it is still available through the Archive.org Wayback machine (Archive.org is a website that archives as much of the internet as possible). You can find the page on moontruth.com where they declare it was faked here

Very good debunking. It's pretty funny anyway........this thread needed lightening up a bit...........

Hello all! Quick question, does anyone know or have documentation to the degree of mobility the camera had that was mounted to the chest?

Hi Bert, good to see you over here.

Because the wind was generated by the movements of the astronaut. As we can see in the video clip, his running (or "quick-hopping"?) creates a gust of wind, which causes the bottom right corner of the flag to wave.

Take another look. I enlarged it, and slightly slowed it down...



If you still think the flag moves toward him first, then you should be able to identify the specific point in the clip where it occurs.



This issue can be discussed in much more tangible, quantifiable terms. Sorry to dash your hopes.



Really? I don't even remember that we all voted on "that one", let alone what you mean by "that one". Anyway, the issue at hand can be resolved without having to resort to popularity contests.

It's ironic to be accused of nitpicking, by someone who's fixated on arguing a single point which - regardless of the outcome - has absolutely no bearing on the actual issue.

I've already answered your questions on this. It's time for you to move along to something else.

I never said it would "magically" make my argument correct!! That's why I said to MID that it was a minor issue. Unfortunately, that only stirred him up even more, and he growled about how he had never "revised" his position since the beginning, and so on.

No, Waspie_Dwarf - I am not the one who has failed to get a grasp on this.

It simply comes down to being mature enough to admit when you make a mistake. And don't ignore/deny your mistake when it's been proven.

And - once again (as you've done over and over) - don't twist it around, and make up malicious crap towards my character and/or integrity.



I've never seen so much pure propaganda. I bet Herr Goebbels would have been proud of you.



Too bad there isn't a Ministry of Propaganda in Germany anymore. Oh well, no big deal. I've heard that the CIA is always looking for people with such talents.



And so concludes another exceptional post by Waspie.

This is a still from your clip...



It''s the first frame where your comment appears (about the flag starting to move).

Just a side note - the astronaut does not "walk by", he actually kind of skips/jumps and/or runs by.

So - what is your point, or do you have one?

"..postbaguk has provided evidence.." Excuse me.....what evidence?!?

- postie says the Apollo flag waves for about 20 seconds. postie claims this isn't possible in atmosphere, after doing a "rough and ready" experiment with a flag.
- postie thus claims to be "convinced" that the Apollo flag was not in atmosphere.

Is that about it, or did I miss anything?

You have the most bizarre concept of "evidence" that I've ever come across.

It was indeed rough and ready, but it's so conclusive I don't see the need to refine it. It's also so simple that anyone can do it. Nylon flag 3' x 5' (same size as Apollo flags IIRC) bought off eBay for about £3. Set it up. Hold bottom corner, give it a small displacement similar to that seen after the astronaut has walked/bounced/trotted/skipped past (3 or 4 inches). Compare motion of flag being heavily dampened by thick atmosphere to the continued motion of flag in the Apollo footage. Conclusion: the Apollo footage was not filmed in an atmosphere.

Try different levels of displacement. Dampening is still very obvious. Motion of flag is nothing like that seen in the Apollo footage.

No need to take my word for it, try it yourself. The effect is very pronounced.

NOTE: this isn't trying to replicate what actually caused the flag to move, it simply and effectively demonstrates that the scene could not possibly have been filmed in an atmosphere - the dampening on the flag after it has been moved would have been much greater.

So, you want to castigate me for calling you on such a ridiculous argument!

I would advise you to take your own advice, Turbonium.

Comparing me to a Nazi now turbonium. That is a personal attack and against the rules. Anything else you want to dig out of the CT bag of nasty tricks?

Edited to add:
What happened to the turbonium that used to refrain from personal attacks? The one that used to argue in a rational and logical manner? The one that I used to respect and hold up as an example to others?

Instead we have this petty, nit picking imposter. Who uses distraction techniques to avoid discussing the real issues. Who presents his opinions as fact and fails to back them up with the "quantifiable scientific evidence" he demands from others and yet says, Who refuses to properly research a source because he is happy that a partial truth supports him and is not interested in the full truth. Who reverse the burden of proof demanding people prove what is already accepted as proven whilst offering no evidence of his own hypothesis.

The level of double standards you have been employing lately is mind numbing.

Look back at this thread turbonium. More and more people are refusing to debate with you because of your current behaviour. Trinitrotoluene has already refused to debate with you at all, and Postie has said this: . Is it really your intention to drive everyone away so you can claim you won by default? That is not the tactics of the turbonium I used to know.

Things are getting a bit heated in this thread and particularly between you and me. I am willing to accept my part in that. My own posts have been becoming unacceptable and I hold my hand up to that. I will not be posting here for a while, so that things can calm down between us (unless I have to intervene in a moderator capacity obviously). You need to take responsibility for your actions and your part in this thread returning to the bad old days. You are descending to the sort of trolling we have seen in the past. From a personal point of view I find that sad. You were the one HB I had some respect for. Not any more.

As a moderator I do not want to be back in the position I was in in the past, being part of the debate but trying to moderate too. I have been more than fair with you and have defended you from personal attacks several times in the past. I will continue to treat you fairly... If you resort to the sort of personal attack you just aimed at me again you will find yourself being issued with a formal warning.

Well, my point is that the flag starts moving before the astronaut kind of skips/jumps and/or runs by. Apart from that I can't draw too much conlusions out of it, as I don't know if that proves anything or not. But I thought it would be an interesting observation for everyone. As for the point I'm trying to make; I don't think a flag would start moving before one would pass it, in an atmosphere. However, I have not tried to recreate something like this myself (yet). It would be an interesting experiment to do, though.

EDIT: Thanks for the welcome, Waspie_Dwarf.

(Sorry, I edit my posts a lot because of my eagerness to click the "Submit" button, but usually I edit to add some more as opposed to removing things.)

Even with BertL's analysis, I find it very difficult to see what the flag is doing before the astronaut reaches it. However, as he passes it, it is definitely moving towards him at a fair clip.

Well, in the end it comes down to a change of the white part of the flag going "two pixels to the right" (to put it in some crude terms). It's a small change, but it's a change, nonetheless.

If I could get a higher quality version of the video, I might be able to draw some more notable and "easier to see" conclusions from it. If I recall correctly, the source I used is a YouTube film.

Oh, I see now.

This is not a matter any more of discussing the fact that "thousands of stars should be visible on the lunar surface, day or night". It's a matter of me admitting I was wrong for telling you a common sense fact.

I made the mistake with an HB who will grind an issue into the dust, despite the fact that his argument has been trashed, of stating my position far too simply, I see.

I was wrong in stating that stars couldn't be seen...despite the fact that the statement was fully qualified early on in the discussion, with specific examples of how one might see them...confirmed by your own source.

You want me to admit I was wrong?

I fully explained myself, as you argued your failed contention into the dust, nitpicking yourself into ignominy.


You said that the ASTRONAUTS SHOULD'VE SEEN THOUSANDS OF STARS IN THE LUNAR SKY DURING BROAD DAYLIGHT.
You were wrong. There's no way.

You said that the fact that the AS-11 astronauts didn't report seeing any stars SHOWED THAT APOLLO WAS A FAKE, clinging to an incomplete statement that you cited from someone who debunked you at our behest...something you refused to investigate fully for yourself before utilizing his statement.

Then you come up with Gene Cernan's comment that he was able to visualize some stars...a statement that YOU ARE DUBIOUS ABOUT since it was 20 years after the fact, and use that to try and make me admit I was wrong.

This is very, very shallow.

The fact is, I should've written you a dissertation, FULLY explaining all the possibilities. I thought common sense might be sufficient.

In that , I WAS WRONG.

...However, I have noted previously that extensive posts are not read by HBs, and I have to repeat myself. The effort isn't worth it to do that sort of thing, so I resist. Since you have neglected to address the majority of what I've said when explaining things (especially pertinent points that address the inadequacy of your arguments), in favor of something that sparks your ire, I rather think my theory about extensive posts is spot on. In other words, if I had taken the tiome to FULLY explain every little thing...I'd have had to re-explain it later.

However, your argument, one way or the other, was killed. You were wrong in what you maintained, and the case is closed.


You're going a little over the edge here with this situation.
It's time to drop it. It's over.


****************************************************************************
Sorry to everyone for not being around much in the past couple weeks.
I've been a wee bit busy...


And now, on to Turb's video clip (for what it's worth...).

can i play also?

FROM YESTERDAY (THIS WAS NOT ANSWERED!)

as for that flag moving.. there is no RIPPLING wind effect. a flag with no wind would just hang there like a limp rag. it does not do this. a wire has probably been fed into the top of the flag to keep it 'stiff' ..it is no big mystery to me? that small 'movement' you report could easily happen (with a wire inserted into it) it even LOOKS LIKE what i am describing..

the mysteries are the anomolus crosshairs, the 'radiation' problem, the 'santa claus' remark, the anomolous reflections, the 'C' rock, the lack of further interest, (helium3?) etc..

can somebody please confirm page 156 (?) of president clintons memoirs for further info?

from todays junta:
the flag DOES move a tiny bit before the astronaut reaches it.

Yes I can confirm that there is a page 156 to his memoirs, although I don't suppose that is what you mean. It might help if were SPECIFIC about what you want confirmed?

I assume you want confirmation of this passage: If so, then yes, that is what Clinton says.

Some hoax believers have used this to claim that Clinton himself is a hoax believer, despite the fact he never actually says that. More importantly he isn't talking about any documents he saw in his role of President, he says specifically

To further place massive doubt on Clinton being an HB is this, his only other mention of Apollo, which is on page 952:(My bolding).

This passage does not seem to be consistent with Clinton believing in any kind of Apollo fakery.

And with that I will, as promised, take a temporary break from this topic.

THAT...is perhaps the lousiest piece of AS-15 footage I have seen!
(I should contact Eric Jones about that thing in the hopes that he can get a cleaner version...)

Apollo 15 was magnificent, start-to-finish, an emotional experience and a wonder of human exploration. The TV was great, and this video clip is trash.


A little background on it:


The full sequence from which these few frames were taken is the flag setup at the end of EVA2 on AS-15. The entire sequence takes about 4.5 minutes.


If you had a good version of the TV, you would clearly see what was going on.
This version is crap and shows virtually nothing. Seeing the whole thing in context reveals alot.


What actually happens is that Jim gets the base pole of the flagstaff, a hollow cyliner about 2.5 feet long, and thrusts it into the ground about 8-9 inches with his hand, leaning on it. He then whacks it down six times with a tool, maybe another 4 inches or so.

What should be noted is that Jim has hammered the base pole at an angle to the verticle of perhaps 15 degrees or so, illustrated by the "tourist" photos that were taken ( which is what they did after the flag's erection (REF: AS15-88-11863 through 11866). Striking this hollow pole as he did, and an angle from the vertical (which is pertinent), has the effect of disturbing the receiving end of the shaft, and possibly knocking the shaft slightly out of round.


Dave then comes over with the deployed flag on it's pole, which inserts into the receiver tube, and puts it in there. He stuffs it into place, and you'll note the flag's movement from that activity, as the pole oscillates from his impulse. It continues to move for the next 35 seconds, as Jim get's into position right next to it (he walked right past it and stood maybe a foot away from the flag pole while having his picture taken). This close proximity motion didn't cause the flags movement to increase in the slightest. This is because the oscillation caused by Dave's impulse was dampening in a vacuum.

Now, as Dave walks past the flag on his way toward the LM, we again see a small amplitude oscillation of the flag. In a good video one clearly sees the horizontal support of the flag move perceptibly in relation to the mountains in the distance (you cannot see that in this crappy version).

Now, Turb, you pilfered this clip from ALSJ. I shall assume that perhaps you read Mr. Jones' comments on that motion of the flag?







I think perhaps you might have...maybe (at least I HOPE SO).

It's a fairly good analysis, but I am not in agreement with it in toto.

I cannot determine if Dave actually touched the flag. The TV camera was approximetely 20 feet from the flag, and was zoomed in. I think it's almost impossible to determine Dave's distance from the LRV camera or the flag given those circumstances.

I do think what happened is this:


Due to the angle of the flag from the vertical, and the flag's obvious yaw away from the angle of the pole to the vertical, and the probability that the insert pole wasn't perfectly seated in the receiver tube, it moved, under the force of gravity ever so slightly, as such things would be inclined to do. The mass of the flag was acting at an angle to the pole, and a slight settling or turn toward the gravity vector, as I'll call it, made the flag oscillate a slight amount, and it just happened to coincide with Dave moving past the flag. It might have been 1/8" or less of rotation of the insert member withing the receiver tube, a slight settling. That's enough to cause the flag to move perceptibly.

Now Eric discussed six possibilites as put forth by contributors to the Journal. I just added #7, which in my mind makes as much, if not more sense than the others. I don't think any of them can ever be stated as a fact uncategorically. And, it doesn't really matter. It is inconsequential.


The pertinent fact is that none of those seven possibilites includes a wind gust. The reason for that should seem rather obvious:

We were on the Moon, in a vacuum.

Now I fully realize that you'd like to assume, or believe, as you have, that this is conclusive evidence of a gust of wind. But, you are once again wrong in that assumption.

Why, you ask (and I know you are asking that)?

Well, you see, presenting tiny snippets, sans context or full content, which you are inclined to do, lend themselves to not presenting the whole picture. And not presenting the whole picture often lends itself to being wrong, as has also been illustrated many times in these Moon hoax arguments.


If you actually look at the whole sequence, you will see clear evidence that these men are in fact on the Moon in 1/6 g.

About 15-20 seconds prior to the flag deployment, Dave, get's to that location... where where he thinks the flag should go. When concurrence is received, he seems to deliberately kick his right foot backwards, spreading out the lunar dust behind him visibly.


It moves out in a linear fan behind him, settling softly to the ground in a most unearthly fashion...there is no dust cloud, not a single particulate is suspended. It moves away, and falls in nice ballistic arcs.


That, is IMPOSSIBLE where there is air. You will have some dust cloud where the microfine particles are suspended in the air. There is none in this case...as there are never any in any Apollo video where dust is kicked up in one fashion or another.


That alone is adequate evidence that these men are in a vacuum, and the velocity of the motion of these cloudless dust masses is evidence that they are in a 1/6 g gravity field.


Of course there is only one place we know of where such conditions exist...the Moon.


You are wrong.
This was no wind gust.

Watch the whole EVA, especially this sequence of flag erection and tourist shots at the end of AS-15 EVA 2 and you will see clearly the whole picture.


It was a nice try. But no joy.

********************************************************************************
*
p.s...to POSTIE:


Noting your prior post, vis:







I see you have addressed some of this...
Thus, to give credit where credit is due, I quote you (as always, nice work! )

Hey GAV!

I didn't notice this one until just now (I've been a wee bit occupied and somewhat emotonally drained...if you've been watching STS-120, you'll know why)...


The Apollo Hasselblad that was mounted on the bracket on the EMU was fixed in position. The camera was mounted in fixed position at the apex of the EMU RCU (the RCU was the box on the chest of the astronaut's suit exterior which contained COMM mode and volume switches, warning indicators, O2 quantity indicator, fan switches, warning flags, and pumps and push-to-talk switches).


Basically, the camera had no mobility, save that which the astronaut could provide by maneuvering and translating his body.

Regards,

M~

You may play, unit, but be aware that you will not be played with...by me.


You are correct, there is a "wire" (more like a spring-loaded stiffener of metal tubing) which is inserted along the top length of the Apollo surface deploy flags. That holds the flag out...because of course it will never blow in the wind, since there isn't any wind on the lunar surface. The movement you see is undoubtedly the result of an impulse transmitted along that moment arm.


There is no mystery to the "anomalous crosshairs" (they are normal photographic phenomena seen on many an Earth photo), there was no "radiation problem" as pertained to Apollo lunar missions (already thouroughly and exhaustively fleshed out), the "Santa Claus remark" is finished with, and has in fact been completely explained in it's actual context in this very thread

... (were you alive on Christmas Eve 1968, when this remark was made?)...

... there were no "anomalous reflections" (what does that mean, anyway?), there was no "C" on that rock (it's perhaps among the oldest and most thoroughly debunked HB sillinesses there are, very likely), and there is no lack of further interest in the Moon, attest to the fact that we are currently active in design and development of the Orion spacecraft and the LSAM, as well as the Ares I and V launch vehicles, which oddly enough, are going to take us back there again.


If you need any clarification on any of these aspects, please feel free to ask questions!

One at a time, please....

MID-

This issue about people who dispute the light in those marvelous images of the LLM, reminds me of something. Now, I know this is a little close to home, but I can relate to this- surfaces are not smooth, and reflect in all directions (to an extent) on the Moon.

A case in point may seem not 'tough' enough' for some, but I will refer to art. Edward Hopper was the most famous 20th Century painter of realism style, in the U.S. His first sale was of a 'light drenched' watercolor, called "The Mansard Roof".

He was from New York, but went to Gloucester, Mass. in summers to paint the Victorian houses and the lighthouse. An art gallery owner there said this-

Any peninsula, or any cape, that juts out into the water has as least three sides of reflecting sunlight. That's why you have so many flowers in places where normally with wind and salt, you don't see them. That's why so many artists end up at Cape Cod, or places like Gloucester.












The last two images are of the actual house with the mansard roof, and another in the area.

MID-

Regarding-

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15v.1485548.rm in which there is a flag and an astronaut, etc.

LHM (that's lord have mercy). I have never seen so many experts arguing over what I would bet was some sort of transmission shortcomings. It just looks like a blurry, distorting, scan line screw-up to me. At least, I think it is much ado over a lot of misplaced imagination on most everybody's part. It is not waving, apparently. The part of the image, which is brightly affected by the flag, gets a distortion after the shadow contrast hits the lens as the astronaut moves across the image field. It looks like that part of the picture has to re-adjust, possibly creating the appearance of a moving part of the flag.

Now, I have a dumb question. If the Soviets gave up due to their own particular difficulties, and if we were held back by the same difficulties (which we were not), why would we simply not admit to it? I think there is an argument to be made for common sense, here. We went to the Moon, and we were able to do it.

The Soviets did not. So, why would they not make up some lame-brain propaganda? If it made sense to do so (and the idea makes no sense, whatsoever), why should not the Soviets have participated in their own hoakum?

I say some people are just not visually acuitive. I say that without insult, too.

Yes I can confirm that there is a page 156 to his memoirs, although I don't suppose that is what you mean. It might help if were SPECIFIC about what you want confirmed?
and i just KNOW we're going to be friends.. especially after an opening line such as that.. had i posted the quote, i'm sure it would have taken 2-3 extra days just to extinguish the sh**fight about its authenticity and i was specific.. 2x.. page 156.. how much more specific did i need to be? just because i did not regurgitate the info you seem to take issue with this? (it seems i was so specific you were able to offer extra info from the same book! see below..)

Just a month before, Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong had left their colleague, Michael Collins, aboard spaceship Columbia and walked on the moon, beating by five months President Kennedy's goal of putting a man on the moon before the decade was out. The old carpenter asked me if I really believed it happened. I said sure, I saw it on television. He disagreed; he said that he didn't believe it for a minute, that "them television fellers" could make things look real that weren't. Back then, I thought he was a crank. During my eight years in Washington, I saw some things on TV that made me wonder if he wasn't ahead of his time.
yes. the very same. my memory is better than i thought (i had the right page) *NOTE in the real sense of the word, a 'crank' is often 'used' to perform a 'task' is it not? like you might 'crank' a handle to open a window (etc) hmm.. Clinton thought this fellow was a 'crank' (a person used for a task / to disseminate info) it's up to you dear readers, to draw a conclusion when Clinton goes on to say quite the opposite about the crank..

since it's just common sense to know that the end of a sentance contains the final words on the matter, i know which way i am leaning

Some hoax believers have used this to claim that Clinton himself is a hoax believer, despite the fact he never actually says that. More importantly he isn't talking about any documents he saw in his role of President, he says specifically - I saw some things on TV
hoax believers.. (classic!) where to begin!?! holy crap i need a degree in gymnastics to unravel that.. here, i will try.. first you assert HOAX. you claim we hoaxers think Clinton is a hoaxer because he thinks there may have been a hoax? - what?, does a triple negative make a positive or something as far as you're concerned?

(then) you say he never actually says that!? says what? hoax? well, nobody says hoax? what are you on about? the closest word used there was CRANK. (which implies shenanigans, so hoax is fine coming from you, but Clinton did not say HOAX, infact he is quite guarded about what he says there, only alluding to things he saw on TV which made him wonder...) so IN THIS WAY you are right to say he never says HOAX, but it's being implied and you seem to have fun twisting it all around? you almost slipped by me..

1) i didn't mention documents, did you? (what are you doing here?) why is it "more important" that these 'documents' (which as you say DO NOT EXIST) cannot be called into account to support your claim because they do not exist [as you say] .. (and it goes in circles) (see much further below)

2) if you need such documents, then do you believe ANYTHING he writes in his book? (isn't his word good enough?) but you are ready to put your chips with page 952.. but i'm sure you didnt read from page 156 to 952 in so small a time, or even know the info you needed was on page 952 (hey maybe you did, maybe you're special) ..so what else do you know that you claim not to know? and if you knew it, what's your agenda with trying to sass me out on asking for confirmation of page 156? i thought you were here to help?

3) yeah he's talking about TV, you are 101% correct!! - and the subject is THE MOON LANDING - which we all saw on TV - which the guy just said "they can make things look real when they are not real" (paraphrased) - which was directly after being asked if he thought it was REAL or NOT.. i really don't understand your reply here? it seems like you're trying to do something.. underhanded.. he calls this guy "that old carpenter" .. so that old carpenter is the guy who was left on the shuttle, right? wait, i'll check..

Just a month before, Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong had left their colleague, Michael Collins, aboard spaceship Columbia and walked on the moon [beating by five months President Kennedy's goal of putting a man on the moon before the decade was out] The old carpenter asked me if I really believed it happened.
- unless this paragraph has been taken out of context, or i am just daft.. it certainly implies the old carpenter is the guy remaining on the shuttle?

so the guy who was left in the shuttle is saying he thinks it's a scam.. well, shouldn't he ought to know more than the rest of us ground dwellers? ..to make things worse, Clinton then says "the guy is ahead of his time"

(... still nothing?)

isn't the mere fact that an ex-president is alluding to a faked TV broadcast interesting enough? I'm not stupid and i know what is being implied there.. look -> "Back then, I thought he was a crank. During my eight years in Washington, I saw some things on TV that made me wonder if he wasn't ahead of his time" he says this ABOUT the moon landing. they are talking about the moon landing ..I'm perplexed how you dismiss this so casually?

and since YOU said it, "he saw SOME (plural) things on TV" (which make him wonder) ..interesting.. if only to be a fly on the wall and know what these OTHER things are that make him wonder.. (this probably means nothing to you also?)

yes. Clinton watches TV. i am certain of this.. he also HAS ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS WE WILL NEVER SEE (and documents you mention, but were unable to provide? i still don't get that??) so if he sees something on TV that makes him question things, let alone something hidden in a TOP SECRET DOCUMENT (which he would know NOT TO DISCUSS) .. how much more egregious does he need to be?

To further place massive doubt on Clinton being an HB is this, his only other mention of Apollo, which is on page 952:
(massive?) it ain't even a mole-hill to me yet? o_O ..but you really seem to be a believer? just convince me? how do you end up having the stance you have when you've just read what Clinton (the EX LEADER OF FREE WORLD) had to say on the matter? ..oh that's right, "he just SAW SOME THINGS ON TV" and this doesn't mean anything to you.. first of all.. we are talking about the moon landing, NOT APOLLO. how is page 952 even relevant here??

but you want to get yours and Bills moon rock in the picture.. ok.. i am not there, i have not seen it, probably neither have you, so let's decide to BELIEVE HIM in this instance (hey it's only fair, we decided to IGNORE/DISBELIEVE his first statement where he casts doubt, so by this reasoning he MUST be telling the truth the 2nd time around..) o_O

On my last night in the now-barren Oval Office, I thought of the glass case I had kept on the coffee table between the two couches, just a few feet away. It contained a rock Neil Armstrong had taken off the moon in 1969. Whenever arguments in the Oval Office heated up beyond reason, I would interrupt and say, “You see that rock? It’s 3.6 billion years old. We’re all just passing through. Let’s calm down and go back to work.”
That moon rock gave me a whole different perspective on history and the proverbial “long run.” (My bolding).

wow.. awesome.. i'm sold.. what he's done there is no more than "flip-flopped", something any polly worth his watch can do. so what side of the fence does Clinton sit on? if these are the only 2 references to the moon and apollo, what makes you so sure that one or the other is his REAL stance on the matter? the man has a physical object in a glass container sitting in front of him, of course he wants to believe it's the real deal, especially when he wants to shoosh things up.. (shh kiddies, if you don't behave then santa won't bring the presents) and what's more significant? would it appeal more to you if page 156 had came AFTER what he said on page 952? the credibility of a man (or a moon landing, for that matter) is like a priceless work of art, once the authenticity has been questioned it is forever after subject to scrutiny.. and rightly so.. (i am sure you would take this stance with that other fellow you currently debate with?)

This passage does not seem to be consistent with Clinton believing in any kind of Apollo fakery.
cripes. the only thing i agree with.. but i state above my reasoning on this.. so remain unmoved untill your reply..?

And with that I will, as promised, take a temporary break from this topic.
don't be away for too long.. it's your move.. hey.. I'm just a drone from sector 7B but i smell a rat here.. back to address the reflections and other crap potentially soon.

incase you don't resonate here.. behold - you can all argue about pictures and so called 'proof' for 127 pages.. the spooks and i are impressed.. so let's just up it a notch or two and hear what 1) a guy who was closer to the moon than ANY of us has to say (the old carpenter) and 2) what a guy who used to lead the free world has to say (Clinton)

an amusing side-track that offers insight into the mindset of the whitehouse..
"Whenever arguments in the Oval Office heated up beyond reason" -- whenever implies frequency, beyond reason leads to things like Iraq..

I don't have a flag as yet for my own experiments, but will look into it asap.

Until then, I have a few comments...

After setting up the flag, you say to hold the bottom corner and "give it a small displacement" - something "similar" to what is seen in the Apollo 15 video clip.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, this is the method you're suggesting to simulate the flag waving - hold the bottom right corner of the flag, pull/move it back at the corner (___ inches?), and then, let go of the flag?

Have you quantified what you're describing as a "small displacement"? A couple of inches? Have you tried to determine how far the bottom corner of the flag moves from its original position?

Those points aside, I see a much more significant problem with your simulation....

You are assuming that the effect(s) on a flag from a gust of wind is fully equivalent to the effect(s) on a flag from a physical "clutch, move, and release".

The problem is, they do not have the same effect.

Moving the corner of the flag back a few inches and then letting it go, is simply building up a bit of momentum (energy) to make the flag wave through a pendulum-type effect.

A gust of wind will have a much more sustained effect on a flag. In the Apollo clip, the astronaut jumps/runs for some time, and this would generate a sustained, continual wind current/flow. The gust of wind may only last for one or two seconds, but it would keep the flag waving for a longer time than using the 'pendulum' method.

"During my eight years in Washington, I saw some things on TV that made me wonder if he wasn't ahead of his time."

Excuse me for asking, but is this not a sarcastic bit of witticism that simply whizzes past you? It does not take a Rhodes Scholar to figure that out!



(MID- I'm outta here. And, I salute you, sir! BTW, what you said regarding going to Mars and seeing the sights, gave me pause in my hesitancy to consider that a reachable dream. There is something that outer space must do to our instinct to explore- it increases it, proportionally!)

The previous video clip shows that the flag is much too far away for the astronaut to have brushed against it and cause it to wave. I sped up and split up the clip segments to reduce file size..





Compare the position of the astronauts in those clips to where the astronaut is in the flag waving clip...



The astronaut in the first two clips needs to take at least fifteen steps after he comes into view, before he's finally beside the flag. He has to walk down towards the left, then turn towards the right, further down and away from the camera, until he turns left again and finally gets beside the flag.

The flag in the last clip is not nearly close enough to touch, even if he was stretching out with his left arm!!

i am interested in this moon thing. this looks like waving. this looks different to what i first saw.

is it possible to make a copy of this and include frame numbers in the corner? this way we can say look at frames 20 to 25 (etc)

(for clarity)
you will be posting info on moon atmosphere conditions? and telling why the flag is waving like it is, and hopefully some snide comments or two (and i will search this topic for info aswell) please consider (to me) this is another explanation for something that seems.. wrong to me.. it's not the physical aspect i do not doubt about going to the moon.. it is the whole psychology of it.. i used a good word there so dig it! [um waspie by the time you read this i hope you're not too riled]

the believers and others are trying to convince (people like) me of the truth here.. let me just say.. i DO NOT KNOW THE TRUTH HERE.. do you? know it or not, you are asking me to believe the gospel of known liars. do you trust it all?
everything NASA might say. everything your science teacher or physics teacher might say about the workings of the cosmos? The truth is only there for the brave who seek it, you KNOW this but how does one say this?

tomorrow, as far as 'the world' is concerned.. there will be fear, and bad things on the news, and you know it's part of something larger..
10 years ago, they didn't so much as utter the words 'global warming', 'islamic fundamentalist terrorism', and 'WMD's' these days it's almost a fad and you know it's part of something larger..
20 years ago they didn't use manufactured system propaganda like they do now and you know it's part of something larger..
50 years ago they were essentially using the same internal combustion vehicles en masse as they are now, and you know it's part of something larger..
100 years ago some guy called Nikola Tesla was making radio controlled devices, and fiddling with electricity.. and is rumored to be involved with earthquake machines, death-rays, etc.. he ended up dying pennyless, didn't he? ..and you know it's part of something larger..
500 years ago.. america as we know it didn't exist.. and you know it's part of something larger..
1000 years ago people thought the earth was flat.. and you know it's part of something larger..
2000 years ago the son of God supposedly dwelt with us and laid down part of a plan.. and you know it's part of something larger..
5000 years ago, the world was created.. or so some say.. and you know it's a part of something larger..
beyond that.. we do not know for certain.. and we argue about it.. but somebody has been using the same symbols all this time.. and you know it's a part of something larger..

here's what i DO think. (for clarity)
a post or two above (#1936), there is stuff about high-up people who have made comments. i admit i get carried away but i digress.. maybe, just maybe they DID and DO go to the moon ..but maybe what they showed us was phoney? ..if you put those comments (and others) in context.. well, i suppose you can make anything seem like anything but this is the whole point.. and i suppose best left for now at that..

since some braniac started this topic in a conspiracy & secret society what do you expect?

lead...

As far as we are concerned, we wouldn't have to admit it, if we had similar difficulties to the Soviets. This is because everything we did was done in full view of the world. And of course, we had terrific failures in the early days, trying to launch a rocket, and our trials during Gemini, as well as the disaster of Apollo 1--all occurring in full public view.

If we weren't able to do it, it would be no secret. The Soviets did nothing in public view, and in those days only published their successes after they had been completed.

Of course, we knew what they were doing, despite the secrecy surrounding their activities, and they knew we knew. We knew they had destroyed their lunar capability before we launched Apollo 11 in 1969. The Soviet people didn't know this yet, but we did.

The fact is, despite the Soviet secrecy, the powers that be on both sides knew what the other folks were doing. Hoakum wouldn't have been an option for either party, certainly not for the United States.

We did go to the Moon, of course, and it was seen by the world in real time. The Soviets couldn't manage their heavy lift launch vehicle.
Each nation knew what the other was doing, or not doing. It was a little tougher for the U.S. to know what the Soviets were doing, but we did know.

No one faked anything, and no one could've.

I thank you, Sir.
And, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

The still frames help to identify the relative scale and distance(s) between the astronaut(s) and the flag. The still below gives us a side-by-side comparison of their relative heights, showing that the astronaut is slightly shorter than the flag...



Compare the still from the "waving flag" video clip (upper left w/red border) to the other 3 stills, taken from the previous clip...



The bottom right still confirms the earlier observation - that the astronauts are slightly shorter than the flag.

Those two stills also confirm (as do several others) that the flag is a fair distance away from the video camera. The astronauts are always in full view, from head to toe, whenever they are near/beside the flag. The 3 stills from the previous video clip also show that the astronaut has to take several steps down and away from the video camera, before he finally gets near to the flag.

I am 100% certain that it is (or was) impossible for the astronaut in the "waving flag" clip to touch, or to have touched, the flag.

That means there are only two options for what caused the flag to wave - a gust of wind, or static electricity. First of all - do we really have two options?

To wit - is static electricity really a viable option?

Obviously, static electricity is a well-known phenomenon. Common examples:

- making hair stand up after combing it
- shuffling feet along carpet, then touching metal to create a spark/shock.
- static cling of clothes in laundry

Here is some detailed information...

"Static" electricity appears whenever two dissimilar insulating materials are placed into intimate contact and then separated again. All that's required is the touching. Chemical bonds are formed when the surfaces touch, and if the atoms in one surface tend to hold electrons more tightly, that surface will tend to steal charged particles from the other surface immediately as they touch. This causes the surfaces to become oppositely "charged"; they acquire imbalances of opposite polarity. One surface now has more electrons than protons, while the other has more protons than electrons. When the surfaces are later separated, the regions of opposite charge-imbalance also get separated.

http://amasci.com/emotor/stmiscon.html#two


The Coulomb’s law of electrostatics, one of the most significant laws of physics, states:

“The force of repulsion or attraction between two electric charges is proportional to the product of the magnitude of the charges and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them”.

An addition to Coulomb’s law is to the effect that “like charges repel and unlike charges attract”, in contrast to gravitation where the forces are always attractive.
The electrostatic force FE, of repulsion or attraction, between two stationary electric charges of magnitudes Q and K distance Z apart, in space, is expressed as a vector:



where the force between two electric charges is positive (repulsive) for like charges and negative (attractive) for unlike charges, εo is the permittivity of a vacuum and the unit vector û points in the direction of the force of repulsion. It should be noted that the electrostatic forces of attraction and repulsion between two neutral bodies, each containing equal number of positive and negative charges, cancel out exactly.

http://www.musada.net/Papers/paper5.doc

As we can see, distance is a critical factor in electrostatic attraction/repulsion.

The further apart the charged things are, the weaker the forces of attraction and repulsion are.

In the "flag waving" video, the distance between the astronaut and the flag is several feet, minimum.

So, the question is this: Is electrostatic attraction/repulsion even possible between an astronaut and a nylon flag, several feet away from each other?

Can this phenomenon occur between any two such objects, if they are several feet away from each other?

As for what caused the flag to wave?

Not static electricity, I'm quite certain. It is not a viable option. It's also impossible.

Welcome to the forum.

Now, to your post...You claim that the astronaut has not skipped/run by the flag before it starts to wave.

The problem is, you aren't taking perspective into account. We can only say (with complete certainty) that the astronaut has not moved past the flag, from our (the video camera's) point of view.

Look at this still-frame sequence from the previous video clip...



Coming from a position behind the camera, an astronaut enters our scene in the upper right corner (frame #1)

In frame #2, he has walked his way down and away from us, to the left, right past (most of) the flag

By frame #3, he's still moving down and away from us, but now he's going off to the right

In the last frame, after making his way down to the flag, he is moving leftward again, but this time, he's behind the flag...

From our viewpoint, he has gone past the flag twice - once to the left, and once to the right. During that time, the other astronaut stands directly beside / in front of the flag (frames #2 and #4). If he moved a little further back, he could still be directly facing the flag, and we wouldn't see him (he'd be off-camera to the left side).


Now, consider the astronaut in the "waving flag" clip...



He comes into view from somewhere off to the left of the camera, but we have no idea of the path he took up until that time. He could have been jumping his way past the flag at a different angle, maybe near to where the other astronaut was standing, in the previous clip, but was just off-camera.


Anyway, the bottom line is that we can't say the flag starts to move before he runs/jumps past it, because can we only see it from a limited perspective.

Turbs

In another post you state that

If that is the case, then why does the flag move in this instance, but doesn't move in other clips with the astronaut moving even closer to the flag? How is it possible for the flag to move in the way it does, caused by a draft of air due to the astronaut moving, if he is several feet away from the flag? This explanation does not make any sense.

As to the rest of your comments, they sound like pseudo-science I'm afraid! Look at the movement of the flag. It bears absolutely NO resemblance whatsoever to any kind of movement that I can generate with my own flag, whether that be by releasing it from a variety of distances, or walking/hopping/jogging past it. It's motion (in the Apollo footage) is very even and pendulum-like. There is no apparent damping due to an atmosphere. The damping is VERY apparent in an atmosphere, and your excuse about a continual gust of wind caused by the astronaut moving by several feet away is, pardon the pun, a load of hot air. If there was any "gust of wind", it would be a turbulent wake that would casue the flag to ripple and flutter in a chaotic way, not in the very smooth, even, pendulu-like manner seen in the video. In addition, the wake would spread out behind the astronaut, so how did the flag start moving just before he passed it, if he was several feet away? Non sequitur.

It was filmed in a vacuum, period. What caused it to move is still open to debate.

All you have to do is look at the video of them putting the flag up to release that this is in a vacuum. Look at the behaviour of the of the flag Turbs when they are putting it up, does that look like a flag that is in an atmosphere?

So why the obvious movemant, with no one actually touching the flag...it is in a 'vacuum' afterall?

Come on, postie - the flag does move in many other clips. I'm quite sure you know that. But those flag movements usually occur while an astronaut is holding the flag, or twisting the flag pole, etc. - so the pro-Apollo camp always claims that the flag movement is due to the astronaut moving it.

But in this case, the flag waves, but it is never touched.

Also, note that the astronaut in this clip is jumping/running along at a fairly fast pace. Certainly, it's faster, and "bouncier", than how the astronauts move around most of the time! Even from several feet away, his quick, energetic "bunny hop" is easily capable of creating enough wind to make a thin nylon flag flutter a little bit at one loose corner!



Hey, I'm fine with that - we're all entitled to our opinions. I have my own opinions on such matters, too, but I have no desire to start mudslinging.



Are you really suggesting that a flag can't wave like this from wind blowing against it?!? That it's actually impossible?

It waves slightly to begin with, and then it gradually settles down, until it's completely still again - all within about 20 seconds or so. If there was no atmosphere, it would keep waving as much as the first couple of times, for at least a longer period of time - not in continually smaller and smaller waves - like we see in the video.

Btw, just what do you think could have created this supposedly "very even and pendumum-like" effect? An effect that is somehow impossible for any type of a wind to have created?



I've got some news for you, postie - a gust of wind isn't always meant to describe a "turbulent wake. In this case, it just means any air current which can be created by body movements. Like the air currents that quick "bunny hops" can create, as we see the astronaut do in the video.



No. The flag behaves exactly like it should in an atmosphere - the waves get progressively smaller and smaller, until it stops moving. As I said, I don't have a flag as yet, but I will make sure to get one soon, just to prove to you that creating this effect with wind is easily repeatable.

It's impossible for wind to make a flag wave like that? That's a real doozy of a claim you've got there, postie!

It sure does look like it's in an atmosphere! Here's a segment from that clip, starting at about 1:57...



The flag does one big "half-wave" to the back, and immediately settles right back down - with nobody touching it!

If there was no atmosphere, the flag would continue to wave, as prominently (or almost as much) as it did at first.

This flag is in an atmosphere, without any question.

They have no answer for that, it seems. The only reason they could ever come up with before - that it was caused by the astronaut who was holding it at the time - can't be used as an excuse now.

The "arm brush" argument is simply impossible. And so is the "electrostatic repelling/attracting" argument.

Maybe they'll come up with some sort of "rarely seen phenomenon" ...