Another what? Someone who understands something about geology and physics?

Static electricity does not require an atmosphere, and was one reason the astronauts got so filthy on the later missions...the dust wouldn't completely brush off.
I believe I have seen the video you mention. The flag in the lunar video continues it's tiny motion for very many seconds before dampening out, can a thin nylon flag do this in an atmosphere?
I might haul my flag out of the corner and play some...
Fiddling here, I am finding that a tiny puff on the lower corner of the flag creates a small "reverse billow" in the body of the flag as it resists movement against the air...

Thanks Mr B , but your answer is not conclusive.The mistery remains....

Allegedly, the footage was slowed down by some factor to "simulate" 1/6g. I'd be interested to see this video sped up...to "Earth" speed.
anyone know which mission this is...I want to watch the whole thing...

Why should I care? More importantly, why should I cater to someone who acts like a troll? A breeze can pretty much be ruled out because the rest of the hours of video show unmistakable signs of being filmed in a vacuum. Do I know what caused this tiny movement? No. And I don't care because it doesn't matter.

I have my own little section here, i was wondering if anyone could throw some light on to this please?



Is this image real, and if so where did the extra light source come from, as no extra lighting was taken to the moon so i have read?
I have placed a cropped and zoomed image of the boot so it can be seen clearly.

PS. Honestly there was no pun intended - with above opening line.

You seem to know a bit about graphics, and thus, I presume, art. You thus, must understand about sunlight at various times of day. All artists understand this, surely. Like, South of France, etc.

The astronauts land in the morning, work all day, and then take off for Earth.

Simple. It's called morning sun. It scatters all over the place. Even in outer space.

I expect they probably chose them on the basis of such things as flying skill, stamina, etc, etc; probably PR skills were some way down the list, I expect.

How can it be sunlight? hes in FULL SHADOW...

The landing area is flat, but contains irregular minor surface features, and certain reflective mineral material. There is no "fullness of shadow". Only, limited moon shadow, as of the time they were descending into that bright, alien world.

That is full shadow coverage my friend, yet he is fully lit up, and the shoe reflection is a puzzler?

I peeled back the posts on this topic, and found this-

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=1975294

Shadow quality in a photograph depends on lots of variables- camera settings and location of photographer, and final image processing.

Compare a house on Earth, and a small space ship on the moon. It looks easy. Shadow is thinned by bouncing sunlight.

I can see where you are coming from bud, but this still does not explain the light glare on the boot, does it?

The analysis done by the Dr Grove for Percy claimed that the light source illuminating the boot was just to the right of the camera.

Checking with the TV pictures shows that when Armstrong took the picture he was standing mainly in the LM shadow, but the right shoulder of his white suit was in sunlight. So there was indeed a light source just to the right of the camera.

Case closed.

Edit to add: Credit for examining the TV record goes to postbaguk:
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...4094&page=1

Link says it all really, case certainly not closed bud.

These are old arguments from long ago videos...
Why can we see Aldrin in the LMs shadow when everyone know the Sun (shining from the back sind of the LM) was the only light source available? It's called "fill light", and commercial photographers use it all the time. The light reflecting off the lunar surface (and there was a lot of it) was illuminating the front of the LM.
Now there are reports out there that the albedo of the Moon (it's reflected light) is lower than that of Earth. True. But it's still sufficient to lighten up dark areas in shadow. Some of the light in this photo is possibly due to "pushing" during processing.
As for the bright spot on Aldrind boot (from Dr Grove's argument), there was a bright light source slightly right of the camera. REAL photo analysis, using footage from the DAC camera in the LM window which was filming the whole scene, shows Armstong's right shoulder was in the sun when the photo was taken, creating a bright white light source, in adition to the reflected surface light. This eas an additional light source for the photo, much more of a "spot" source.
Dr Groves isn't a photo analyst. If he was, why would he agonize over a misplaced central fiducial in the famous photo of Aldrin that was clearly a poor quality, cropped version of the original. He is completely in-credible.
I have many pages of such issues with Percy's video...

...but a proven explanation has been presented to you, one which perfectly explains the situation you described.
You still have no proof of a hoax.
(thx to 'swan, you beat me to it!)
We've seen this all before, belial...

Your assumption is that i have also bud.

If you do a little research, you will find these are very common arguments. All the hoax sites have done them ad nauseum, I am guessing that's where you got them.
http://www.clavius.org/
Here's a good place to look for those arguments, and their explanations.

Thanks for the advice bud, but i like it here. And i have no desire to run around other sites just yet thanks. I actually did a google for the hoax arguments related here...
You hear so many different people saying so many different things about so many different sites, that i thought it's best to play with the devil you know.
Thanks again though bud.

While your thinking of the last questions answers i would also like to know, how come when the LEM came into 'land' on the moon, there was very little/no pink or reddish coloured smoke plumes coming from the exhaust as it came into land? I have done some research and found that UDMH as this effect, so why no visable gases?
Aerozine 50 is a 50/50 mix of hydrazine and unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine UDMH. Originally developed as a high-energy, hypergolic fuel for space rockets and jet engines, they would have a massive exhaust power output, so why no impact crater, or no evidance of exhaust scorch marks across the lunar landing track?

So ,if you agree that it was a breeze that caused the flag movement,then you concluded that it was filmed on earth,as it is impossible to have a breeze on the moon.Thanks for your sincerity Frenat... End of history.... FRENAT AGREED THAT IT WAS ALL A HOAX AND THAT MEN NEVER WENT TO THE MOON!!!!

Ahahahaha..My god!!! What a stupid answer my friend... You are saying that we have sun light coming from everywhere..So I guess that somebody put a mirror behind the camera before taking this picture....

HEY LOOK EVERYONE! MORE PROOF THAT UNDER THE HAT IS JUST A TROLL! If it is all in caps it must be true right? Even if it has nothing to do with what was actually said. I said"A breeze can pretty much be ruled out because the rest of the hours of video show unmistakable signs of being filmed in a vacuum." That means for the learning impaired, IT WAS NOT A BREEZE! Not once did I agree it was a breeze. Your shallow attempt to misrepresent me will be noted.

The Moon surface itself is highly reflective. That and the other astronauts even more reflective suit is where the light is coming from. How can you not get that?

I'm not a rocket scientist, but wouldn't that have to do with the lack of oxygen?

I think you answered that question in the previous post.

Yes, I know. It is becoming more and more evident that he is just here to troll.

Hi again Mr B... Frenat agreed that the flag movement on that video was caused by a breeze.I would like to hear from you,what you really think about that flag movement.Please give me a conclusive answer,ok! I guess we reached an important point on that video and I am really interested on hearing about it from you because you are a very polite and inteligent person.And you are one of the few people that treated me well and deserve my respect on this forum.
Thanks again!

A lack of oxygen causes the NO crater scenario? Please clarify your vague reply bud.

Sorry, should have made myself clearer... I mean about the lack of flame and smoke.

Can you not understand English? I never said that a breeze caused the movement. Second shallow attempt to misrepresent me noted.

Sweet, so if theres no visible flame because it's in space, theres no smoke? this i have a little trouble with bud, you see i can accept that the flame cannot happen because of the vacuum but it still burned so there as to be smoke in some form surely?

Hey Frenat like my new avatar, lol?

Great avatar belial...This is to celebrate Frenat´s acceptance that there is breeze on the moon fake scenario.

Stop being a troll. You are making yourself look bad.

You didn´t have an answer for the flag movement.All you are doing is attacking me on this forum.You avoided my question with empty excuses.And keep tyring to atack me instead of giving real inteligent answers.That is why I prefer Mr. B to talk about moon landings fake history.He is a polite guy and assumes when he has a hard task.He still doesn´t have a conclusive answer for that flag movement and I respect his position without problems and no jokes or personal attacks at all.

Please do not misrepresent what another poster is saying. This kind of thing is not only disingenuous, but borders on flame baiting.

I am sorry Eric.I am not a troll.Frenat is only trying to attack me on this forum to disauthorize my image here.I can not accept that.You can see that we have serious people here that can talk about moon landing hoax all night long without any kind of problems or agressions.This is not the case when we talk with Frenat.He is always sarcastic and stupid on his answers.
I hope you are one of the serious people here to talk about this subject,just like Mr B.

Is it because he does not believe your way? I believe we went to the moon. Is that a problem?

Could you show us why there should be a crater?



LM digging a crater?

If you were not such an ignorant schiz, we would not be having to waste our time with you, talking to a kindergarten mentality.

I am not your friend, and not stupid, either.

You are questioning the Apollo Program's reality? My goodness sakes alive.

Frenat obviously never said it was a breeze that moved the flag. There are several things that could have caused the motion, none involving an atmosphere. Can you show us a few more clips of the astronauts moving the flag without touching it (which may not be the case in this A15 clip)? Surely there must be more? Maybe on A16, as shown in belial's avitar?
The red smoky exhaust...do you have any pictures of a rocket propelled by these hypergolics spewing clouds of red exhaust...away from the launch pad? The "smoke" you see on Titan launched is from the startup transient and thousands of gallons of water being converted to steam in the flame bucket...and ablatabe material burning on the pad, etc. Once clear of the pad, the flame is virtually transparent, only showing shock phenomenon from operating in the atmosphere.
Kaysing makes a poor source...

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...S11-37-5453.jpg

uh, yeah, it was.

Just a reminder once again in this thread of the following which is displayed at the top of the page:


This applies to everyone.

Thank you.

Hat, we have presented several plausible causes for the flag to have moved in a vaccuum. You have presented only one, and that one presumes an atmosphere, which you haven't proven.
What's your proof they did the footage in an atmosphere, in 1g?

If you watch footage of the Challenger accident, you see a plume of dark red in the cloud (hypergolic RCS fuel and oxidizer tanks bursting). If you watch the Titan IV explosion, ditto (whole core Titan vehicle was hypergolic, with solid strap-ons).
When these hypergolics are not burning in a precise manner, they create the red cloud, or some form of one. It's when they are burning correctly, as in a rocket engine, that they burn clean, virtually invisible, especially in vaccuum. The photo I remember from Kaysing was apparently on a test stand, and there was something very amiss with that particular engine when that photo was taken. Big clouds of red smoke would be a bad sign, bad mixture ratio...something.
The shuttle...watch a launch...the white cloud coming from the shuttle side of the flame trench is steam...pretty white (H2 engines run clean). The SRB side it white and tan, white steam and dense tan exhaust smoke from the SRBs. The Saturn exhaust ground cloud was slightly tan, steam mixed with some brownish from the "soot" created by the engines (and contaminants in the deluge water, flame deflector ablation, etc)...they did leave a faint dark trail behind them on climbout...kerosene fuel.
(Shuttle trivia...during the post launch pad area walkdown, they sometimes find brick bits and concrete chunks literally imbedded in the surrounding chain link fence, bout a quarter mile away! Those SRBs are monsters!)
...but I'm getting distracted...

Third shallow attempt to misrepresent me noted. I never said that. You are lying.

I have not attacked you. You lied about what I said. I started originally by giving you other possible reasons for something you asked about. I did not answer sarcastically. You then responded by ignoring most of the post and commenting on one part very sarcastically. Since then you have lied repeatedly about what I said.

You're beating a dead and decomposed horse here, Hat. Frenat agreed to nothing of the sort. You are just ignoring the other, completely plausible scenarios, which could likely occur in a VACCUUM. How do you know he didn't brush the flag? It's entirely possible.