Regarding James E. Webb:

FromNASA Biographies - James E. Webb



From Arlington National Cemetery - James Edwin Webb


From New York Times, March 29, 1992



Cz

Look - you can believe that sending humans through the VA Belts, and 240,000 miles into deep space, without a single animal mission first, to find out what effects this may have on life forms, makes perfect sense.

NASA's spun that yarn all along, so why question it, right?

And let's buy the Soviet Zond 5 reports while we're at it.

Sorry, but I prefer reality over fairy tales.

On top of dealing with the his duties, and the politics involved as Administrator of NASA, James Webb was invoved with NASA's Electronics Research Center.

ERS


edit- was going to add his bio from NASA, explaining his resignation, but that information preceded this post, thanks to others.

And, thank you, all.

No, its being done like this because NASA is planning on sending men to to the Moon specifically and space in general on missions that are longer than the Apollo missions were.

From: Space.com - Oct. 23, 2006
Report: Space Radiation a Serious Concern for NASA's Exploration Vision


And regarding the $100 million dollars for experiments...
From Spaceflight Now - August 1, 2006
NASA picks teams for space weather mission and studies


So as you can now see, the main purpose of the new radiation studies is not specifically for Manned Space Flight, although the research garnered from these missions will certainly benefit future manned missions, and is part of an overall project to better understand the effects of the Sun's variability.

Cz

EDITED for clarification

Yes, well, reality is all in the perception, isn't it? And as has been proven time and again in this forum alone, your perception is certainly "different"...

Back to my question which you are trying to sidestep:

Is this your position?


And if that is your position, what evidence do you have to back it up?


Cz

Are we saying, therefore, that in your opinion, the Apollo program up until then, up until it was suddenly discovered that it would be too hazardous to go to the moon, was genuine, and so everything - all the hardware - that was in place up until that point, was actually intended to go to and land on the moon? We seem to have been arguing a lot lately that the Lunar Module was so blatantly impossible that no one would ever have risked their lives in it, haven't we? So is this an admission that the hardware, at least, and the whole program up until that point, was genuine?

1) I was thinking of an indirect visualization of these static charges , just the result of these charged item interacting in repel or atract (in this case the suits and the flag) , we don't see any such effect when the astronaut is close of the most sensible part of the flag .

2) I wasn't thinking about a direct visual of the ground vibration by looking at the ground surface , nor seismometer datas , just his possible effect on the flag , before the 2'37" event , one of the astronaut is much closer of the flagpole and jump a little while he place himself for the flag salute-photo , and we don't see the the flag moving , pretty much eliminating any possible ground vibration-induced motion from an astronaut passing in little jump (even with a heavier ground contact) but much farther than before while we didn't noticed any motion due to ground vibration.

-) Yes , and a flag that will rotate because he is pulled by gravity , will be pulled with a lesser force than on earth , this flag movement induced by this rotation pulled by a lesser force will be very slow , forces still exist , friction still exist , no problems about that , and for me this movement caused by this eventual rotation of the flag will not cause such a clear motion on the flag , and beside this this rotation would have to occur at the perfect moment to match that passing-by astronaut and produce a motion in the flag that would make anyone on earth think that this flag has been affected by the wind gust caused by the astronaut

-) You can't seriously eliminate the possibility that this scene is filmed in an atmosphere when you have such a clear atmospheric-disturbance-like of the flag occuring in the scene , notice that when you discard this possibility , and try to find another possibility , all the remaining ones are pretty easily put into highly unlikely possibility , the most probable one being the astronaut brushing that flag , and pretty much everyone looking at the video will quickly understand that even this is extremly unlikely unless the astronaut do move his left arm/hand to touch that flag , and as far as we can see in the video , he doesn't move his arm to do it , an example , if a men is found dead i his home , 10 knifes planted in his chest , 3 bullets in his head , and his hands attached in his back , i doubt that the police inspectors would discards any possibility of a murder because murdering is forbidden by the law , and then searching an explanation to this strange suicide or domestic accident , you see ? , to make it simple the most obvious possibility can't be discarded right ahead when no serious alternative ones have been found at least , to this day not a single alternative ones explain this flag motion , if this scene was filmed in an atmosphere (for a film or whatever) i doubt that anyone would even care trying to find any alternative explanation since this atmospheric disturbance is so obvious , eventually the astronaut brushing the flag would manage a 5-10% probability nothing more and 90-95% will be wind gust.

The problem with the fluttering flag is that it remains still throughout the video, except for one case, where the flag starts going from side to side and keeps swinging in this way for about twenty seconds. I would expect an atmosphere to give much more fluttering and with the flag taking less time from the start to the stop of fluttering (the air dampens it). However, taking a look at the whole video shows the flag remaining quite still, even though the astronauts move and walk right by it.

Occam's Razor -

What's the more likely scenario?

1. Somehow, while under global scrutiny and with a steadily dwindling budget, NASA managed to figure out a way to completely and convincingly simulate a large-scale, 1/6th gravity, vacuum environment in total secret, faked all the video, all the other evidence, fooled essentially the entire world for the last almost 40 years without one reputable "whistle-blower", without one piece of factual, verifiable evidence that points conclusively to a conspiracy, yet managed to miss this 25 second "smoking gun" piece of video footage

2. Apollo happened as documented, and this 25 seconds of moving flag shows something that cannot be definitively explained because it is the result of some other process that cannot be directly observed in the video footage, but is definitely is NOT the result of a "gust of wind" or any atmospheric condition (due to lack of appreciable atmosphere) on the lunar surface.

Given that everything else in that entire video segment, plus the rest of the archival video from the Moon landings show CLEAR evidence of a 1/6th gravity, vacuum environment, only an irrational and possibly paranoid mind would opt for choice #1.


Cz

I think your analogy is flawed. A better one would be, a man is found dead in his home, in a pool of blood, with a bloody knife lying next to him. Initial assumption, he was stabbed to death. Post mortem shows no evidence at all of stab wounds. Final assumption, he didn't die from stabbing. More evidence required to determine the actual cause of death. If there isn't sufficient evidence, then cause of death will be open to speculation, but at least we can rule out stabbing.

You can't just look at the flag starting to move, declare it must be due to an atmosphere because it's the most intuitive explanation, then just ignore the rest of the evidence because it doesn't fit. You need to be able to adequately explain everything else in the video: the pendulum-like nature of the flag's subsequent movement; the obvious lack of atmospheric damping; the motion of astronauts in 1/6 gravity; the apparent behaviour of kicked up dust; the astronaut moving closer to the flag not causing any visible flag movement; and any other evidence that supports the "low gravity" and "in a vacuum" theory.

Perhaps one of the oldest, tiredest, and blantantly ignorant positions commonly taken by people on the other side of the fence.

It is nonsense.
Billions in wasted dollars?

You wouldn't be using the PC or MAC you're using, you wouldn't have a microwave, or a cell-phone, or advanced diagnostic computers in your car, and we wouldn't have all the high-zoot medical diagnostics we have today if not for all that wasted money. It ALL came out of space exploration research.
And that scratches the surface of the benefits provided by the couple cents a day per capita spent on space exploration.

Other common and willful expenditures in America dwarf any space exploration budget we've ever had.

Americans routinely dwarf the annual space exploration budget on beer and cigarettes and cosmetics! Somewhere close to 65 times the FY 2007 NASA space exploration budget was spent on Christmas in America this year...and most of that in a five week period!

Wasted dollars?

Please. The position reflects a complete lack of knowedge of what's actually spent on space, and how miniscule an amount it really is. It also neglects the obvious benefits that tiny expenditure has produced.

Two Apollo Programs in their entirety could be funded on annual American Christmas expenditures.

Your argument is really shallow on substance.

Plus, NASA's budget is tiny compared to education, the DOD, or any of the many social programs. Yet they still seem to do pretty well in spite of all that. I think their budget should be increased tenfold. I'd like to see a Mars base in my lifetime but with those in Congress scalping NASA's budget for their own pet projects it is likely I'll never see it.

I don't think so.
Mr. Webb's position doesn't fit the criteria put forth by the query I received.

He didn't have anything to do do with the Mission Control Directorate.
He didn't request to leave his position, he annonced his resignation, for well understood reasons.
He did not do so one or two weeks prior to the Apollo 11 mission.
He didn't hear about any fakery from NASA; he was NASA.

However, he was a great administrator, and a tireless lobbyist. He went through the mill, and took a hell of a lot of crap, for years... keeping Apollo on track, and if not for his efforts and abilities, things might have been alot different...in a much lesser way.

Just to expand a bit on MID's and other's respective points about NASA's budget, consider this article I found:

Source: The Space Review - July 2, 2007
Putting NASA’s budget in perspective


Apologies for the lengthy quote. I had originally intended on only posting a few excerpts from this article, but trying to find points / issues that were less relevant still left about 75% - 80% of the article.


Cz

That's very true, frenat.

And of course, NASA has been doing exceeding well in recent years (stellar performance, frankly) with their far too tiny budget.
We have the initial funding plan for Constellation. That perhaps may be viewed as President Bush's greatest accomplishment, should it hold up through successive administrations (I shall never figure out how he managed to get that going, given his Congressional circumstances).

However, the manned space exploration initiative is dependent on successive administrations and Congresses staying the course. That's the problem...depending on who gets elected in 2008, 2012, etc...we may see NASA do what they're supposed to have been doing, or, if we elect an administration and a Congress that doesn't understand the fundamental economic principals that boost economic growth and government revenues (which people like Kennedy, and Reagan, and the current President Bush did, and do understand, and which they did and have presently demonstrated), we may see Constellation being relegated to the scrap heap.

It's a serious danger. If the wrong party gets hold of power, not only will we probably never see a Mars base, but we'll not even see a landing on the Moon in our lifetimes.

Cz, a highly relevant article!

The funny thing is, when we consider Cutie (sic) Couric's comment:



One must realize that the makeup she put on before going on camera costs more per day that the per-capita expense that this NASA budget entails. We're talking 15 cents a day...less than the cost of a cigarette!

Considering that Couric makes a little over 3 times that amount every second of her life (48 cents per second, that is)...it's pretty dumb to listen to such stuff come out of her mouth.

...a knowledge of what that total NASA budget is actually spent on reveals that most of it IS SPENT ON PROGRAMS THAT ARE DESIGNED TO BENEFIT PEOPLE RIGHT HERE ON EARTH.

If she had a notion about what NASA actually does, she'd realize this. NASA is involved with just about everything...

I am tempted to ask what that $15,000,000 annual salary she gets paid has ever done to benefit the people right here on Earth.

What else would they spend it on?

--------------

Just a thought on the 'flag waving' could it be possible it was a solar mini flare or just space radiation pulses? just a thought from a novice looking in.

What?

The NASA budget or Couric's salary?

I can't think of anything concerning the former. Plenty concerning the latter!

Solar flares and space radiation are so tenuous that to all intense and purposes they are a still vacuum.

Nope.
No such effects could occur from that, belial (concurring with Waspie's comment above).


This minor movement has been fleshed out about as thoroughly as can be imagined.

The simplest and most reasonable explanation is likely the accurate one.
A tube inserted into a tube that has been rendered not quite round by hammering vigorously into the ground. The flag is erected at an angle to the vertical, with the "moment arm", the flag's horizontal support, canted as well away from the gravity vector, suddenly twitches under the force of gravity...moving perhaps 1/32" in circumference as it rotates inside it's support tube. The "arm" amplifies this little force, and equates to a much larger movement out at the end of the horizontal pole, and swings the flag a little.

Things that aren't exactly secured completely tend to settle under the force of gravity. The rotational movement of the flag pole within its support tube would be unobservable, but the movement out at the end of the flag's support...which is a few feet out from the rotational source, would be much more observable, and would cause a perceptible motion of the flag.

this can't be the simplest and most reasonable explanation unless you are joking , at 1/6th g (supposed) this rotation of the flag would be so soft , it wouldn't create this clear motion of the flag , exactly like it could have moved if affected by a wind gust , we can clearly see in the video that the lower right corner part move first , in the motion you describe the entire flag would move a little then only after the lower right corner would move , following the motion , and continuing in a pendulum , here it is the lower right corner part that drive the motion , and what a surprise that if affected by a wind gust , the lower right corner would lead the motion too , that's another clue there , and once again , don't take it bad , but this 'most reasonable explanation' you submited is less reasonable than a micrometeorite impact , or at least not much than that .

In my analogy i was pretending that the inspectors where deliberatly eliminating the major probability because of a overrated confidence in the law (in the case murdering is not allowed by the law so it can't be that) i agree it is a bit exagerated but it was on purpose here , in your analogy you don't seems to deliberately eliminate one of the most probable possibility at all , so i don't see why it would be better , since my analogy once again was related to this particular point , that the most obvious probability is eliminated from the start because in a vacuum there is no atmosphere , no atmosphere here , no murderer there was the analogy , also in your analogy we can guess pretty easily that these inspector will find a strong alternative probability pretty quick after having investigated and saw that it was not stabbed (blood anlysis drug analysys etc) in mine , you can guess that they will have hard time to find a serious alternative probability , and that's what happen with this flag scene , no serious alternative probability are submitted , except some possible but highly unlikely ones , so not serious compared to the wind gust one that has been eliminated from the start ...

- edit -

For the astronaut passing closer to the flag , when he passe close to the flag , very close , in the most sensible part , he pass extremly slow , little cautious walk (he rotate around the flag and go behind) and the flag is still moving because he was planted few seconds before , so it would be harder to see a motion induced by a wind gust there , but in fact if the flag was in a standstill i can see that flag moving a little bit (really tiny movement) but it's not the case , so this is just a guess there , when the astronaut come back close to the flag , he his still close , but this time in the pole side of the flag , less sensible part , that's why we don't see that flag moving .

The fastest visible motion of an astronaut on the entire video is that one passing at 2'36 to 2'38" , he pass on the most sensible side of the flag , not in the closest position of that flag that's true , but with a decent speed and jumping around , in an atmosphere this guy would affect the flag with no big doubt , in this video something affect the flag exactly when we should expect , if it was in an atmosphere condition , what could it be ?

Oh the flag is moving like a pendulum ? , the flag is attached by a solid edge on top of it why wouldn't it move in a pendulum motion in fact ? , it's the only motion this flag would move like if it was affected by a wind gust by this passing astronaut , and the dampering depend a lot of the material , the way the flag is attached to that upper edge , the wrinkles , the air currents (and lack of).

If that flag was then affected by an atmospheric effect , the dust that we see in this video is certainly not a normal dust , and they are certainly not in 1/6th g , it can very well be some mixed sand , or powdery heavy material not exhibiting dust clouds , of course it could be something else like lunar regolith , but in that scene the lunar regolith don't have my vote , except if it's the name they gave on their mixed surface on earth.

Well, I thank you for your comments, Dr.
As well, I thank you for the quantitative basis you assign to the term "soft".

You explain absolutely nothing about what you mean by that term. Nor do you seem to understand the commonly known principal that any rotation of a cylindrical body with an extended arm attached to it, whether it be slow or rapid, will cause a constant amplification of movement along the arm, no matter what the rate of movement. At the end of an arm, the maximum movement will be observed.

If we just guestimate that the flag pole was an inch in diameter, and the flag support was 3 feet long, a 1/32" movement of rotation of the pole would equate to a 2 1/8" movement at the end of the support...more than enough to move the flag. The fact is, the movement was probably of a lesser degree than my example.

Now, the lower right corner of the flag, in the case I propose, would indeed be the area of the flag with the most pronounced movement (that's the most unsupported area of the flag, corresponding to the greatest moment applied by the force of the movement (the end of the pole).


Don't take it bad, but this is a more than reasonable explanation for the movement of this flag.


Don't take this bad either, but your emphasis on a few moments of Apollo footage, which show a flag moving, in the face of countless hours of footage which show utterly no movement of a flag, no matter what's going on around it (or not!), is hardly substantive.


The fact is, no one exactly knows why this flag moved, save to say that the video (as well as all other Apollo video and 16mm film records) clearly indicate operations in a 1/6 g vacuum.


It wasn't air. It couldn't have been air.
This matter was closed out long ago.

It's time to ask your questions about your doubts. If this small grade movement of a flag is all you have for your argument, you're not going anywhere with it.


There's got to be something else you want to know about.

The point here is, you're assuming the contrary to what all the evidenciary information shows, and basing an hypothesis on it.
If there is an atmospheric effect...

You have not, and will not be able to show that this is the case, so your premise goes out the window.


As an HB, your job is to show a basis for your arguments...to prove, as it were, your contentions.
This burden does not involve suppositions, and probabilties derived from them. It involves a burden of proof.


Being that THAT is an impossibility (as shown numerous times on this forum), I ask for your questions about doubts rather than declarations or suppositions based upon reasoning which is flawed.

Above, you're speculating upon what the dust could be based on your preconceptions of a hoax.
That doesn't cut the mustard.

You have to prove a hoax. Speculating on what-ifs is irrelevant to the discussion.

You are welcome.




Softer than in 1 g , he only rotate because he's pulled by gravity , the gravity is supposed to be 1/6th the one of earth , it will rotate softly , yet the flag motion happen quite abrutly with a decent amplitude , hard to believe for a flag motion (including upper edge) that we didn't see at all.



most prnounced maybe , but will it move first ? this is just nonsense , the rotation of that flag will have to move the upper edge too , the upper edge end will move the most , the flag attached also to that upper edge will move as well , but since this lower right corner is not the part directly attached to the upper edge end , it will not move first , the entire flag will move a little (and the upper edge end/flagend vertical will move the most , but the lower right corner will move last in that vertical , in the video it move first , incoherence with your possibility there.




Yes this represent only a few moment of the overall footages , but it represent one of the most strange phenomenon explanation of the entire apollo 15 mission at least , that's why i emphasis on this , because this flag motion have yet to find any rational explanation except the obvious (but eliminated for who know what reason] wind gust related motion , if this most probable possibility is eliminated because it prove that this scene was filmed on an atmosphere , it is not a valid reason .



If you look the video , it look like it move because of a wind gust , i know it seems strange if you think that this mission is supposed to be filmed on a vacuum , but if this flag do move because of a wind gust , that mean that for some unknown reason to me , they have faked at least this particular scene.



If it wasn't air , then we can confidently say , it wasn't electrostatic charge , it wasn't ground vibration , it wasn't flagpole making an invisible rotation that yeld a perfactly visible and long motion , it wasn't santa-claus , it wasn't the astronaut , it wasn't me , because none of these alternative explanation come close to the probability of the eliminated wind gust , so what could it be ? are you still considering this video so meaningless ? this is a unexplained mistery.



this is clearly not a flagpole rotation , at least it is not for me , this flapole rotation with the lower right corner moving first is contradictory , and can be put in the extremly unlikely possibility with no trouble .

Somehow, I am reminded of how magicians wow their audiences with their illusions. If only because the unobservant
fail to explain what they can not see, and make snap judgements in various plentitude as to what has transpired.

Only when all parameters are explained, is the entire matter understood. The same goes for the flag pole, or flag mechanism, movement issue. We do not have all the pertinent data to render a final and full explanation. Yet, as is our nature, we opt for preferences, based upon the best judgement each of us is able to render.

And, those judgements are at odds, based mainly upon guesstimates by people who were not there. I would prefer to rely on persons who are more expert in a related field to this incident.

And, it seems the experts see it in the context of three men who merely went to a nearby moon, during that July of 1971, thanks to the engineering and other efforts of countless people who worked toward that attainable goal.

Yes , the magicians run the show , as long as the audience didn't notice the trick they can fool anyone that's right , in the seventie's these show where pretty popular i think no ? by the way i am not a magician , are you ? the show here was a NASA show , the audience is pretty much everyone else , we are not in the seventie's anymore , sometimes magicians get old and their trick aren't fooling anyone .

And what is your best judgment on this flag issue ? , how long did you take to guess that judgment ? personally it take me about 2 secondes to identify a clear wind gust affected motion , and to this day i couldn't remember any other alternative explanation holding more sense thant this one , even if it obliterate apollo 15 credibility , but logic don't care about apollo 15 im affraid .

True story-

One morning, I washed the dishes in my kitchen. I stacked them in a dish drainer.

Thirty minutes later, I was going to leave for work. Suddenly, from an adjacent room, I heard the dishes crash and clang, on their own, as they belatedly settled down within their container, next to the sink. I laughed to myself- "must have been a ghost!"

Of course, it was forces of Nature, acting as they will, sometimes.

I think the flag movement is prosaic, and the result of hinge action, gravity, and little else.

What I would like to know, is why some assume going to the Moon, was _impossible_ and beyond American or worldly know-how? If I was there, I would have given my all, to get us to the Moon. Something for all people to relish in, eventually. A milestone in human efforts and accomplishments.

I suppose there are people who would deny many great accomplishments. Like what the masses said about Paganini- had to be the Devil!

Did we land on the moon? Yes. We landed there, brought back rocks and will probably go again someday.

The earth is also round, and the ancient egyptians built the pyramids using an almost unlimited amount of slave labor.

There are a lot of unexplained things in this universe - But the above things are not part of that list.

i've been lurking around this thread for awhile...to the conspiracy people...how would you know how a flag should act inside a vacuum?..how should dust act?...since it's never been done since, what can you compare it too?....simple questions ..just ignore me i'll keep reading..

and for you , it's certainly not an atmospheric effect ? if this scene was known to have been filmed in atmospheric condition , would you explain this flag movement by a wind gust ? if yes , how many times would it take you to think this movement happened due to a wind gust (even if it could possibly be wrong note) ? personally it would take me 2 seconds maybe , so roughly as long as it took me to think this was the case , even if i knew this scene was supposed to have been filmed in a vacuum , but i was already more than suspicious about this apollo missions before seen this video for the first time i must add , a bias if you want (wich is a natural bias from my point of view if you understand that this missions where faked ).

personally i don't know how in every single possible details , i do have a vague idea tough , that is completly incompatible with the motion of that flag , in the other hands , im not anymore an expert on how flag move in earth atmosphere and 1 g , but i can perfectly imagine a flag moving exactly like that with the little detail that i think this video is slightly slowed down , in a 10 or 15% amount not much , the flag would have to be not too soft , the other parameters are hard to guess perfectly , but it should exhibit some kind of wrinkle in his middle , that probably give him some 'spring' that should have helped to the movement duration (wich is not that long if the video was slightly slowed down btw) , the way the flag is attached to his upper edge probably play a major part of the motion duration , and to me it's impossible to guess unless to say that it does allow quite long motion.

And you , why did you think that flag move in such a strange manner ,given it's supposed to be a vacuum ?.

If this had been in an atmosphere in 1g gravity I would expect the flag to be moving much more often. Nylon flags tend to move along the entire length of the flag with even the slightest movement of air. Seeing as this is the only movement in 6 trips to the moon does not look well for air movement. Another thing is the gravity. I've heard that the flag kept its wrinkled appearance because the 1/6g was not enough to pull the nylon straight. There was not enough gravity to overcome the fabric memory from it spending the trip there folded up. Yet another sign this flag is on the Moon in a reduced gravity environment.

You provide opinions only, which of course you are entitled to, but you provide no proof other than your own "natural bias" to substantiate it.

You "personally don't think" that it was filmed in a 1/6th gravity vacuum environment, and again you provide no supporting proof or fact, despite the fact that essentially the entire global scientific community accepts the entire video record of the Apollo landings as being genuine.

Perhaps you missed this earlier post of mine:


If you contend that the video record, and by extension the whole Apollo project, was faked, then you need to provide proof which substantiates that claim. Not opinion, not bias, but proof that refutes what is globally accepted as fact. You need to provide proof of how NASA faked the 1/6th gravity and vacuum environment. You need to provide proof of how NASA faked all the evidence.


Cz

but this flag is all except a soft satin flag , no atmospher wouldn't prevent the flag to be affected by normal ripple/wave pattern on its surface if he was that soft , look the video from 8 to 25 seconds , did you see a soft flag ? i didn't , i don't see how atmospher would prevent wave/ripple caused by the whole flag motion to be seen , don't forget that this flag is still supposed to be in a 1/6th g , no atmosphere will not stop gravity to move accordingly on all the surface of this flag , and in this video this flag move like if it was more rigid than a 'normal' flag , because you can clearly see that his wrinkle persist even when the flag is being planted and then move from up to down , i don't make that wrinkle vanish , for the simple reason , this flag is not that soft , it looks like some platic material .

I will have to opt for option #1 then , this flag has moved , this flag shouldn't have moved in a vacuum , any alternative explanation don't hold 5 seconds against the more obvious wind gust , this scene as then be faked , apollo 15 is probably faked , and all the other moon landing are at the very least highly suspicious , i know it can seems crazy to some , but this is the most logical explanation to date , this flag as incredible as it sound , have moved because of a wind gust , while there is supposed to have no atmosphere on the moon , no electrostatic charge observed in this video , no ground vibration detected either , incompatible flagpole rotation motion , since the lower right portion move first , the astronaut didn't touched the flag , no kicked dust seen , this flag have moved in a way it shouldn't have , it could have moved like that on atmospheric condition , choice 1 seems the good choice , i know it can sound crazy , it is not.

LLL-

I don't know if this contributes to anything you might wonder about, one way or the other. You might say it lacks certain information, but I just found it and thought some of what it says is relevant.

"During a pause in experiments, Neil suggested we proceed with the flag. It took both of us to set it up and it was nearly a disaster. Public Relations obviously needs practice just as everything else does. A small telescoping arm was attached to the flagpole to keep the flag extended and perpendicular. As hard as we tried, the telescope wouldn't fully extend. Thus the flags which should have been flat, had its own unique permanent wave. Then to our dismay the staff of the pole wouldn't go far enough into the lunar surface to support itself in an upright position. After much struggling we finally coaxed it to remain upright, but in a most precarious position. I dreaded the possibility of the American flag collapsing into the lunar dust in front of the television camera."

Link


and this article-


Deployment and Performance-

"The first U.S. flag on the moon was deployed by Neil Armstrong and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin during their historic EVA on 20 July 1969 (at 4 days, 14 hours and 9 minutes mission-elapsed time). The flag was seen worldwide on live television (Fig. 6). At their technical crew debriefing, Armstrong and Aldrin reported few problems with the deployment. They had trouble extending the horizontal telescoping rod and could not pull it all the way out. This gave the flag a bit of a "ripple effect," and later crews intentionally left the rod partially retracted. The Apollo 11 astronauts also noted that they could drive the lower portion of the pole only about 6 to 9 inches into the surface. It is uncertain if the flag remained standing or was blown over by the engine blast when the ascent module took off.

The only design change made as the result of performance on the lunar surface was in the catching mechanism of the horizontal crossbar's hinge. The Apollo 12 crew could not get the catch to latch properly and, as a result, the flag drooped slightly. Later models of the flag assembly had a double-action latch that would work even if the horizontal bar was not raised above a 90 degree angle."

(footnote 15- Buzz Aldrin noted that "just beneath the powdery surface, the subsoil was very dense. We succeeded in pushing the flagpole in only a couple of inches. It didn't look very sturdy." (Buzz Aldrin, Men From Earth, p. 242.) No film footage of either the Apollo 11 or Apollo 12 liftoff from the lunar surface is available, so it could not be determined if those flags remained standing. The Apollo 14 Mission Film (JSC-563) clearly shows that the flag from that mission remained standing after liftoff.)

Link 1

Apollo Video Clip 1

Apollo Video Clip 2

yes interesting , but it don't gave me any more clues about this very apollo 15 flag , and why it moved from a standstill , and why is the wind gust the more obvious probability even if it can look crazy to think this , sometimes reality is crazy i guess.

Right. I understand.

Looking through some previous posts, I found this-

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=1979917


The image seems to convey various possible "plumb lines". If I can trust my eyes, I would say there is a possibility that the flag pole is not true to plumb. Thus, constrained tension may have been released, leading to movement of the movable flag set-up.

Anyone remember hearing that Japan was going to send a satellite to the moon to see if the lander was really there, what happend to that!!!

How, then, did they "fake" the 1/6th gravity and vacuum environment convincingly enough to fool scientists and other experts for nearly 40 years. In order for your theory to have any credibility, you have to provide some kind of logical, verifiable proof that this happened.


Are you sure? How do you know how a flag should behave in a vacuum?

Oh wait.. because there's other evidence from the other mission videos that show how the flag behaves in the lunar environment. So if you are going to base your opinion on the evidence provided by the other mission videos, you must therefore be accepting those mission videos and the missions themselves as fact and that they happened as history records.

So when it supports your theory, then yes they were on the Moon and the video evidence proves it. But somehow it makes sense to you that they faked Apollo 15, or perhaps just that portion of the video, because it is "obvious to you" that the flag is behaving as if it were in an atmosphere.


Again, obvious to you and your (meaning no disrespect) uneducated opinion. Not quite so obvious to the scientists and experts around the world who have seen the exact same archival video and have all agreed that they show conclusive evidence that the videos were shot in a 1/6th gravity vacuum environment.


Since we have established by the presented evidence and by the expert and educated opinion of scientists worldwide that the video was in fact taken in a 1/6th gravity vacuum environment (if not on the moon, then is some simulation or replicated environment, which, for your theory to hold water, you will need to explain and provide evidence regarding how that could have been done on such a scale as necessary to convincingly replicate the Lunar surface and environment in a large enough "space" (for lack of a better word) to account for the distances traveled in the videos) we then need to find a logical, verifiable explanation for how such a "wind gust" could occur in such an environment. What process could cause a wind gust in a vacuum to affect JUST the corner of the flag?


That has already been established. There is no appreciable atmosphere on the Moon.


Let's look at these individually:

Electrostatic charge - agreed, such an effect would probably not produce an observable effect, such as a "spark" and also, such an effect has never before been seen in any of the video record even while an astronaut was closer to the flag than is evidenced here.

Ground vibration - agreed, would probably not be detectable on video - even if the camera were looking at the spot where the flagpole was hammered into the lunar surface - and as has been discussed elsewhere, is not a likely scenario given the distance between Dave Scott and the flag.

Touching the flag - agreed, the flag appears to move before one could logically assume that Scott could have touched it.

Kicked dust - agreed, since Scott would have had to have been kicking up serious amounts of regolith with sufficient force to propel it to the height of the bottom corner of the flag. No "dust spray" or "dust plume" is shown in the video. Previous astronauts have said that regolith, when kicked or disturbed while walking / running travels further horizontally than vertically. Scott is obviously walking quickly in a direction that is lateral to the plane of the flag and it is not apparent if his foot movements would have caused a "dust spray" or "plume" to go straight up, but given the speed he was moving and the force necessary to propel regolith up to the flag, it is logical to assume that, if this were the propagating factor behind the flag movement, one would expect to be able to see the regolith "spray", "plume" or "clot" actually impacting the flag.

Flagpole Rotation - Given the lighting conditions, the poor resolution of the video in question, not to mention the relatively poor resolution of the camera that shot that footage, the tiny amount of movement required (1/8th of an inch or less) by the "flagpole rotation motion" hypothesis presented by MID (which, by the way, is FAR more logical and believable than the conclusion you have reached) could not have been actually recorded. The movement was just too slight to be picked up by the camera, however, the induced movement in the flag - which is essentially hanging on the end of a spring under some amount of tension - is plainly visible and is a logical counter-action to the slight rotational movement of the flagpole. The fact that it happened just an instant before Scott crossed in front of the flag is just a coincidence.

But perhaps there is one other possible explanation. Consider the following quote from Where No Flag Has Gone Before at the ALSJ:

Hinge Latch Slippage - Perhaps the latch was not 100% seated when the flag's supporting arm was locked in place. Perhaps it stopped just short of being fully seated, but was under sufficient enough tension (and was held in place by sufficient friction) to start to slide or slip towards being fully seated, and when it did finally overcome the inherent friction and slip to the "fully seated position" (an occurrence that is easily reproducible and is not dependent upon any kind of atmospheric conditions, but is dependent upon friction and tension), it imparted a sufficient, yet small, amount of force (while it may not weigh much on the lunar surface, it is still made of metal and still has mass) to the horizontal supporting arm - which, as said before, is under some degree of tension itself and is in essence a type of spring - which was then transmitted down to the end of the crossbar (and slightly magnified in the process) in the form of a small "wobble" or "sway" or "dip" (choose whichever term suits you best) which could account for the movement at the bottom corner of the flag. Again, the fact that it happened just an instant before Scott crossed in front of the flag is just a coincidence.


Crazy, perhaps, but I think "uninformed" or "uneducated" are better terms.

Whatever your theory / opinion is, it definitely is NOT supported by the entire body of evidence provided in that clip, not to mention the archival video record of all the Apollo moon landings.


Cz

Common sense, along with human intuition, clearly shows that NO HUMAN OR HUMANS EVER WENT TO THE MOON!, THE PTB would love you to believe this fairy tale.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ


NASA HOAX

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQj-Mh__fRc...feature=related

Japan launched its Kaguya (formerly called "Selene") probe to the Moon on September 14th. It was not sent to see if the landers were really there, and regardless, the camera equipment on board does not have sufficient resolution (max resolution of the Terrain Camera is 10 meters/pixel) to see even the largest objects at the landing sites, the LM Descent stages, as more that a bright dot.

Kaguya (Selene) home page at jaxa.jp



Cz

Interesting that your post speaks of these things, yet at the same time point to a definite lack of same....

When you have some actual proof behind your wild imaginings, beyond the equally deluded videos you provide, we will be glad to discuss them with you.


In the mean time, why not take advantage of this forum and what it was meant to do - impart knowledge. Which part of the Apollo program specifically do you have a problem with? Please ask specific questions (not just a blanket "THE WHOLE THING") and we will endeavor to answer them for you.


Cz

Interesting, How 'you' seek to invite me to your forum, and 'impart' your knowledge of NASA, thanks, but no thanks, I'm fed enough lies from the LAMESTREAM MEDIA on a daily basis. Nice try anyway.

Well, then you'll probably find that this forum is not suited to your agenda.

Enjoy your ignorance


Cz

I watched some of this program at youtube, once. The goofball who smoothtalks to us about his viewpoints, from his experience in the movie industry, left me shocked. He blatantly tried to mislead people by claiming that the antenna coming out of the astronauts backpack was a wire hitch! He said, "Watch as the studio lights reflect off the wire- PING!" Ping, he said...

How freaking many more lies than that do you need to tolerate from a low-budget, clown-operated T.V. special from Jolly Old England? Those folks would sell their own mama to make money! LOL!

I prefer respectable English folk!

yeah i know these images , the flag to exhibit a motion where the lower right corner move first (like in the video) would have to move upward not rotating (or at least rotating AND upward motion) pulled by gravity i don't see where this flag could move upward there , it is next to impossible , fact the lower right corner of the flag move first , exactly like we should expect in a drag of air affected motion , incoherence with all other 'mechanical problem' motion except if it moves upward (if would transmit motion the the lower right corner and then balance a little) .

That latch would have reached the seated position when the flag was 'bouncing' up and down for few seconds after being planted in this case i think , and if it wouldn't have reached its position there , solid chances that the friction was just enough to hold that position , but even estimating that it does reach this position at 2'36"+- , this motion would be a downard movement if i got it right (when the latch 'seal itself') hardly explaining the motion of the flag , clearly driven by the lower right corner for at least the 3 first swings , that being totally consistent with the wind gust probability .

Probability that unlike yours (that has the merit to exist at least) don't need additional 'luck' parameters notice this , and that is one of the big advantage of that probability against the latch and flagpole rotation ones , for that flagpole rotation , the lower right corner move first , this is not coherent with the eventual rotation of the flagpole creating the motion and remember that this flagpole rotation occuring in a supposed 1/6th g will be so soflt , the friction would really have to be strange there , it was holding all this time , and suddently it rotate (and stop abruptly enough) to create that flag motion without being noticeable on the pole (i agree the video quality isn't great anyway), interesting theory , but the wind gust theory is still way ahead all of this .

I am happy to see that you clearly discarded all the other ones , but you have also discarded the wind gust , wich is of course your right , but even if i know that looking trough all the hours of apollo EVA videos it can seems foolish if you don't have any doubts about the apollo missions prior to this , the pendulum motion is more or less the only motion this flag would have if it was affected by this wind gust , the duration of that motion is indeed pretty long , but the video could very well be slowed down to simulate l