Lol, the believers are people to proud to see the reality of what there government and there chosen passion as lied about.

The arm brush certainly hasn't been shown by anyone to be impossible. My own investigations down this line are inconclusive due to the difficulties in measuring distances accurately in the video, coupled with the fact that if he did touch it, then you'd need to be accurate to what, less than a cenitmetre with your measurements? Impossible (for me anyway) to prove that he brushed it with his arm, but it's still possibility. I've seen no empirical evidence to suggest otherwise, apart from subjective opinion that he looks too far away.

I'm also skeptical about the static electricity argument. Not enought evidence either way to be conclusive. It's still a possibility though.

There's also the explanation MID came up with that I must admit I hand't considered previously, that there was a slight shifting in the suspension arm as it settled into a more stable position as the astronaut passed by (either due to vibration through the surface, or coincidence).

For me, there are several possibilities that each have their own plus and minus points. The one that is already ruled out is the "wind in an atmosphere" - the flag motion is not damped anywhere near quickly enough, something you'll be able to see for yourself when you get your own nylon flag Turbs. There is also the rest of the evidence in the video clip that points to it being shot in a vacuum. Put it all together - it was in a vacuum. WHat caused the flag to wave is debatable, but since none of the remaining options could point to a hoax, I don't see any need to waste time analysing them all. Ruling out an atmosphere is sufficient.

Do you have any actual questions about the subject or are you just going to sit back and snipe about us "Evil Gubment Lovers" (HA! That's a good one!)?

Of course the flag moves in other clips in the situations you've described! I thought it was clear from context that we are talking about an astronaut moving past a stationary flag and causing it to move. I've not seen that anywhere else. I'm sure if any other CTs had, I would have heard about it. (That's not to say such a clip doesn't exist of course, just that I've neither seen it not heard of it).



What caused it to move is open to debate - I mention several possibilities in my previous post. I think the best way forward is to decide whether the clip could have been filmed in an atmosphere. If it can be shown that the motion of the nylon flag is impossible (or exceedingly unlikely) in an atmosphere, then we can pretty much deduce it was in a vacuum. Whether you choose to believe that vacuum was on the moon or in one of NASAs vacuum chambers depends on your point of view of course...



Yes, it's possible to start a flag fluttering in this manner, I'm not disputing that! It's the subsequent motion of the flag that's the giveaway to the flag being in a vacuum. It does not "flutter" - the small motions are pendulum-like in nature. They are very even. They continue slowing down for about 20 seconds before the flag becomes stationary. Damping of a 3'x5' nylon flag is MUCH more pronounced in an atmosphere. The scenario you seem to be suggetsing requires a puff of wind that keeps on blowing very gently against the flag for several seconds after the astronaut has passed by, each time causing the corner of the flag to move ever so slightly, without creating the ripples and random motion that you would expect wind to do. Remember, this wind is some kind of eddy current, swirling around in the wake of the astronaut, which just happens to be strong enough to cause a small initial displacement, and yet has the peculiar quality of causing the corner flag to continue to move almost pendulum-like, with no effect on the part of the flag closer to the flagpole? If you can recreate this here on Earth I will be impressed! I've come nowhere near despite giving it a good go, but I know that inability to do something isn't proof it can't be done, so please do try it yourself. Perhaps you can Youtube the results? If I get chance over the weekend I'll do the same.




Turbs, I'm sorry if it came over that way. No offence intended, so I'll withdraw the "pseudo-science" label.



I think I clarified this bit above - a small gust of wind can start the initial movement, but in an atmosphere, I think the odds of seeing the motion that we see (for a 3'x5' nylon flag, which is what i've tried this with), are... well, let's say "vanishingly small" rather than impossible



There is some damping that is not atmospheric - internal friction caused by the nature of the material itself. How long do you propose the flag should continue moving for in a vacuum? Do you have any experimental evidence to back this up? 20 seconds doesn't seem unreasonable to me, though I must admit I don't have a vacuum chamber handy to test this.



I hope I've explained myself clearly on this one. What caused the initial displacement of the flag is irrelevant (to the hoax) IF it can be shown that the subsequent motion could not occur in an atmosphere.

The "very even, pendulum-like effect" is caused by the Laws of physics - once the flag started moving (by whatever cause), it was always going to move in the other direction again due to gravity. The even, pendulum-like nature of the motion is a good pointer to there not being an atmosphere, which would otherwise very heavily damp the motion (lightweight flag + large surface area + atmosphere = heavily damped!)



I think you'll find it would still be turbulent! I thinks most gusts do have a certain amount of turbulence to them. Especially the chaotic motion caused by great lump in a spacesuit bunny-hopping along.



Great! Look forward to it.



Maybe they sent me a flag that refuses to wave properly. Curse you, eBay!!!

there, their, they're. Three different meanings, three different spellings.
to, too. Two different meanings, two different spellings.

On top of that my government hasn't stated anything at all about the moon landings. What does any government have to do with the discussion?

People who use the 'spelling' card are really tired people, as for your word 'stated' i said no such thing bud...the fact that they all lie to achieve an end at some time, is a given, don't be so sterile and live a little bud.
AD i will sit back and watch the masses go round and around thanks (for now).

Is anyone here familiar with how the lunar T.V. camera was actuated? It seems not!

I'm appologize for using exclamations, but even this morning, I can see clearly enough that this is a case of - camera fluctuations, possibly mixed with transmission shortcomings.

I made an animated gif from frames 1 and 4 of Turbonium's 4 image montage. It looks like camera effects.

Focus, unfocus. Focus, unfocus. Etc.

Look at the light bathing the lunar surface, on the right side of image frame 1.

It is gone in image frame 4.

Is that not self-evident? Focus, unfocus. With some other camera system fluctuations.

belial,

I am sure that Turb's response seems pertinent, and likely satisfies your needs:




...and as well, satisfies his recent need to be snide.
Again, he is singling out a brief snippet of film and seeking an answer.
In this case, he's correct:

There is no verifiable answer, and there is no real concern about an answer. It could be several reasonable things, including the possibility that I presented, and which Postie mentioned as well..(thanks for acknowedging that Postie!).

But there is no "rarely seen phenomenon" here either.




While making perfect sense, this won't satisfy him.
He will argue for a definitive scientific explanation for this tiny inconsequential thing...perhaps in the hope that if he doesn't get it, it will prove Apollo to be a fake.

This is of course, despite the fact that as Postie, and I have pointed out, everything in the filmed sequence clearly indicates vacuum operations in 1/6 g:



The contention is that this low-amplitude motion was the result of a wind gust, and as such, proves fakery.
Of course, there wasn't even any air there, as evidenced by careful observation of the film, so that's out the door as a reason.


And, as I've said, you're only ever going to get a possible explanation (and among those, very likely a probable one).

However, I get the feeling that we'll be arguing this inconsequential matter (and it is such) beyond all reasonability once again...long enough so that we all forget the original, already debunked contention.

I'm still waiting for an answer to the question I asked right at the start of this topic:
If it was faked in an atmosphere, why does the flag remain so still for the rest of the time?

MID-

I just watched that video again, and after reading your last post, I can see those frames that seem to be in question. And, I concur that as some say, there actually appears be some motion to the flag.

Only, as you point out, the flag unit is reacting to it's own weight, tension forces, and adjustment of its center of gravity, within the vacuum.

And people dumb enough to believe we didn't land on the moon are usually the ones that are too young to have witnessed the spectacular events as they unfolded. (as i was lucky enough to have done)

p.s.
Somebody please shoot this thread in the head & put it out of it's misery, it's been allowed to limp on for far too long.

The movements described previously were solely due to manipulation by the people touching the flagstaff.
That was not an excuse. It was the answer to the so-called "anomaly".

This movement, obviously not the result of direct manipulations by the astronauts, is unrelated to the prior "excuse", and of course to the prior contentions.
Several possible explanations for this movement have been put forth. I don't agree with them, per-se. I think they're all too complex, or too implausible. I proposed another one, which is simple...the natural settling of a mass along the gravity vector by means of a subtle movement of the flag pole inside its receiver tube, which makes sense because of the angle of the pole in the ground, and the angle of the flag as it was inserted in that receiver tube.

One way of another, there's only common sense here. There won't be any verifiable scientific explanation for it.

There is however, more than ample evidence that this film was made precisely where it was made, that being on the surface of the Moon.

Thus, it seems only reasonable, given the evidence, that your contention, rather clearly described below:



Is not a possibility.




What you consider "solid evidence" is sometimes amazing.

Since it was obviously in a vacuum, all that can be argued is why that flag moved in the vacuum.
And I know you will continue to do so, despite the fact that you'll never get what you're looking for out of that argument.


You're of course attemtping to prove an Apollo fake.
This won't do it...either, since the film itself tends to prove Apollo was real.

________________________________________________________________________________
___________

Now, I wouldn't put it past you to go back into the archives and find a quote of mine where I say,

"Flags don't move in a the vacuum of the lunar surface unless someone touches them."

And then cite me as being wrong again...form not elaborating with common sense things that should be implicit to anyone with a wee bit of knowledge of physics.

So, let me elaborate now so that we don't have to waste our time going there again, and avoiding the new and previously un-mentioned evidence:


"Flags don't move in the vacuum of the lunar surface unless someone touches them (generally speaking, since there's no air in motion on the lunar surface which would cause such waving or fluttering). Of course, the flag pole is set up in a gravity field, and gravity is a force in continual action upon anything in its field. Thus, motion under force is always possible in certain cases...for instance, where the flag pole's support isn't exactly solid, and where the center of mass of the flag on its pole is at a tangent to the gravitational force vector, there could be a natural tendency for the flag to shift slightly, in a natural attempt to establish equilibrium. It could, if its support in the surface was very weak, even fall down...all by itself, with no help from wind.


Italicized common sense added for clarity. It should be implicit, but I have learned that such an assumption is not necessarily sound in many cases on this forum.

I think, Swanny, that the obvious neglect of your question, as well as neglecting to acknowledge the other things in that film sequence that clearly indicated vacuum and 1/6g, is very telling.

We're staring once again to move in an irrelevant tangent here.

Yes, lead, I think that's the most plausible explanation for what is seen. There is definitely motion (it's all alot more clear on the good videos of that sequence). As I'd indicated, a very small motion of the off-axis flag pole in its receiver tube (maybe a 1/8" rotation), could cause the low amplitude wobble we see.

OK...i send in a panda to take care of it

holy crap! who gave that panda a rail gun!

i did, and id do it again, bwahahahahahah!

I wouldn't say "dumb enough".
However, I would agree that most HBs aren't old enough to have been cognizant when Apollo was taking place, and that they tend to be affected by societal biases which color their thought processes with a conspiracy-based patern of thought in many areas, a distrust of things (especially their governments), and which is also blanketed by a decided lack of knowledge in the sciences, and the critical thinking skills that are inherently developed in such a regimen of study.

This is why we see so much "belief" about these ideas, rather than a willingness to study and investigate and learn; in other words, to cultivate knowledge.

Cultivating knowledge is hard. Believing is easy.





You're right, it's been limping.
If we could get into some substantive discussion about real issues, I think it might start flying again.

your response is full of holes, i may not have a full grasp of quantum physics or indepth space science knowledge, but i do know that flag moved, without a human hand touching it, in a 'vacuum'. Go ahead close the thread it's what happens when the truth is touched upon. Being of fewer brain cells than most on here makes people like myself, thicker skinned and able to listen and take onboard all things happening, it's the science community in general who hate being told to rethink what that invented as the norm, hey judges get it wrong sometimes bud.

The science community loves to rethink what is considered the norm - that's where Nobel Prizes come from.

It might help to know who you're addressing, belial.

As to what you know:

You're correct. That flag did move without a human hand touching it in a vacuum. That is about the only truth that's being discussed in this particular issue. It's been explained about as well as it ever will be explained.

Threads don't get closed around here, unless they get abusive and out of control, or unless they are just plain stupid from the get-go.

What "truth" is it that is being touched upon here that makes you think someone would close the thread?
I see nothing but common sense, and an idea that has no substantive basis.


p.s., the science community holds re-thinking things as part of its modus-operandi, as has been pointed out by Atomic. There's nothing here in this issue to re-think, however.

belial-

If anyone is sometimes gruff, it's me. But, let me first say that these words do not issue from a reaction to your words, but rather a straightforward response.

That avitar you use with the pool cue in the hand of some alien character. If he tried to balance that pool cue in the upright position, that would be very difficult.

But, suppose he were trying to set up a flag pole, with a cumbersome work outfit, or costume of some sort. Little flexibility, and with thick gloves to boot.

So, he sets a tube in the lunar regolith (soil that is very dry and very silty and dusty fine, because micro-meteorites have pinged it all the time, for eons).

Then, he places the flag pole in the tube, which is down in the top however-many-inches of lunar surface material.

But, he has not done this task so perfectly as to prevent it from any subsequent slippage, in the moments ahead.

Thus, it finally gives a little, shifts a little, and the flag frame (including the spring loaded flag crossbar, holding the flag in the outright position) moves during the time the camera is still pointing at it.

At least, that is how I now understand it.

Thanks for the reply LB, but i still feel it's a little to convienent an answer for the flags movemant, as for my avatar i change it daily/weekly, i have no affiliation to one design, it's just a little weird that this one as provoked such a response to myself? I shall change it again.
Once again thanks for the laymans terms approach bud.

Bert, I have to agree with belial here. I know that attacking someone's level of English is common place on some of the other sites where you post, but it is considered a bit on the petty side here. This site is open to all nationalities and all ages. Not everyone has your level of English (even when it their first language, not like you their second). If what the poster is trying to say is not clear then please politely ask them to rephrase it.

belial, despite Bert's faux pas there is no need to be so patronising. Attacking the person rather than the argument is also frowned upon and you are walking a thin line in your response.

Thank you both for your cooperation.

I think leadbelly's got that particular idea right.
As to "convenient", I think I could come up with something alot less logical, and alot less convenient if you like!

It probably wouldn't be much more than dumb, but I know I could do it. Some examples:

...Al Shepard's golf ball from Apollo 14 hadn't actually landed yet (he really whacked it!) and it just so happened to be passing by the Apollo 15 landing site, and just nicked the flag on the way by. Pure coincidence, and one of those really lucky moments involved with Apollo that no one ever hears about.


Jim Irwin was toying around and got hold of a small pebble and threw it at Dave. He missed, and struck the flag pole instead, causing a low-grade vibration to move the flag.

A micrometeoroid struck the flag at its lower aspect.

An invisible alien presence was toying with us during Apollo 15.



See? Now that's inconvenient!
I think sometimes the convenient explanation is also the most plausible one.

One thing's for certain: it wasn't wind that caused the motion observed.

We can see that the nylon flags on each mission have creases and wrinkles that hold throughout the EVAs. If these were filmed in some soundstage on Earth as some surmise, wouldn't those creases and wrinkles have straightened and the flag hung more straight due to the Earth's gravity? Isn't the persistence of these creases a sign that these photos and videos were indeed taken in the 1/6 gravity of the Moon? Note this has nothing to do with the bar holding the flag out but rather the wrinkles in the flag hanging underneath that bar.

Apologies everyone...

The nylon flag had to survive a rocket temperature at landing of 2000*F, because the storage container for the flag was on one of the lander legs. So, they made a stainless and aluminum, insulated case. Temperatures inside the container only reached about 180*F, during touchdown. However, the flag maybe got a little "heat press, with wrinkles".

Also, notice the sun's reflection off the bell housing. It is "full spectrum" on top, but shifts to "redder spectrum" as the angle to the camera lens changes. Seems natural looking. It is also a single giant light source; and, it alone bathes that obviously wide expanse of area across the image scene.

You can also see a lone rock in the background, that rolled down the hill and left a trail.

While I was at it, I just rounded up a few more images. I thought to show micrometeorites and some rocks and surface material.

First, an example of "micropower, not so micro afterall". Here is a piece of material from the ISS, which was ripped by an impact. Then, a Delta II rocket tank that fell to earth, which showed a micrometeorite impact hole.





Next, Apollo 17 went to T. Littrow Valley, where a geologist named Schmitt was present. They landed by the arrow. To the left of the arrowpoint is the noticeable Camelot Crater. Then, images are shown to give context. There are bootprints which show mostly soft material around everywhere, and with bolders thrown out by the impact at Camelot Crater. To be followed by a post with some closeup images.









panorama-

How is that possible MID? Was this the second after he let go.....somekind of springload effect?

Dam#, Debunker, you are making me start to once again say- "The camera workings are out of sorts, and nothing is waving- only the image is swimming around".

I said it before, that the "experts were possibly mistaken". I say this again, that if you watch-

alsj/a15/a15v.1485548.rm

they adjust the picture, and you can see footprints all around the flag pole (around 1 minute into the video).

Then, they set it back, evidently, right after 1:00. After a moment, they pan right, and every visible light reflecting surface is swimming. Even the legs on the LLM change shape, to and fro, ever so slightly.

That still is something I am sure I can see.

I was going to show some conditions regarding lunar surface material. And, how craters throw out mixed materials- bolders closer in, with a rain of finer material that can extend out to some distance. With micrometeorites pinging the Moon, surfaces are eroded in a powdery fashion. This contributes to the unique surface conditions.

Here are a few comments from Schmitt and Apollo 17 records, regarding the bolders around the crater-

"Geology Station 2

142:52:53 Schmitt: Okay, Bob. The blue-gray rocks are breccias. They're multilithic, gray-matrix (pause), matrix (dominated) breccias, I guess.

142:53:10 Schmitt: Some of the light-colored fragments seem to have very fine-grained dark halos around them. The zap pits (in the dark matrix) do not have white halos, so I suspect they are not crystalline (rocks). They might be the vitric or glassy breccias. At least, the one big rock we have here.

142:53:43 Parker: Copy that.

[Schmitt - When the small impacting particles that form the zap pits hit, if there's crystalline rock - particularly plagioclase - at the impact point, then the halos look white. And in this case I'm saying that, because the halos don't look white, the rocks are not coarsely crystalline on the scale of the zap pit.

Note the bright, white patches of shattered minerals - primarily shattered plagioclase feldspar crystals - (which are) associated with 'zaps' on the foreground boulders.]"


I selected three rocks from Camelot Crater to examine for zap marks, after I put together a composit of two crater flight-line images. I have included three low-level brightness, higher contrast images. This scene would be nearly impossible to duplicate in some studio, or otherwise, in 1972. IMO.

n/a

The flag moves about in a vacuum. PERIOD.

I agree. The obvious conclusion is, the flag movement wasn't caused by a gust of wind (gusts and vacuums being mutually exclusive).

So how does a 'spaceman' trotting by, cause wind to move a flag?

But, would not a sensible answer take into account the entire film clip? How do you account for the rocks apparently moving, the LLM apparently moving. etc?

To be fair, it is a less than desired example we are looking at, with shimmering distortion every time the picture dims. I have no problem saying our best estimates are... as long as it includes the obvious point that the evidence is open to reasonable interpretation. Which includes video distortion.

Thank you for sidestepping the obvious.

Well, DEBUNKER, this has been the topic of discussion.
I have stated that it's never going to be known precisely why that flag moved, and contributors to ALSJ have put forth some possibilities about it, but I think (and my explanation's been buried by all the off-tangent discussion) that the following is the most logical and reasonable explanation for the movement observed (it's typical, and more than reasonable);



Take a look at one of the pictures taken during this sequence:

(AS15-88-11866)



Note the angle of the flag pole from the vertical, and also the angle of the flag (pointed about 45 degrees to the rear).
The natural tendency of this config, if the support of the flag pole in the receiver tube isn't exactly secure (which most of them weren't) would be for the flag, under gravity, to want to move toward the photographer.

My idea about this is that a slight settling in that direction...very slight twitch of the pole in it's receiver tube...caused the motion that you see in the film.

He doesn't, belial.
There's no air there to move...


Here's the sequence (again, pretty crappy repro), showing Dave kicking the dirt just prior to the flag movement sequence.
If you take careful note as to how the dust moves when Dave kicks it, you will clearly see that this is a vacuum, and under 1/6 g.

AS15 Sequence Prior to Flag Erection

It doesn't require indepth science knowledge, just common sense and some lateral thinking.

You make it sound like that is an impossible contradiction. It's not.

MID,

It looks like you have gone straight to the best piece of evidence.

BTW, as for my effort to describe conditions regarding powdery surface conditions, it was the only thing I could think of that would contribute to the pole's instability.

In any regard, all of that geology and the images of the lunar surface are remarkable. I would think that would be where people would turn for something interesting. The evidence and studies written on the missions and their findings.

But, that picture you provided certainly sums up the matter. Thank you.

I have mentioned this before.
These film clips are lousy. The detail is obscured, they're diffuse and somewhat dark, and tend to amplify every f-stop setting that Ed Fendell does to the extent of obscuring the entire picture. The detail is pretty obscure, and these clips have no bearing to the actual films as they've been preserved. The detail, despite exposure settings is pretty good in the actual films and clearly shows that the flag does indeed move all by itself.

They also clearly show that this film was shot in a vacuum at 1/6 g.

You're welcome Sir!

that's a neat picture.
incidentally, that picture also proves that there are other civilisations on the moon; why else would they put a label saying "UNITED STATES" on the lunar module if there wasn't anyone around to need to be told where you were from?
ah, got them there.

*n.b. j/k.*

That picture is wonderful and amazing.

It reminds me of some magnificent galleon that sailed the open ocean. Of course, one can argue which ship they are reminded of. But this image has a lot of energy, a sense of motion, with the angles and all.

An explorer's dream! What a marvelous image.

Can you imagine being the son or daughter of someone who went to the Moon? That would be pretty amazing. Of course, it doesn't stop with just the astronauts. There are plenty of others, men and women.

By the way, I heard the other day that the Apollo program still continues! I saw a short interview with an astronomer- Jerry Wiant, at McDonalds Observatory. They showed him working with a laser telescope device, associated with the University of Texas world-class observatory.

The "corner reflectors" array left behind by three Apollo missions, and two Soviet lunar rover missions, provide the means for the ongoing research. They study the slight, slight changes in its orbit and relate that to studies about the core of the Moon, and various other things.

UCSD, Lunar Retroreflectors

Overview of the subject, and numerous countries involved-

History of Laser Ranging







There is another project I was not aware of, but just found this out. Its acronym is, amazingly enough, APOLLO- Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser-ranging Operation.

Here is their web page-

University of Southern Califonia at San Diego Physics Dept.

You claim that we can't make any valid conclusions "due to the difficulties in measuring distances accurately in the video.." I completely disagree.

The only issue we need to resolve is - whether or not he could have come in physical contact with the flag

And, this issue has been resolved, from thorough observation, and comparative analysis, of two video clips / still frames....


This is a segment from the "flag waving" clip, with stills ...





Is the astronaut close enough to come in contact with the flag?

No. Below, in a segment from the previous clip, with stills, we can see that the astronaut does not come in contact with the flag, even though he is much closer to the flag...






Compare his angle and direction, and proximity to the video camera...

- in the "waving flag" video, he is moving towards the camera, and away from the flag. We only see him from the waist up, because he is close to the camera throughout this time.

- in the other video, he is moving away from the camera, and towards the flag. He is now visible from the knees up, because he is further away from the camera.




The arm brush is completely impossible.

If this is a truly valid possibility, then we should be able to duplicate this phenomenon.

Or does it qualify as a "rarely seen phenomenon"? Indeed - so rare, that we (purportedly) only have a single known occurrence - in the Apollo video...?

Why is it so hard for some people to believe we landed on the moon?