2000th Reply!

After looking through all these posts, I still dont think weve been to the moon. Personally, I think anything NASA releases to the public has had too much of a chance to be edited, I dont think I will believe until I see pics from a privately owned craft. The US Gov't has tried to obscure too many things from the public eye for me to trust anything they produce.

This is just my 2 cents.

Good question.

The underlying theme I pick up from most people (but by no means all) on various forums is that it's based out of a distrust for anything the US Government says. The Government lied about the JFK assassination, about the Iran-Contra affair, the Oklahoma bomb, about 911, about Iraqi WMD. The Government say men landed on the moon - but since we can't trust the Government about anything, we can't trust them about this.

Once an instinctive distrust of the Government is established, it's disturbingly easy to appeal to people's sense of injustice, however well-meaning it may be. It gives the dis-affected a way of getting one over the distrusted, even hated Government - "We know you lied, we have proof, we won't get fooled again!" Then it's a case of using the old smoke and mirrors routine to convince people they are privy to a special knowledge that enables them to feel they have one up on their government. Unfortunately, in many cases they lack sufficient knowledge in certain areas such as photography, aeronautics, or physics to realise what they are being sold is a DVD-full of snake oil, in the guise of "What Happened on the Moon?", or "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon". There are the "quick hits" that appeal to people's emotions, like "the Van Allen belts are an impassable radiation hell", or "they would have fried in the 280 degrees lunar furnace". Then there are the photographic mis-interpretations, such as "All shadows must be parallel!" Then there's the pure speculation, "They were lying at the press conference."

The saddest thing is, in some cases pro-hoax advocates style themselves as "open-minded truth-seekers", when nothing could be further from reality. It can get quite uncomfortable watching someone try to shoe-horn reality into an Apollo-conspiracy-shaped shoe, missing the glaringly obvious while clutching at straws (would you believe it would be possible to mistake the reflection of an astronauts shadow on a dusty, scratched visor for a reflection of a horn covered with feathers? I've heard that one in the last few days. Made me feel slightly depressed.)

The delusion can go even deeper with a few CTs. Anyone who is prepared to argue a case against the conspiracy theory is labelled a lying, NASA shill, or a Government disinformation agent. I'm still waiting for my cheque...

I realise that this is a stereo-typical assessment, but it pretty much sums up much of the pro-hoax camp from my own experience of participating in online debates over the last few years. Hopefully individual CTs will give their own individual input to balance things up from their point of view - but that's what it seems to me as an outsider looking into the Apollo conspiracy theory.

You are correct sir!

A horn covered with feathers?

How about a few of these links of non-NASA accounts of Apollo:

Private individuals tracking Apollo:
http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/Apollo17/APOLLO17.htm

Australian tracking station and radio observatory staff - they got to see the pictures before NASA:
http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/Apollo_11/index.html
http://www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au/news_events/apollo11/

Astronomers around the world tracking Apollo:
http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html

Russians tracking Apollo, getting TV and audio from moon (needs translation):
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content...rs/271/03.shtml

I kid you not.

Here it is, in all it's magnificent, feathery glory. And I know it's really difficult to spot with all those feathers getting in the way, so I've highlighted the astronaut and his shadow.

Unfortunately this link no longer seems to be current.

It seems it got corrupted:
[url="http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/271/03.shtml"]
Definitely still works.

Translated: http://www.landingapollo.com/trurl_load.htm

I do indeed like your figurative desciption of that photo, LB!
I'm sure Dave Scott would agree as well (as would Jim Irwin, were he still with us...).

As Dave said on the mission, "This is exploration at it's greatest!"
It really was...






Oh it sure does! The LRRRs and other arrays are still in use for some pretty cool studies.

You could do it anytime you like, I'm sure. It's just a common sense little experiment.
Things tend to settle towards "down" when influenced by gravity...



It certainly qualifies as a rarely seen phenomenon in Apollo missions. It is, however, a common occurance on Earth...we just didn't have many opportunites for this on the Moon, being that we only erected six flag poles.

Wookie,

I believe Postie nailed it.

I repeat it because it's so articulate, and just plain good.



I especially like the Government Disinformation Specialist tag. That is of course, because I've been labeled that, and much more, in my days here trying to explain the facts behind Apollo.

I would like to add something I've stated before (these things tend to get buried over so many posts on large threads).

Postie's explanation, which is an excellent observation (and, if you pay attention to him, you will note that his observations are uniformly excellent), points to something that I have added to my own explanations of this mindset in the past.

There has been a decided lack in education as pertains to the sciences and mathematics in America (I cannot speak to other countries) since the Apollo era. This lack has produced a vast number of people who are functionally illiterate in the sciences. Sometimes this goes all the way down to basic scientific principals. It is one of the most distressing aspects of modern American society that I can think of.

Concurrent with this lack is an rather obvious absence of that which science education produces: critical thinking skills and rational mental processes.

"Belief" is a result of this lack. Belief is what takes the place of knowledge in such minds. Knowledge is what comes out of education, and experience.

We hear, "I don't believe men went to the Moon," so frequently that it causes pain.
But believing is not necessary to understand that we did did do this thing. Knowledge is necessary to know we did, and how we did it.

I just thought I'd add my own observations concerning the underlying mechnics which produce the paradigm that Postie so eloquently illustrated.

Sm0k3...

Didn't you just agree with Postie's assessment?



You appear to be agreeing with the idea that...




Were you merely being facetious?



Consider:

There are approximately 6000 photographs taken from the Moon's surface. There are also tens of thousands of pages of scientific and technical reports that were written and which have been publically accessible for years concerning every aspect of Apollo.

If you have any idea of the vast quantity of informatiuon available about this...the most documented occurrance in human history, do you honestly think that it was all edited? Or, that it could've been edited?


As I said previously, you don't have to believe it. You can know it happened.
I'd be willing to bet you have many questions that you allow to cause belief to insert itself into your mind concerning this matter.

Perhaps you might want to ask one or two of them here...and get an answer (that is what we are here for), and an oppiortunity to investigate and learn for yourself?

If you wait for a "private spacecraft", you may well be dead before you see it happen.
We already went there. The documentation is clear, and not only supported by the Government, but by scientists the world over.

Going to the Moon is a tough job. It's a job for the professionals. Private industry has a LONG way to go before they develop a reliable orbital capability, let alone a capability to go to the Moon...you may wait a long time (maybe longer than you have available) to see that.

And then, what will you have?

Photos from a private owned vehicle on the Moon...which will look strangely, just like the photos Apollo crews took in the late 1960s and early 1970s...


That's a long wait just to believe in something.
It's alot more fun to know...

You honestly weren't kidding, were you, Postie? A horn covered with feathers...

I can understand the depression such an idea has to produce.

Depression indeed.

The author of the claim is not unknown to this board, former member Straydog (Duane Daman). He has asked me to post his crop of the image, pointing out features he's identified. In the interests of balance, here it is:-



Here was my initial rebuttal, taken from crops of AS17-134-20385/6/7





Anyone who's not feeling too miserable by now can follow the "discussion" on the Education Forum.

MID, I'm going to start curling my toes in embarrassment if this praise continues! You're far too kind, but thank you for the sentiment.

Perhaps we can talk more on this, after I get off work?


(Waspie kinda butchered my post, I had answered all your other questions as well... whatever.. im off to work....)

A general reminder to people:

There are a lot of posts in this topic where the entire previous post is quoted, sometimes for a single sentence reply. Please quote only as much as is necessary for your reply.

From the terms and conditions of this site:

Thank you for your cooperation.

Very basic, but a couple of experiments I use to demonstrate static electric to my children as they get to about 10 years old and like the visual science.

Take a balloon (blown up and tied) and rub against a rough surface. I always use my shirt, and then place over someone with hair about 2 inches length.

My favourite though has to be the magic trick…..

I rip up pieces of paper to about 2-3mm square and place on the table. I run the comb through my hair pretty quickly and then hold the comb above the paper. Most of it magically jumps and sticks to the comb without the comb coming into contact.

Magic!

How I explain static to my children J

Ah well, that explains it.
Another illusion, created by the dearly departed...and for the sake of what?

...Is he still arguing spotlights on the lunar surface? It's unbelievable. It is obviously the shadow of Jack Schmitt...the guy who took the picture...

It is depressing that he still continues to try this sort of thing. I rather thought that we'd been through that one.
Maybe not?

This comes under the category of "seeing things".
I would be interested in seeing what a Rorschach Test on that one might reveal...

Well, curl away.
You deserve it...and, you're welcome!

By all means, Sm0k3...after work.

I have a feeling that the editing of the post may have resulted in what I see there.

This quote does not appear to be mine:



I didn't have a post at 5:39pm on 11-12 that I can find.
The syntax, spelling, and structure of this statement isn't mine either.

I think perhaps that's you?
At any rate, I think perhaps you were addressing me in this statement and it wound up being attributed to me due to some editing.

If, so, I'll say this:

I am not, and have never been inclined to ask anyone to believe.
I am however, inclined to ask people to do their homework and learn.
I did not come to any conclusions about Apollo.

I learned, and I experienced it. Thus, I know about it.

Is it a "common occurrence on Earth"? I'm not very confident that it can even be duplicated, let alone consider it commonplace!

As you acknowledge, it would qualify as a rarely seen phenomenon in Apollo missions, since it only happens this one time.

There is absolutely no evidence that the flag pole moved, to validate your claim of a "slight settling or turn toward the gravity vector".

And, it just happens to occur at precisely the same time as the astronaut quickly "bunny hops" his way past by the flag. You shrug it off as a mere "coincidence".


The first thing that needs to be verified is repeatability. I can't conduct my own experiments until I obtain a flag. Maybe others here can also test it out....

I don't think MID is referring to that well-known phenomenon of settling flags, about which there have been many scientific, peer-reviewed papers written over the years. I think he's referring to systems which have an inherent instability, which takes just a tiny change in conditions for the system to reach a more stable condition.

Two real-life examples from my own experience which have nothingto do with Apollo, but I think amply demonstrate what I think MID is getting at (I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong).

At work we often chock open the door to our office with a small rubber chock. No matter how tightly we choick the door, after about 10 minutes the door starts to gradually close, quite literally a millimetre at a time. After several minutes, the slippage gets quicker and quicker until it reaches a tipping point, and the door closes inside a second or two. Happens every single time,and is nothing to do with people touching the door. I can speculate that it's something to do with a very gradual change in friction the carpet fibres change shape, the tensions in rubber chock cgange minutely. Who knows the exact physical cause?

My shaving mirror has a nasty habit of sliding off the tiled window sill. It will be fine for a minute or so, then for no good reason it will just slide into the sink. Condensation on the tiles perhaps, coupled with a slight slant? Very possibly.

I neither know nor care what caused these strange phenomena. I rule out ghosts, but that's due to belief rather than empirical evidence.

Onto the Apollo 15 flag. Is it possible that the movement of the astronaut as he passed the flag caused some kind of minute shifting of lunar dust that led to a tiny slippage of the flag pole? I can probably never know for certain, but it seems possible to me. Is it possible that there was some settling that wasn't related to the astronaut's movement, and that it was a coincidence that it occurred as he passed? Possible, but I have no means of proving this happened, nor do I need to. Static electricity? Possibly. Slight brushing of his arm? I still don't think this has been eliminated, but even if it could be, it boots nothing. The only thing that I can personally rule is a gust of wind, since there are sufficient indicators in the video to tell me this was filmed in a vacuum.

It's simple. As Postie said:



Precisely. It's that simple.
It can be duplicated a thousand ways probably, and you need no flag pole to do it.
The fact that it likely happened only once on the six Apollo missions is not unusual.



Of course not, save the motion of the flag itself...which indicates some impulse that produced it. A movement of very small magnitude, in this case perhaps a very minor rotation of the flag pole within its receiver tube, or perhaps only 1/8 inch could've easily produced the low amplitude motion we observe.
You're not going to see that rotation on these video clips, or on a very clean video of the occurrance. It's just not possible to pick up such a "twitch" with the resolution available. Besides, if that's what it was (and I see few other alternatives, if any) it must've occurred when the astronaut was walking in front of the pole anyway.




Yes, I do. What's the big deal? Coincidences like this happen all the time. I am supposing that because it likely happened on the surface of the Moon, that it is somehow special; that a coincidence (a common thing) cannot occur?

Just a couple nights ago, I walked into the kitchen, and my dear lady walked into the entrance to the kitchen at the opposite end of the room. Located on the wall next to each entrance was a light switch. Each switch was in the same circuit and both could turn the main overhead light on. We both hit the switch at the same instant...I turned the light on and she immediately turned the light off. There was a flash, and we both looked at each other and laughed at the fact that we both did the same thing at the very same instant (perhaps within a quarter second of each other).

Coincidence? Sure. They happen all the time.



There are many ways to verify this basic physical principal sans a flag pole. It's just common sense physics, really.


But I wonder, what's the point?

It could've been just what I said it might be...a slight twitch of the pole inside it's receiver tube under the force of gravity. Perhaps it was a slight movement of the receiver tube itself in the lunar substrate, due to a small gap opening in the hole in that receiver tube created by the off vertical pounding into the substrate that Jim Irwin obviously performed. Maybe Dave's loping along in the vicinity of the flag pole transmitted a minor force to the pole (due to some local tectonic structure that we can have no idea about), which might have been enough to cause this little movement of the pole. I rather doubt it, but I have no idea.

The fact remains: it certainly wasn't due to a gust of wind. The evidence is clear from the video that there was no air there....

Ah Postie...you wonder why I quote you?

I credit you again with saying what I'm thinking. As you'll note, I said:




That's Postie inspiration at work!

This claim is nothing more than your personal opinion. It is not a fact. The evidence is much stronger for a gust of wind than it is for any of the alternative theories you've put forth to date.

why couldnt it be a gust of wind ?....

This piece of film is very typical of the arguments used by HBs. It takes one small piece of film in isolation, claims it is an anomaly and ignores the rest of the evidence. turbonium repeatedly and sarcastically refers to the "rarity" of this event... in 6 landing missions this is the only time there is any movement of a flag which can not be definitively attributed to the flag being touched by an astronaut. Yet it is this very rarity that shows that this footage must have been shot in a vacuum. It is this very rarity which he has not explained.

Let's look at the supporting evidence first and then return to the rarity of the event.

There is plenty of footage of dust movements in the Apollo record, dust kicked up by astronauts, by the Rover etc. Its behaviour is totally consistent with being shot in a vacuum. There is the famous footage of the hammer and falcons feather being dropped on Apollo 15. The two hit the ground at exactly the same time, something which is only possible if there is no air resistance, i.e. in a vacuum. In many hours of footage time and time again what we see is consistent with an airless, one sixth g environment.

Let's apply some logic here, if we can show that Apollo 15 footage was shot in a vacuum (regardless of whether it is fake or genuine) why is there a gust of wind affecting the flag? It simply makes no sense.

Now to the rarity of the event. If the Apollo footage was faked then it had to have been filmed somewhere, but where? The HBs (as usual) can't agree amongst themselves on this. Some claim that Apollo lunar footage was shot outside in the dessert. Is it really possible that 6 full missions could be faked outside in the dessert but the flag is only once affected by a gust of wind? It would seem highly unlikely.

If the footage wasn't shot outside it must have been shot inside. Some HBs claim that it was shot in a studio, using spotlights and all the usually paraphernalia (I am assuming that turbonium favours this explanation judging by his "bare arm and monitor" argument). What do we know about TV studios? Well all the electrical gear, lights etc makes them hot places. Turbonium himself claims to be able to see evidence of other people in a stop frame of footage and claims that there is someone raising and lowering a bind or screen of some type. Is it reasonable to believe that in six faked sets of lunar missions all this heat and movement was never sufficient to cause even the slightest movement of the flag. It could be argued that a special flag was used to prevent such movement but then how do you explain the light movement of air of the passing astronaut to cause it to move?

The simple fact is that if the Apollo footage were filmed in an atmosphere then we would see movement of the falg on a far more regular basis. The very rarity of this event is highly consistant with the EVA footage being filmed in a vacuum and, therefore, not inconsistant with it being shot on the Moon.

I totally agree, BUT...mistakes do happen,and this one got through the net. Afterall it is your argument that 'non beleivers' look for the small to make into over blown large things? Working on your basis, the forensic community would never catch a soul, would they?

As Waspie said Belial, you're taking this one incdient in isolation, rather than looking at the context. For example, how do you explain the subsequent motion of the flag which exhibits far less damping than you'd expect in an atmosphere? This MUST be explained in order for the "filmed in an atmosphere" proposal to be given any further consideration from this clip. If it can't be proven that the subsequent motion of the flag is consistent with being in atmosphere, then it's an anomaly (the initial flag motion) that doesn't point to being filmed in atmosphere: it just means we don't have a consensus as to what actually caused the flag motion. Ruling out an atmosphere rules out a soundstage (unl;ess all the footage for this Apollo 15 EVA was filmed in a vacuum chamber).

CTs may not like me saying this, but the clip is actually better evidence for being filmed in a low gravity, vacuum environment than on Earth. Low gravity + vacuum = moon.

Even in forensics the evidence needs to be taken in context and as a whole. If 500 tests are done and 499 say the guy is innocent and one says he is guilty then the accused must be considered innocent. What we are seeing with this argument is the ignoring of those "499 pieces of evidence" which show that the footage was shot in a vacuum.

The flag shows less movement afterwards as the flag was weighted and stiffned to show the stars and stripes easily. The smaller movements are probably 'backdrafts' or 'air pressure' changes as the astronaught hopped past, or as the stage set door opened accidentally.
Large set + clumpsy stage hand = faked film.

So why in the six missions does this only happen once? Why does dust fall as if in one sixth gravity and in a vacuum? Why does a hammer and a feather drop at the same rate? Why are you ignoring the vast majority of evidence which simply does not agree with your conclusion?

Like all of the video of the astronauts tossing aside plastic wrapping and mylar foil and, instead of fluttering to the ground, they fly like they were thrown rocks.

No, it is not an opinion. It is a fact. There is no air, and thus no wind on the Moon.
Apollo lunar surface film clearly indicates that this condition exists, and this particluar film sequence shows that when Dave Scott kicks up the dust prior to setting up the flag pole. It is incontrovertible.

There IS NO EVIDENCE OF A GUST OF WIND.

What I've presented is a simple, reasonable, logical, and plausible explanation for a minor motion in the Apollo 15 flag.

You deny the simple and logical for something that has absolutely no merit.

Every time a sample bag is dropped, or a tool or equipment cover is tossed, or dust is kicked up, by feet or by LRV "tires", we see clear evidence of 1/6g and vacuum. We even saw the classic feather and hammer experiment performed by Dave Scott on this very mission, and that was conclusive.


You want conclusive scientific proof that my idea is the correct explanation? I already told you we don't know for sure what that was. It could've been several things. But we don't know which one...however, we can certainly assume it is one of them. And wind is not among the possible and reasonable explanations.

If you want to hold onto that, fine. It's a sure sign of "wanting to believe", but further argument about it is pointless, since the evidence (which you apparently don't see or wish to acknowledge) clearly indicates that there's no air there to support a gust of wind.

You really ought to read more before appearing and asking such a question.
It couldn't be a gust of wind because there's no air up there on the Moon...something that's clearly indicated by the film itself.

I provide this just in case Waspie's explanation is too lengthy (as I've previously indicated, oftimes, a lengthy post passes right by the HB).

To be fair MID, you frequently say people should ask questions, Unlimited did just that. It was for that reason I was tempted back into the thread.

Non-believers (by that you mean HBs) look for any thing they can hold onto and mis-interpret (willingly or not) in order to support their "beliefs". They do not seek knowledge, they seek to support a belief system.

Forensics is a group of disciplines which doesn't work in beliefs. It works in knowledge.
These people are scientists and technicians with astute observational skills who seek many times the small things.
They do not do this in order to make them "over blown large things". They do this in order to ascertain facts and establish cause and effect where it may not be obvious on the surface.

HBs do not do this. They take, in certain cases, the small, and mis-understood, and create "facts" through their mis-interpretations and belief systems.

Such a paradigm is as far removed from forensics as anything imaginable. Forensics requires technical and scientific training, and rational / critical thinking skills. HBs are by and large not in posession of these traits and abilities.

Thus I maintain that your contention is incorrect.
If forensic scientists approached their work in the manner an HB approaches Apollo, they would never catch anyone.

And that, I shall assume, is your interpretation of forensic reasoning?
Despite the clear evidence of vacuum present in that piece of film itself, you speak to clumsy stage hands, backdrafts (?) and air pressure changes in order to support the idea of a wind gust?

And you answered that question mighty well!

Yes, I did say that people should ask questions. Your point is well taken. You got me there.

My response was due to the nature of the poster's prior posts, and the fact that we've just spent about two weeks explaining (not necessarily successfully ( ) why it wasn't and couldn't have been a gust of wind.

Trinitrotoluene made the same claim as you, postie...

"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?"

In response to this claim, I posted a clip (link to post below) which showed significant damping...

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=1977555



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

But, if there was no atmosphere, the flag would continue to wave, as prominently as it did at first.

This is in an atmosphere, without any question.

Like I said earlier in the string here, if this was studio done, they had to have the biggest studio on the planet to pull off the scenes where the lunar car they brought on later missions rode off for miles without a break in the "live" shot as I watched back in the early 70's.

Whatever happened to "don't express opinions and claim them as facts"? Why do you never apply the same standardsw to your own arguments as you demand from others? Is it because to do so would mean that you would start to realise the paucity of your evidence?

In your OPINION there is no question that it is in am atmosphere, in my OPINION that flag moves like no flag I have ever seen in an atmosphere. That's opinions out of the way now how about you answer the issues I raised in my answer to Unlimited, if the Apollo Lunar EVA's were shot in 1g and in an atmosphere why is it you only have this one, poor quality clip to show us? Where is the fine dust kicked up by the astronauts as they walk being caught by a gust of wind? Why is it that this is the only time in 6 missions that such an unexplained motion occurs? You need to answer that before you can claim that there is no question that this was shot in an atmosphere... unless you have a definition of proof that differs from the rest of mankind's.

Agreed Waspie! Also I think that to fully understand the potential motions available to a flag in a vacuum that these folks ought to test a flags motion in a vacuum! Inertia and tension are never taken into account by most on this! And as a comet vents gases, the moon could also vent gases to form a thin layer of atmosphere (not breathable gases mind you) but just enough gases to mimic a reaction to an atmosphere!

Whilst is possible that outgassing occurs on the Moon (there have Earth based observations of events known as Transient Lunar Phenomena (TLPs) which may be a result of outgassing) it would seem to me to be an extraordinarily unlikely explanation for what we are seeing.

I can not believe that sufficient gas could be vented to move the flag and yet the event went unnoticed by two nearby astronauts and was not recorded by the cameras, especially as TLPs have been observed from Earth using amateur's equipment. Added to this is the fact that such a rare event should happen exactly when and where the astronauts visited and it would seem unlikely to say the least. Finally, if a powerful enough jet of gas was released to cause the flag to wave it would seem to me to be highly likely to disturb the lunar dust. The fact is that the only time we ever see the fine lunar dust disturbed is by the direct actions of the astronauts (kicking it up, driving over it in the Rover etc), this would seem to be highly unlikely if there were an atmosphere of any kind.

Did you factor in the internal friction present caused by the natural springiness of the material? It's effectively a "memory" material that will try to assume it's original position when no other external forces are acting on it (as you'd expect with a piece of nylon that's been crumpled up very tightly for some time). On top of that, movement of the upper support pole of the flag may introduce complex harmonic motion, the effects of which would be unclear but we can at least speculate. The best way I can think to demonstrate this is with an easily replicable "thought experiment" - imagine holding a plumb-bob, and causing it to swing with small movements of your hand. It's possible to bring the bob to an abrupt halt by changing the timing of your hand movement. All to do with period of oscillation. No need to imagine this thought experiment either, since it's easily replicable. Transferring the effect we see in action here to the flag clip, if the support arm moves in the same direction as the flag as the flag falls back, it will introduce a damping effect. I suspect that's what we're seeing here: heavily damped harmonic motion. IMO the damping is caused by a combination of the structure of the flag material itself, and the motion of the support arm (I suspect mainly the flag material).

The main point I would get at though is, your two "pro-atmosphere arguments" are mutually exclusive. How can there such obvious "atmospheric damping" in this part of the clip, when just a short while later it the flag is caused to move for a duration of no less than 20 seconds by a small initial displacement? On top of that, the flag motion in your clip bears little resemblance to what I can recreate with my own flag. I realise this is little more than hearsay at the moment, but I hope to have a video of what I'm trying to describe in words sometime in the next week. (The system I have jury-rigged at the moment is a bit Heath Robinson, I need to find some way of creating a horizontal bar that will reasonably mimic that in the Apollo flags, and find some way of attaching it to the flag.)

The moon has an approximate atmospheric pressure of 3x10^-15 bars. Compare this to a typical Earth pressure of a bar. I really don't see how this few molecules could cause any significant flag motion. It's good that we consider all possibilities though, so at least they can be ruled out as a major factor.

I agree with you about inertia and tension in the flag, I don't think Turbs has really considered all possible factors here.

Facts require conclusive proof. You have no such proof, so your claim is nothing more than your personal opinion. Continually insisting something is a fact does not make it so.



I assume you are referring to this sequence?....



How do you "know" that this is how dust behaves in a 1/6 g, air-free (vacuum) environment? What can you even compare the Apollo footage with, in order to make a valid comparison?

You just point to other Apollo material and say "See, the dust behaves the same way in Apollo video ____ and Apollo video ____ as it does in the 'flag' video! That proves the flag video was in a 1/6 g, airless environment!"

That's the same way you try to "prove" many other issues regarding Apollo. If Apollo astronaut 'X' said _____, you claim it's a proven fact, because Apollo astronauts 'Y' and 'Z' also said the exact same thing.

That is not proof.



Other than how the flag starts to wave just after the astronaut quickly "hops" past it, you mean?



Unlike you and postie have attempted to do with my argument, I haven't dismissed your claim outright, without any supporting evidence.

You haven't proven this is even a plausible explanation. You claim it is repeatable, but you have no idea if it really is. You don't think it's important to validate your claim by duplicating it. You somehow "know" it can "easily" be duplicated, so why bother actually proving it, right?



You deny that you have to actually prove your "simple and logical" claim. My claim is absolutely valid, and - unlike yourself - I intend to prove my claim with supporting evidence.



As I said, you compare Apollo footage to other Apollo footage, then claim it proves 'this is how things actually are' in a 1/6 g, air-free environment! It isn't proof.

The so-called "classic feather and hammer experiment" doesn't prove squat. I think they simply added some weight to the feather - it could easily be done, in so many different ways, and we would never be able to detect it in the video. If a magician tried to do this, as a trick in his Vegas act, and did it exactly how we see it done in the Apollo clip, he'd probably get booed right off the stage!



At the very least, you need to be able to replicate it, instead of just making unsubstantiated claims.

I question the intelligence of those who think the moon landing was a hoax. Every single hoax claim has been debunked more than once yet they persist.