it seems like he have accelerated this video slightly , or is it fatigue ? well at least it seems even more obvious while slightly accelerated , this motion is without no big doubt and unless major new alternative theory , a wind gust movement it is becoming almost hilarous to not notice it no ? well , here you have your control quality , it is apparently the same video with maybe (i think it is) a slightly accelerated tempo , or maybe the moontrue movie was too slow .

- edit -

i don't think it was edited finaly , it seems like the youtube page i opened managed to read the video a bit faster (the seconds were faster than real seconds) anyway it was a good show , i recommend anyone to play that video at a stlightly faster speed , i don't know what was the amount there , i would say 15% maybe more , but the wind gust motion can't be missed at that speed , much more convincing. (now im gonna sleep ciao).

I agree that it is possible that the latch, had it not completely seated itself upon first being engaged in place, could have seated itself while the whole assembly was in motion while it was being put together and erected. However, I would argue that I have been witness to similar occurrences - in principle, at least - with real-world items. For instance:

I have a tripod for my camera that has "latches" on the leg extensions. You open the latch, extend the leg, then close the latch to secure the leg in place. Now, it has not happened often - perhaps twice or three times in the three years that I have owned this tripod - but on rare occasion when I have closed the latch - the latch design is a simple plastic hinged cam, which holds the leg in place by friction - as I have done many times before, with what I assumed was sufficient force to seat the latch properly, only to find that some random period of time later, I hear a soft "click" come from the tripod leg, which upon investigation, leads me to find that the latch was not fully seated as I originally assumed, and over time, tension had overcome the friction in the device and it closed itself. On another occasion, I heard a soft "pop" and noticed (when the tripod began to sink on one side) that the tension in the latch had again overcome friction and unseated it self, causing the leg to collapse. Thankfully, it didn't fall over and my camera was unscathed. Certainly this is a rare occurrence and speaks more to the amount of attention I have paid (or not paid) when securing the latch than it does to the latch design. That said, however, the fact that it has happened, and more than once, gives me reason to believe that my "Latch Theory", while not definitive, certainly bears consideration as a valid theory.

The latch theory and the flagpole rotation theory have something in common that, again, give reason to believe they are more plausible explanations than your "wind gust" theory: They do not rely upon any other situation or condition to be present that can be directly contradicted by the rest of the observed evidence presented. They do not rely upon there being an atmosphere present. They do not rely upon there being a heavier gravity field present. These two theories can be proven to happen independently of the environmental conditions.

Your theory, for it to be true, MUST take place in an environment that is directly contradicted by the observed and independently verified and accepted evidence of a 1/6th gravity vacuum environment. In your theory, there MUST be air or some kind of atmosphere present for it to be factual. Since it has been proven through the observable evidence that the astronauts are in a 1/6th gravity vacuum environment, then your theory MUST by definition be enlarged in scope and complexity to include a rationalization as to how those environmental conditions were achieved or simulated on Earth.

Latch Slip or Flagpole Rotation theory - only require the presence of friction and tension, or friction and gravity, respectively.

Wind Gust theory - requires that the entire sequence of events be simulated in some kind of environment where the effects of gravity and presence of vacuum can be simulated to the point that it is believable enough to convince - or fool - experts around the world. This in itself requires that some form of technology exists - or be created - that can achieve this simulation on a scale large enough to reproduce effectively and convincingly the surface of the Moon in sufficient area as to allow the free movement of the astronauts through the range of distances they are seen to be covered on foot and by the LRV.

So again we come to "Occam's Razor" which in its simplest definition states "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."

Which is the simpler solution?

One of the two possibilities that rely solely on well understood basic principles inherent to our physical universe - friction, tension, gravity - and a small bit of coincidental timing?

Or the one that relies on a massive scale conspiracy, secret technology, massive "sound stages" capable of holding a vacuum and simulating 1/6th gravity, 400,000+ people being "in on" the conspiracy to some degree without ONE legitimately believable person coming forward (with verifiable evidence) to expose their role - however minor - in said conspiracy, continual deception and cover-up on a global scale for nearly 40 years, over 40 if you go all the way back to the original birth of the Apollo program, and all this on a budget that at its height, was only 4% of the US budget (1966, NASA's highest budgetary allotment, $5.93 billion, equivalent to roughly $30 billion today), and totaled, at most, less than $30 billion spread out over roughly 10 years?

Now, in the end, we may never be able to prove who is right. But in the absence of absolute proof, we have to look at the plausibility of the presented theories and how seamlessly they can be integrated into the observed evidence. I think if you put aside your preconceived "bias" and look at the options presented here - yours, mine and MID's - with an open mind, even for just as long as it takes you to read this post, you might start to see that the simpler solutions are closer to being correct than the ones that get more and more convoluted the deeper you look into them.


Cz

EDITED for clarity..

"Font of inspiration"?

Probably not.

However, (assuming that it is REALLY him using that account name) he is a TV and radio (I think?) personality and used to be the host of "Fear Factor". Earlier in his career he was on the sitcom "Talk Radio" - which was a personal fave at the time.

I like his work, but that doesn't mean that I believe the tripe he is spreading around with his b.s conspiracy videos.

Btw, I'm pretty sure all the videos he has up have been posted before by others, so its not like he's the actual source.


Cz

I don't know him from Adam. And, if he is responsible, why does he lead with this?

"watch the American flag wave on it's own with no one touching it on the supposedly atmosphere free surface of the moon. Pay close attention at 2:36".

I call them as I see them.




Thank you.

Apologies for the typo, I did mean fount...

What I am saying though, is that video has been posted before by others, so chances of him being the originator of this particular little conspiracy theory are slim.

Search Youtube for "apollo 15 flag" and you'll see what I mean. There are probably other version of that clip that are part of a larger video posted by others as well.

As to whether that's the real Joe Rogan... who knows... I could sign up as Michael Jackson, put a link to his homepage and really, no one could say for certain that I wasn't him...


I'm not btw..


Cz

the words "common sense" and "Youtube" in the same breath amuse me. You do know that anyone at all can put anything at all on Youtube without it having to be verified by an eminent team of scientists, do you? If it's on the 'Tube it's not necessarily automatically true, accurate and unbiased.

on another note, heavens, we're still talking about the flag....? :-/

(it was the pixies, of course.)

I'm sure it's the real Rogan as he has a "burr up his butt" concerning the Moon landings. Of course his "evidence" consists of nothing more than what can be found on the net. He's certainly hasn't investigated the question scientifically, and he's decidedly not a scientist. He's an entertainer, although I don't find myself "entertained" by watching people being coerced into "eating bugs for money". (Thankfully that show is off the air.)

On a bit of a side note, it is my opinion that Rogan is just a big idiot. He has a web forum where (and I kid you not) if you do not post porn, you are banned. He seems to think that forcing people to post porn will "weed out" the undesireables. (Kinda like a college fraternity, where one must degrade themselves to join.)

I am proud to count myself as undesireable.

A side note here please:
I find the constant attacks against YOU TUBE a little bit tired lately, yes we all know how easy it is to put false and silly bits of information up on there, but it does also offer a great deal more than that.
Ok rant over, just had to say something in it's defence.

MAYBE YOUTUBE IS THE MOTHER OF ALL DISSINFORMATION SITES?

The problem with YouTube is that a lot of people simply say "Look, the moon landings were fake! [insert video here]", instead of bringing up real arguments themselves, like "Why are there no stars on the pictures? Why is this guy's shadow shorter?"

I don't know if I'm one of the "conspiracy people, Unlimited, but your question isn't a bad one.

It's a matter of rather simple reasoning, really.
All you're removing from the equation of flag-movement is air. everything else pertaining to movement is present (gravity, and an impulse to transmit energy to the flag). The movement will only differ by virtue of the fact that you'll never see a flag move by virtue of air movement. Any other impulse imparted to the flag will cause completely logical movement resulting from an impulse. Shake it, it waves. Set it up and twist it around, it'll wave. Bump it, it'll wave. Further, because of gravity, the motion will always dampen out.

It's really no different, save that moving air will not impart an impulse to it. That's why we provided a horizontal support for lunar flags---because there's no way they could possibly ever extend outward in the wind which doesn't exist.

And the gravity is of course lesser than on Earth. The result of that is that movement imparted by an impulse would dampen at a somewhat slower rate than it would on Earth.



Well, it had been done before. We actually did studies on dust movement in vacuum when designing the fender assemblies for the LRVs. That was necessary because although simple logic dicatates what dust should do in a vacuum, we wanted to see the spray pattern imparted by a roatating wheel in such an environment (vacuum at 1/6 g) so adequate equipment protection from flying dust could be provided.

Again, it's simply a matter of removing the air from the equation. Everything else remains the same. It moves because an impulse is imparted to it. The difference, besides the fact that it'll move in a much more sluggish upward arc, and descend to the ground slower, owing to the decreased gravity (like anything else tossed about in such a field) is that there will be no air for the fine particles to interact with, and be suspended by.

Thus, dust will move outward in ballistic arcs, and all of it will settle on the ground without leaving any residual suspended particles swirling about in air (i.e., dust clouds).

This of course was observable immediately on Apollo lunar landing missions, from the time the soil was being kicked by the LM DPS exhaust prior to landing. It is overtly evident on all Apollo lunar surface footage, including this snippet of Apollo 15 film where dust is kicked and no clouds are formed.

???

I'm have noted a recent increase in the amount of these types of comments.
They are valueless, and silly, as well as anything but contributory to the discussions at hand.

Common sense and human intuition in no way lead to the conclusion that such a post provides. In fact, quite the contrary.

In fact, none of us involved with teaching about Apollo would love anyone to "believe" that Apollo was real.
We attempt to help people to gain the knowledge necessary to understand that it did happen.

Youtube videos, produced by people with a complete lack of knowledge (one of the plagues of the Internet--we commonly see lunacy put out right along side valuable and substantive information), certainly do not qualify as evidentiary information. They are fuel for a little laughter, but otherwise, they serve little purpose and have no substantive value.

They may serve to provide questions, however.

Why don't you ask about your doubts, and cease the senseless declarations that belie your lack of subject matter knowledge, as well as any substantial grounds to support them?

Doesn't it seem clear that the word was supposed to say SNIPPET, from the context?

Misspelling noted....and corrected (as if that was really necessary...)

Unfortunately, I must concur with Cz.
If this is your position, you elect to remain uninformed about the scences and technologies involved with the execution of Apollo.
Thus, it would seem that this thread is indeed not the place for you.

MID, I don't think UNKNOWN_DEAD was trying to pull your chain there...I was confused for a minute there as well (damn the written word, it's far more difficult than the spoken word!)

Of course..I was just wondering where the snippet was. cause I can't find a link to it in your post.

yes, that's my problem with the 'Tube, you see... you get, literally, everyone with an opinion from every point of view, and it's entirely up to the viewer to decide which might have a point and which, well, don't ... just the same as getting information off someone's website or blog. People just often seem to put links to various videos as if to say that definitively supports their argument, but it doesn't, that's just as much the person who made the video's own opinion.

I shall have to concur, Cz


LLL is proceeding with a bias that cannot be substantiated.
I think we've killed this issue. In fact, it was buried a long time ago.

This minor movement of a flag...the only such instance recorded in the many hours of lunar surface video, is being touted as some sort of evidence of a hoaxed Apollo program because it evidently indicates the presence of moving air.

Phenomenal reasoning, especially considering the 99.99999% of the video evidence that clearly indicates the contrary.

We are essentially engaging in alot of wishful thinking with the wind gust idea. A simple understanding of physics will clearly show that this movement is natural, and had to be provided by an impulse other than air.


LLL,

You have clearly argued this point based upon a bias. You put forth all of these comments about the lower right corner of the flag moving first, and attempt to argue this as being impossible.

You're right...it is impossible, and obviously it didn't happen. You simply cannot see the impulse that originated this very natural amplified movement.

You also argue about the fact that the rest of the flag, inboard, doesn't appear to move hardly at all. This too is simple physics. The motion at the end of an arm is amplified . The small twitch that likely produced this is negligible at the inboard side of the flag, and obviously, logically of greater amplitude out at the end of the arm.

Take a bullwhip in your hand, or a piece of string or whatever, and hold it vertically, giving it a little twitch with you hand and watch as the amplitude of the wave produces a greater movement at the end of the length than it does at the origin. For that matter, just snap the whip, or a piece of rope normally. If you don't note the much greater motion out at the end than where your hand is, we've lost you completely.

I have no idea how any more explanation of these concepts will provide greater understanding. If you were inquisitive, you could absolutely duplicate these things through some simple experimentation on your own, and a little study about wave motion.

You, as have the others who previously wanted to argue this point, don't seem to want to let this tiny, insignificant occurrance go, because you want an absolute explanation for it.

That you're not going to get, only reasonable explanations. No one involved with Apollo cared about this. It's insignificant, and irrelevant. If you wish to adhere to this insignificant occurrance as something that proves afake, fine. But such adherence isn't doing this thread any good, and it certainly isn't adressing the fundamental thrust that we like to engage in here.

You're not going to provide any proof of wind from this video, and you're not going to get an official NASA explanation for something so simple and reasonably explained by simply physics.


Let's see if we can direct you a little here.


You obviously are an HB. You believe we faked Apollo.

How about considering your position by answering these question:

What makes you think that Apollo was faked, really?
What is it about this accomplishment that is so untenable in your mind that you hold to this position?

We haven't seen anything from you concerning these fundamental questions. You say it's faked, and you're arguing about something based upon that bias, but that isn't adressing the issue.

Is it the spacecraft, the CSM, the LM?
Is it the power required to do it (the Saturn V)?
Is it the complexity of a trans-lunar trajectory?

There must be something concrete that puzzles you.

How about adressing something of substance which underlies your belief?
Don't address from your premise that it was faked.
Address why you think it was.

We'll get something going that way.

Yes, that's something I've spoken to many times.
It's one of the lowlights of the Internet, in written and video material.

I don't knock "youtube" per se. There's alot of neat stuff put on there. I don't knock the Internet as a whole either. However, the Internet allows "publishing" in whatever form without any critique, without any standard bibliographical references, and most assuredly without any editorial or peer review.

Just as serious scholarly work, completely referenced and substantiated can be put there, so can the exact opposite. The Internet's value is as a result dependent upon the rational and critical skills posessed by the surfer. There is no requirement for Internet publishing. Anything goes.

Thus, you see some incredible work there. As pertains to Apollo, no finer example exists than Eric Jones' Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. That is perhaps the greatest historical and technical effort in the post-Apollo years, and is a reference not only for those who wish to learn about the program, but is in fact designed for use by planners for our next excursions to the Moon. It is magnificent, and the result of many years of painstaking labor by Mr. Jones. This is Internet Pulitzer Prize material.

On the other hand, any widget can, and many have come out with sites "proving", in somewhat comical fashion, that Apollo was a hoax. These critiques illustrate, in profoundly graphic fashion, the extent to which imagination combined with utter lack of knowledge can attain to. They are classic examples of ignorance, which are as glaring as Mr. Jones' work is a classic example of intellect, painstaking effort, and brilliance.

We also see upstart filmakers, wanna-bes, putting out crafty, although equally ignorant fallacies on the Internet. Our recent exposures to some of Jarred White's "works" are profound illustrations of a complete lack of knowledge, combined with a desire to gain recognition as a film maker. The guy is crafty, and he uses the Internet as what appears to be his only possible vehicle of exposure. Unfortunately, he has an audience of people who, like him, are impressionable, and unknowledgable and will buy into what he produces without any critical thought process and intellectual review. I suspect he hopes to do what Sibrel did...put together equally fallacious videos for sale via the Internet.


At any rate, the Internet is, for better or worse, the best of times and the worst of times all rolled into one big compendium, which often is a mess.

It is up to the discretion and intellect of the user to weed out what is substantive vs. what is not. In my estimation, the percentage may be a little more than a majority as pertains to the latter.

That's just the way it is, unfortunately.

It is a bit distressing to find Mr. Jones' massive work (the "War and Peace" (time about 100) of Apollo) in the same place as a Jarred White film, but that's the nature of the beast!

Yes, I understand Lil, based on his reply.
Sometimes, I am dumb...






Sorry UNKNOWN...


I guess it was just the ??? that had me wondering.

I think if you go back to post 3319, 4 Jan, you'll see that it's on LLL's post.

Ah, that "solves" the mystery...thanks.

You bet!

And did you agree that it is more probable than the latch seated itself 2 minutes later in a supposed airless and ground vibration free (or close to) environment ? i do agree with this , because the up/down motions of the flag after being planted would play on friction , and this latch , ready to be seated helped by the motion of the flag up/down motion will probably 'counter' the friction that prevented him to be seated before that

, now don't get me wrong , i think your latch theory is more probable than the flagpole rotation one (by a large amount) but since this flagpole theory was for me close to zero (let's say 0.1% for the record) that's not hitting the required level to be considered a serious alternative im affraid , serious alternative should be obvious after being discovered at least , it can be hard to find but should really hold itself after that , your latch theory , even if it makes more sense than the flagpole rotation , still fail to be detached of extremly high 'luck' factor , or odds if you prefer , the first one being this double action latche wasn't seated in the first place , second the latch , not seated and 'freeze' by friction , didn't managed to seated itself while the flag was moving up and down after being planted , this up/down motion should have obviously played on friction and should have helped that latch to seated at this moment , 3rd luck factor , passing the most favorable moment to seated , the latch manage to do it when the flag is not moving anymore for about 1 good minute , and additional luck factor to this one , that's just the moment chosen by the astronaut to pass close by this flag , at the sensible part position , with the highest apparent speed of this flag-salute photoshoot scene , on top of this ,
the motion generated by this latches sealing itself should ne exactly like we could have expected to see if that flag was affect by a wind gust by this passing-by astronaut , that flag being not that soft by the way , it is proven by just looking at the video from 8 to 25 secondes , what can be the odds about this ? hard to tell , but just a guess , probably under 1% chance , can you still consider this probability (while more plausible than the flagpole rotation one) to be a serious alternative explanation ?



Yes i can see this hapening , but a tripod is and camera probably weight more than this flag on a supposed 1/6th g environment , your leg extention will have to support the weight of these objet above them at 1g , you can have a car or truck that pass in the street and make vibration (or even wind gust) or just normal wind.



Again this flagpole rotation theory don't hold 5 seconds of observation , the gravity is supposed to be 1/6th of earth , friction will be the same but clearly not a lot of friction was needed to hold that flag before 2'37" right ? same thing than for your latch theory , this rotation would have certainly have betters odds occuring when the flag pole moved after being insterted , yet he managed to rotate abruptly by a small amount (so unseen) and stop abruptly as well , while pulled by a ridiculous 1/6th g force , after being on a visually complete standstill for at least 1 minute , and managing to have the same luck (odds) factors than your latches theory in the process.



It hasn't been proved in this scene , this flag exhibit a motion not compatible with lack of atmosphere , at least when taking the most obvious and probable possibility , the wind gust one.

Simulating 1/6th g on earth while not any single 1/6th g performance have been observed in the whole apollo missions would be perfectly possible slowing down the video is one of the option , adding some counter-balance device helping the astronaut having an apparent lighter gravity is another one , if we except what ? oh yes , the hammer and feather experiment , that was sold as the perfect proof of them being in a vacuum , just in case anyone have a doubt maybe ?



And amazing odds to yeld the result seen on this video , the amazing odds are not playing for these theory (and certainly not for the flagpole rotation one).



I agree , it require a believable 1/6th g apparent motion , and for the vacuum in this scene at least , the effect was missed (make it intentionally or not) , the slowing down of video coupled with a device that act like a counter weight for the astronauts can very well look believable 1/6th g , even more believable if these video are seen 'live' on all the big networks , believable don't mean that it is really what's happening , some actors can be believable in their rôle , and of course you know that you're looking a fiction , so you know that's not true , but what if you don't know that you are looking a fiction ?



The simplest solution is clearly , the wind gust one , all the orther ones failling on incredible low probaility due to 'luck' factors .

This coincidental is not small it is huge , i doubt anyone can contradict that this whole friction,tension,gravity astronaut passing timing and observed motion (all of this being filmed) is huge and not small coincidental.

I don't think anyone said that they have huge sound stages capable of holding a vacuum , and i personally don't say such ridiculous thing , even it it's posible in theory (once agains no good odds), look at this very video , and you will see that it was not in a vacuum whatever being on earth or anywhere else , saying that 400.000+ peoples where "in on" don't make much sense as well , a conspiracy would involve mostly high placed peoples , certainly not 400.000 + peoples , there wouldn't be one single person that the public would see as legitimately believable , because such person would be totally discredited as soon as possible (to be believable he would have to work on the project for sure) the high ranked individuals where probably all 'in' they just have common interest , all the others that where eventually 'knowing something' and might have wanted to spread the world about it , would just have to be ridiculized , marginalized (or worst) , it would be a classical "who do you believe , the mans that got to the moon , or some secondary [insert relevant job related one way or another to the apollo missions] guy ?" put in minority , im certain that a lot of peoples wanted to speak about this , but the years passes , everyone don't care , and they wouldn't want to 'risk' to be put on ban for the rest of their life , with little chances to successfully manage to stay alive if they where really 'dangerous' for the high ranked criminals behind the fraud .



Open mind don't mean taking every single possibility to be equal when they are certainly not , your latche theory is far better than the flagpole rotation one , and still didn't manage to convince me as a serious alternative theory to the more obvious (by a very large margin IMO) and clear , wind gust , and for example in your open mind , did you manage to take into account the possibility that thise apollo 15 missions (at least) was faked (and then enabling the possibility of the wind gust that you seems to have eliminated for 1/6th g apparent motion) ? i don't ask you if this possibility would be equal in your mind , just if you can at least imagine this , i have the feeling that you can't , no offense there , just a question.

LLL-

May I ask you a question? It is about motive, rather than method.

Why would the U.S. do this thing you say the mathematical odds dictate?

One thing to note here. Slowing down the video to simulate lower gravity is not possible when you consider the video is hours long, was broadcast live and includes actions and speech that are reactions in real time to requests from mission control.

We all have bias , your bias that this scene can't be filmed anywhere else than in a vacuum because you see what you believe to be genuine 1/6th g motions and no dust , is a clear bias ,
it is perfectly possible to make believable 1/6th g motion and having a powdery material that don't make visible dust on earth , and the substance is that flag is moving exactly like you would expect one to move , if it was affected by the wind gust of that passing-by astronaut , it's even more obvious if you slightly accelerate the video , this flag will certainly move in a pendulum motion , this flag is certainly (as we can see on the video from 8 to 25 seconds ) not a very soft flag , it will not ripple like a soft satin flag , not on earth nor on the moon , with no atmosphere on the moon , this scene is supposed to be filmed on a vacuum , but simple observation quickly reveal that , given the most probable possibility of why this flag start moving from a standstill , it was not filmed on a vacuum , that is the substance , the lack of any serious alternative answer except the wind gust is enough of a substance no ?

because you realise that if this flag move by a wind gust , this is already enough substance to completly discredit apollo 15 mission at the very least , and of course from that point , to question the entire apollo missions.



I am gald to see that you do think it was impossible , and i didn't questioned the amplification of the movement , but just the fact that , it would have to be quite a nice amplificated movement to make that clear motion of the flag , lasting several seconds , and bias argument is irrelevant.

By the way , simple observation of the video prove without big doubts , that your movement amplification being enough to yeld a clear motion of the flag don't hold a single second , when the astronaut planted the flag , the flag started to move up/down motion including visible upper edge motion , and yet the flag just dampen softly , and certainly not start to randomly move as much as the 2'37" motion when some amplified motion reach the lower right corner , the reason is very simple , this flag is not very soft , and here we talk about visible motion of the flag pole/upper edge , so imagine in your theory with 1/6th g plus friction , how soft and how unoticeable such movement would have been.

But this flag wasn't very soft , you can see it when he plant the flag , the propagation of that tiny movement in a very soft material can very well make a large motion on the lower right corner yes , but it was not a soft flag , this lower right corner move clearly first.



Your rotation theory missed the fact that this scene was supposed to be filmed on a 1/6th g environment , and speaking about the motion of the flag , you can see when the astronaut plant the flag , how the flag move , the movement of the flagpole and upper edge are clearly visible and the flag is moving quite clearly , your unseen rotation of the flag on a 1/6th g wouldn't in any cases make such a clear motion of the flag lasting for several seconds , the whole thing would move at 1/6th g the friction that prevented that rotation would still be there just not anymore enough to prevent this flag to rotate , it wouldn't even be a 1/6th g 'free rotation' but a 1/6th g rotation with friction , how much and how pronounced of a rotation would be needed considering the 1/6thg and the friction to make such a clear motion of the flag ? certainly enough to be seen , this is not the case there.



Good to show your bias in public , you see , the bias argument don't hold even more than your flagpole rotation theory , since we all have bias, im am indeed an Human Being , with his bias just like you.



well there is someting concrete that puzzles me yes , why is this flag moving exactly like if it was affected by a wind gust , on a supposed atmospherless moon surface ? i just registered and posted my first message about this issue , i don't see why i souldn't think this is something concrete.

Addressing why i think it was , sure , i think it was faked because this flag is moving exactly like he was affected by a wind gust , i don't see why i shouldn't think that , because i do think that this flag as moved because of a wind gust , it is the most probable possiblity hands down , from now on , i have yet to read a better explanation than this one.

Hi Mid,
your history about your love for airplanes reminded me of a documentary about Neil Armstrong´s life and his love for airplanes.It was a time ago when I still believed that men went to the moon.I really admired that guy!!! But when I started to pay atention to the details and noticed that it was all a hoax,I got very disapointed with him.In fact,I still keep respect for Mr Armstrong because he prefers to be far away from the public and keep quiet instead of telling lies to the world.I am sure that he is a good man.

Fantastic LLL !!! Due to my bad english,I would never be capable of explain the scene as you did...But it is all I would like to describe about it... Thanks!!

Well my english is very bad as well so i am happy if you understanded my explanation , unless you where sarcastic about that of course hehe.

Yes Frenat...This one escaped from editing.Can you imagine the quantity of film/picture that were edited and burned before we had access to them? For some reason ,this one is available .So each of us can take our own conclusions about that.There are no doubts that this video was filmed on earth.Moon landing believers have an impossible and absurd task to convince us that this was filmed on moon surface!!!

Thank you very much Turbonium!!!

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

This video seems to indicate that the constellations were aligned, enough to allow a moving object to be seen on camera, and occurring prior to an unrelated passing body.

LLL, Mid loves joking.And this is one of the funniest jokes that he brought to us here.His desperate conclusion about the flag movement is really strange.But I keep respecting that guy!

this is one of my favorite video indeed , playing in favor of the wind gust , since the atmosphere is all around , atmospheric disturbance can be a little bit ahead of the object causing that disturbance , that's what happen there look how the lower right corner move first.

Thank you, since the others are ignoring me, has anyone tried to denounce radio triangulation as the method used by other countries to establish locations in space?

Perhaps you missed this:






Cz

And I've given a couple of replies too, see #3320.

I doubt if the average hoax believer could give any account of how triangulation works, but that won't stop them denouncing it if they think it could be used to support Apollo. You frequently see arguments suggesting that transmissions from the moon could be faked by satellites in low orbit.

Never, I ponder, in the field of human conflict, have so many words been expended on the topic of one flag.

Ok, for those who've floated the theory that the videos shot on the moon were slowed down to simulate low gravity, what about the film shot in zero G? How did they simulate that?

LLL, I have a few questions regarding the flag.

- From 0:37 to 0:46, one of the astronauts moves from the one end of the flag towards the flagpole end of the flag, walking right by the flag. We can still see some very light swinging from the flag's end in the beginning of the video, but it's quite dampened.
- At 1:29 to 1:40, the other one of the astronauts runs into screen towards the already still flag, and stops next to it.

In an atmosphere, both of these movements would unavoidably have created some movement in the air. Both cases move quite close to the flag, and seeing as air would be disturbed all around the astronaut, I would expect the flag to move. However, doesn't make any movement at all (except for the initial swinging from the flag inserting). Quite to the contrary, the flag remains perfectly still. Where did the atmosphere go?

37 to 46 seconds the flag is still moving from being planted , and the astronauts is very close , but very slow and don't jump , he clearly don't make any pronounced atmospheric disturbance , and as i already think that this flag is not that soft , (watch the video from 8 to 25 secondes its seems pretty obvious to me at least) such slow movement even that close to the flag would not be noticeable , and at 1"29" to 1'31" the astronaut does come close to the flag , be he is pole side, and in fact doesn't make any noticeable motion that would lead to think we should expect an atmospheric disturbance reaching that sensible part of the flag (in the other side in this case) because he stops , unlike at 2'37" where he pass-by without stopping , at least he move from left to right entering and exiting the frame at a decent speed on the sensible part of the flag .

Simple, they decided to take their movie production to the nearest spot where one could have open terrain at 1/6 Earth gravity and zero gravity(for the trip there)...so they went to the moon...err, wait a minute here!

edited to make sense!

Well for one you can't simulate zero gravity on the moon, as there is gravity. Second, all the z-g shots could have been filmed in earth orbit.

You keep making this comment about the flag not being very "soft".
That's because it looks stiff, since there's nothing moving it, and since it's being held out by a horizontal support, for obvious reasons, and because it was all crinkled up in a tube where it was stored pre-flight in the LM.

It was a common nylon material flag, right off the shelf from a store. No different than any other American flag.

Somehow, I think you're going to argue this untenable idea of a wind gust forever.

I asked you some questions that would be contributory to the premise of this thread:



Since you seem reluctant to let go of this tiny insignificant piece of "evidence" of a wind gust, we'll just have to allow you your beliefs. It's a non-issue, as has been clearly indicated, especially in the face of the other evidence to the contrary...in that very snippet of film you want to hang on to.

How about addressing the real thing and answering the questions posed?

-edit-

and why did you say it was a common flag ? a flag with a solid upper edge is not that common , this upper edge will make the whole rectangular surface of the flag less soft , and looking at the video from 8 to 25 seconds , you can see that this flag , even when applied some large movement , don't riple / waves like a very soft flag (including amplified movement).

None of your question interested me more than this , that's why i didn't answered , it would have been a bit too vague , but if you insist , in a way they all 'puzzle' me since this flag move exactly like we should expect one to have moved if it was affected by a wind gust , so from this point , since this scene is clearly not filmed in a vacuum at least , as long as any other serious alternative possibility have been found other than this wind gust that is , the logical questions are , where the whole apollo 15 video faked ? where the whole apollo missions faked ? and then yes it include the saturn V power , the LM , the translunar course injection , the ridiculous apollo 16 and 17 , 'back to home' EVA to retrieve some photos , insane risk after undocked , landed , liftoff , docked again , everyone is safe , but hey , let's risk an EVA now that we're going back home ... , the fact they've launched apollo missions in solar peak years wich is the most impossible timeframe to predict solar flares , that are considered unpredictable to this day by the way , but at least predict an higher risk , the fact that no one ever managed to cross our protective magnetosphere since the alleged 1972 apollo 17 mission , and never had managed to do it other than in these apollo missions , a lot of clues yes , but my main issue , is that moving flag , i hardly take this as insignificant , of course it is your right to say it is , but for me it is a clear piece that prove , this apollo 15 scene at least was filmed on earth , putting more than high doubts on the whole apollo 15 missions and the precedent and following missions of that program as well .

Hat,

With all due respect, you only assume he doesn't speak (as many people do), because he is, and has never been overt about self-promotion or over-inflation of his own self-importance.
He is continually doing engagements, as he has for decades. He speaks of Apollo all the time, his experiences, the import of the program, and to engineeering groups, etc. It is a myth that he has remained quiet.

It is not a myth that he did not, and does not savor public attention. This, as unusual as it may seem in this day and age, is a virtue...it is not a sign of hiding something.


The "problem" with Neil, something which the HBs tend to take as evidence of some hoax, is that Neil is a man of impeccable character and humility. He was not, and is not interested in personal fame. The aftermath of Apollo 11 (fame and public attention) was something he was not comfortable with, and yet, he handled himself with a grace and dignity that is nearly unparalleled. And, he has handled himself as such ever since.

The man is the model of an American Hero. His conduct is unusual, and heartening, in an age where people tend to want to self-promote at all costs. Neil does not. He was a research pilot, doing his job. The greatest moment of his life was landing on the Moon, not being the first man to set foot upon it. He rated landing a 10 of 10, walking on the Moon about a 2 of 10...yet, people think he's some kind of God because he happened to be first to walk on the Moon.

He was handed the world on a silver platter, and he did not take it. This was because of his impeccable character. If you listen carefully to him, he never says "I" when referring to Apollo's accomplishments. He always says "we". This is highly indicative of the man's impeccable character.

Your respect for Mr. Armstrong is warranted.

I might suggest that you get yourself a copy of his biography, finally released in 2005. It is entitled "First Man", by James R. Hanson, Simon and Shuster. It is the best book concerning an Apollo figure ever written, and was approved, and un-edited by Neil Armstrong.

This book will tell you things you never knew about an enigmatic hero, and a very human being...just like you and me. It's a big book (over 700 pages). If you admire Neil Armstrong, you'll do so even more after reading this revelation of the man's humanity, integrity, and character.

Not to my knowledge, Sir.

No, no...I am asking you about your doubts...not vague, specific.




No, no, again...a very logical, and probable explanation has been advanced. Your lack of knowledge about physics makes it untenable to you.
I've already told you you may have your beliefs about this irrelevancy...






Well, we're getting somewhere here (almost)...but too many places at once.

Pick one...at a time, and ask about your specific doubts pertaining to it.

We'll be happy to give you the information you need.


Your list includes the following:

Saturn V.
the LM.
Translunar Injection.
The AS15-17 EVA in cis-lunar space to retrieve film mags from the SIMBAY cameras (not just 16 and 17).

To name a few.
Pick one (you can go to another later). What about it makes you think it shows Apollo to be a fake?

Your explanation of the flag motion is the least probable of every single explanation i've read since the first time i saw this video being the less probable it fail to be the most logical , don't try to blame my lack of knowledge of physics on that one , i don't think anyone there take your flagpole rotation explanation to be serious (and i myself tough it was a real joke when i read it for the first time) , you obviously forgot that the friction was still there , and that the whole scene is supposed to have been filmed in 1/6th g , the rotation of that flag would have been , so small , so soft and slow on these condition , it wouldn't have been noticeable .

So yes A15 , A16 , A17 in this case , these EVA are completly out of the scale in term of acceptable risk to me , they just managed to survive 200+ hours of mission including 1 lunar landing (extreme risk) 18 hours of lunar eva at least , any possible critical event that could have failed the mission , but , they manage to risk a last EVA to retrieve some photos outside of the CM , this is ridiculous , who is gonna believe this ? this is a complete failure of mission priorities there , they find a way to attach a lunar rover outside of the LM but for the photos you need an additional EVA while going back home ? how come ...

-edit-

this totally unlogical additional EVA risk while going back home , is so absurd , that's one of the clue that make me think these missions where faked , it looks like a bad scneario last minute addition to 'add drama' and 'awe' for these spaceboys heroes.

Again, you are entitled to the opinion that it was "absurd" but what was so absurd about it?

Keeping in mind that:

- performing EVA's was something that was accomplished many years before by the Soviets, and then during the Gemini Program and also during Apollo 9, and

- the cameras were part of the Service Module (which was going to burn up in Earth's atmosphere),

- the only physical link between the CM and the SM was and the umbilical connector,

how would YOU have recommended that the astronauts retrieved the film?


Hopefully you will soon be able to provide some kind of evidence beyond your own uninformed opinions as to why these things were not possible.



Cz

There you go! That's what I'm talking about, LLL!

You speak to "unacceptable risk" to you.

Tell me, LLL, are you a mission planner, ever been a research pilot, or an engineer involved in matters aerospace?
I ask because your opinion regarding unacceptable risk hinges on your qualifications as pertains to risk assessment. All the folks I mentioned above have such qualifications. Do you?

I am thinking not. I also am thinking that you have no idea about "managed risk". Let's can the "ridiculous" , "unlogical", and "absurd" comments, OK? Just get to the questions...no one's here to bite your head off...unless of course you insist on it. We're here to teach you something you don't know.

That's the fun of this stuff!

There are many incoherent statements in this paragraph (such as that statement about finding a way to attach an LRV outside the LM (they did no such thing--the LRV was an ingenious piece of engineering, which was stowed inside of one of the LM descent stage's quads...where there was room for it)).


But I think your real question here is, "How come" they did an EVA to get the picture mags from the mapping cameras stowed in the SIMBAY on the SM?"

Right?

Here's how come:


First: the EVA to retrieve these magazines was as risky as any other aspect of flight in space (it's all risky to a degree, today, or then). However, the techniques used to execute those EVAs were proven years earlier during the Gemini Program. We were in a known realm there. The risk was well managed and the techniques trained for and proven many times over prior to Apollo 15.

Second: The reason we went EVA to retrieve these canisters is simple. The cameras and scientific equipment were put in the only place they could be put, given their volume---in one of the SM bays that was re-designed for the purpose on all the "J" missions (there was no place else to put them!).

Now, the SM (Service Module), as you may or may not know, was jettisoned from the CM prior to the latter's re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere. The SM itself eventually re-entered the atmosphere and burned up, not being designed for such a trauma. The only part of the Apollo stack that came back was the CM. The CM was specifically and brilliantly designed to fly in the atmosphere and be guidable (by lift vector adjustments), and to absorb and ablate the heat of re-entry at 35,000 FPS. Entering with an SM attached would not be wise, as the complex aero loads and destruction of an irregular spacecraft filled with volatile hypergolics and cryogenics would cause unbelievable loads on the CM, explosions, render her uncontrollable, and cause the death of the crew onboard...without a doubt (have any idea what would happen to a Command Module that happend to turn pointy end forward into the atmosphere at 7 miles per second???... ).

...now THAT would be an uncalculated, unmanaged, and utterly stupid risk!

Given that we jettisoned the SM prior to entry, and the SIMBAY (SIM means, Scientific Instrument Module...) was (logically) located in the SM, we went EVA and collected the mags so we could bring them home...otherwise, there was no real point in having a SIMBAY, was there?

Basically, LLL, this all means we went EVA to get the mags so we could bring them home with us.


I hope that answers your question.

Now, what about the LM makes you doubt?
Again...ONE THING AT A TIME, please. It makes the discussion alot easier.