no , i am not a mission planner , did you planned any of these mission yourself ? if yes , you can indeed be considered a mission planner for these apollo mission issues , if not , you are not more mission planner than me on that one.

my main question was , why risking an accident when the most critical part of the mission where successfully achieved , lunar landing , lunar eva , lunar liftoff , rendez-vous , docking , pressurisation depressurisations , every random events that can occure i nthese already critical phases , yet you will have to make an additional EVA , after managind all these risk ? for you apparently these photos on the side of the SM where worth the failure of the entire mission (depressurisation accident) , or at least the life of one astronaut , and for your explanation , yes i understand why they would have to done this EVA in this case , it was the very meaning of this EVA after all these critical mission time , that for me shouldn't even have been planned anywhere , in other words they shouldn't have put this photo device outside and if they wouldn't have find any place , they just had to eliminate it for not being anywhere worth the risk , unmanned probes can very well take pictures as well.

One thing at a time , my main concern is the flag that move you know ? the LM doubts are related to this flag , as i mentioned in my last post , if the flagscene was not filmed on the moon (as it is obvious for about everyone except few peoples i guess) , this LM is indirectly suspicious , the key point being that flag , and i never wanted to deviate from that issue wich for me is the main concern so one thing at a time i agree , this flag first , yes , you answered my question , nothing that i ignored , since you think that this EVA was not an absurd additional risk , and my question was mostly how come someone believe these EVA are anything else than some show (riding the spacecraft as it going back to earth , a good film scenario for sure) .

I wouldn't have recommended any film to be retrieved by the need of an additional EVA after having successfully passed all the critical moment of these missions (lunar landing , lunar liftoff , docking , depressurisation for example ,
retrieving these photos on the SM is not looking like a task worthy of risking the whole mission failure after the biggest and main goals achieved , why didn't they attached a cable to the mag , with a device that would have put the mag somewhere on the upper part of the CM for example ? but clearly , this retreving of the mag requiring an EVA is not looking anywhere coherent with critical mission like these ones , that are the most criticals missions ever achieved to this day (if real of course...)

The problem here is that you are taking what YOU think is an unacceptable risk, applying that to the issue at hand and coming to the conclusion that it can't be done or, that they should have done it a different way which makes more sense to YOU and because they didn't do it that way, you conclude that it couldn't have been done the way it was.

Its very easy for us to sit here, 40 years later and say "well, it would have been easier if they had done this" or "We can do this now, why couldn't we back then". Hindsight is, as they say, 20/20. But the reality is that in the early to mid 60's when the LM, CM & SM were being designed, they did the best they could with the available technology. And when the best of the day wasn't good enough, they invented the material, the process, the system or the technology that was.

So for you to say (and I'm paraphrasing a bit) "I don't believe the missions were real because they should have come up with a different, safer and more logical to ME system for retrieving the film" is fine as long as you realize that that is your opinion only, and that opinion is not a basis upon which to say that the missions were faked.

Could they have designed a different way to retrieve the film? Maybe. But it doesn't matter if they could have or not, they did it the way they did, and it worked the way it was designed to. Was it dangerous? Hell yes, it sure was, but the WHOLE MISSION was dangerous. Can you honestly see the mission planners sitting around a table saying "Ok... we've strapped these 3 guys into a rocket with 6+ million pounds of fuel that could explode with the force of a small A-bomb, lit the rocket, hurled them into space, thrown them at the moon, had them land, walk and drive around a bit, pick up some stuff, get back up to orbit and head them on the way home and maybe they'll burn up on re-entry, but I think its too much to ask them to get out of the CM for 20 minutes or so to get a few rolls of film"?

Could they have designed a camera system to fit inside the CM? Maybe. But the camera system they HAD was too big to fit inside the CM. The Panoramic Camera system was 5' x 2.5' x 2.25'. The Mapping Camera was 2.75' x 3.75' x 1.25' (Source: ALSJ - The Apollo Scientific Instrument Module (SIM) Cameras). The two combined would have taken about 40 cubit feet of space inside the CM which only had about 220 cubic feet of space to begin with. It was more logical, technologically easier and probably safer for the astronauts to put those systems into the SIM bay.

The dangers were real. The risks were real, but they managed and minimized them as much as they could. Prior to the EVA, they shut down the SIM bay experiments, shut down the RCS thrusters on that side of the SM, they put covers on the control panels to prevent an errant foot from indiscriminately hitting the switches, the astronaut was tethered to the CM, they added handrails to the side of the SM to aid the astronaut in traversing down to the SIM bay, they put boot holders in the SIM bay so the astronaut would have an easier time manipulating the equipment, the pressurization system had been tested, both on the ground and on previous missions. They knew the risks and prepared for them as best as they could.

The bottom line is that the astronauts knew it was a risky endeavor, but they accepted those risks and knew that the mission planners and spacecraft designers had done everything they could to minimize those risks. I heard it said on a History Channel documentary (Turning Points Of History: The Eagle Has Landed) that the astronauts "were willing to accept death, but would not accept failure" and I think that one statement alone speaks volumes for the character, nerve, daring, imagination and gut of those fine men who went to the Moon just as history records that they did.

That is the spirit that was needed to take men to the Moon.


Cz

LLL

I personally find these kind of arguments wholly unconvincing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance


You're entitled to your opinion that they should have done something differently, but how can you possibly use that as evidence Apollo was faked? I can't believe people would attempt to climb Everest without oxygen but apparently they have. Does my disbelief or incredulity cast doubt on whether it happened or not? To do that I'd have to provide empirical evidence that demonstrates it would be impossible to do, not just state my disbelief and use that to try and leverage people toward my opinion.

Your posts on the Apollo 15 flag issue were in the main quite detailed and well reasoned, and addressed actual evidence. That's the sort of thing it's possible to have a rational discussion about, because we have some hard evidence we can consider, even if our conclusions do differ.

Nice try, LLL.
I'm asking about your specific knowledge and qualifications as pertains to flight test programs and risk management.
I confess that it was a semi-facetious question, as it is apparent that you do not have the requisite knowledge to make an assessment about the risk involved in a procedure that we had already fully fleshed out.




No, no, managing risk means eliminating it as much as is possible through extensive testing, and re-testing, on the ground and in flight, unmanned and manned. The risks involved in the entire chain of Apollo mission events was manged in this way. It doesn't mean eliminating them. It means minimizing them to acceptable levels where everyone involved accepts them as adequate, and of lesser value than the benefits to be attained by undertaking them.

The risks of all those phases of flight that you spoke to were manages PRIOR to undertaking the missions. The risk involved with EVA such as those used on AS15 through 17 had been managed years before. It was more than acceptable to the CMPs who did them (they each had the time of their life doing them).

Frankly, no one involved with Apollo would've gone on a mission if they didn't think they had a very good chance of surviving, and if they didn't think they had a reasonably good chance of accomplishing their mission goals.

They were risking little on these EVAs, frankly (relative to other phases of the mission)...as I told you, these procedures had long before been completely fleshed out and mastered.




Let's think about that for a minute.

First of all, yes, I thought it was worth it, and so did Al Worden, Ken Mattingly, and Ron Evans, the three men who gladly executed these EVAs in cis-lunar space.

Secondly, there is no possibility of a depressurization accident and a complete mission failure from an EVA. The cabin cannot be depressurized in an accidental fashion, as it's depressurized in a very deliberate fashion, as it has to be, prior to opening the hatch.

Now, you mention the loss of an astronaut.
That's always a possibility. We're not talking about tiddly-winks here, we're talking about spaceflight. There are always risks inherent in it.


However, we go back to the concept of managed and acceptible risk again.
You had three men on board, all of whom had trained incessantly for their respective functions on EVA.
You had a space suit which was like a suit of armor, and which had never failed in hundreds of tests and practical experiences, including EVAs.
You had never seen a failure of an EVA suit, on Gemini or Apollo.
The method of doing a zero-g EVA had long been mastered.
The suit had redundant emergency systems in case of a pressure fail, and so did the CSM in the event of a problem re-pressurizing.

The risks, frankly, were minimized, and completely acceptible to all flight crews.

As to unmanned probes...

Think about it.
Why would you spend the money to send unmanned probes when you had a perfect vehicle to store and use this equipment from in the SM? The Apollo J missions were planned to be full-out scientific missions, and that included surface and orbital studies.

What you're saying here is that we should not have utilized the SM and a CMP EVA to recover precious film canisters because it was too dangerous!

Too dangerous, after having traversed the distance to the Moon, executed complex orbital ballet and a lunar landing, gone out on the surface three times, and launched from the surface, executed successful rendezvous and docking, and fired the SPS to get on the way home again?

The EVA in cis-lunar space was a stroll in the park compared to what had transpired before it.




It is "obvious" to a very few...
What is obvious to the educated observer is that these films were in fact taken on the Moon.





Ahhh...

Look, I told you already, since you wish to adhere to a few seconds of film that has already been reasonably and logically explained, and which is obviously shot on the surface of the Moon, fine. If that's all you have, then you have nothing. There's no point in discussing it further.

You obviously do not have the requisite knowledge of simple physics, nor the inclination to experiment for yourself, and prove them out in your own mind.


Now:

I thought your question was
"How come they did EVAs like this" (that's what you asked).

Then you said, in this very post that your main question was having to do with why they risked it.

Now, you're saying that your question is "how come someone believes these EVA are anything else than some show?"

Do you see how patience might wane?
You playing games here. You asked three separate questions. Which one is the real one?

Let me answer your third real question:

No one involved "believes" that these EVAs were anything but what they were. In fact, we know what these EVAs were. Highly trained men executing a procedure than had been documented to the umpteenth degree in order to retrieve high-zoot film canisters containing photographic materials that we needed.

If anyone was actually watching these things happen when they did (highly unlikely to any great extent), they did indeed make a hell of a show.

But the only people who believe such nonsense as the idea that these were just a show put on (for what reason I cannot imagine), when hardly anyone was paying attention to Apollo at the time, are those who know nothing about what was going on, the purpose of it, the methodology employed, the vast planning of every move made, and of course, the science and technology involved in the process.

HBs, in other words.

The bottom line is this:

If you insist on adhering to a few moments of motion in a flag...motion that most reasonable and plausible explanations have been provided about, and wish to do so in the face of the countless hours of Apollo video that clearly show 1/6 g vacuum behavior (including this very piece of film!), than you are much less inquisitive and interested in knowing something than I gave you credit for.

It's a dead issue. The film was obviously shot on the Moon. There's no air there...never has been. Find me the air on Apollo 11 video, where that flag stood there dead still for the entire time it was in the single view we all had of it. Find me any piece of Apollo 15 video where that flag twitches! It doesn't move because it's sitting in a vacuum on the surface of the Moon.


This has now become silly.


If you have some real questions...feel free to ask them, but if you want to adhere to this idea that a couple seconds of motion in a flag on the Moon invalidates Apollo, you're in the wrong place...

If it is silly for you , just ignore it , you have submited your flagpole rotation theory , if you believe if to be the most probably explanation it is your right , i don't have the same opinion on that one that's all.

This is your point of view , this issue is completly relevant on the topic to me , this issue has not yet being answered with a strong alternative than the wind gust possibility (as incredible as it could seems for some) , your particular flagpole rotation theory is certainly not anything strong to explain this flag motion , and if someone had made a mistake in the understanding on basic physics there , it would be you , as i mentioned you forgot that friction will still be present , you forgot that this whole scene was supposed to have been filmed in 1/6th g condition , the rotation of that flag wouldn't be anything visible considering this , the 'proofs' that these scene where filmed
in a vacuum are mostly a point of view more than anything else , since this flag appear to move because of a wind gust , you can't totally ignore the possibility that these scenes (at least this one ) where filmed in an atmosphere , if my question don't appear real to you , you are totally free to ignore my question , i was mostly asking this question to anyone interested , not to you in particular , and if no one is interested , then no one will answer , and my question will just 'die from is own death' then , i have already some direct answer to my question , even if none of them convinced me that this flag moved from anything else than a wind gust yet .

LLL I fully agree with you.By the way,I didn´t know that astronauts went out of the CM orbiting the moon to take pictures of it? Is that true? Did I understand it well? If this fact really happened,it is another huge indication that apollo missions were all a tremendous hoax!!!

no , a system taken photos of the moon surface , panoramic and all this , and this sytem was attached to the side of the service module (wich was attached to the command module) since the service module would have to be jettisoned before re-entry , they have to make an EVA to retrieve the mag of photos from this outside device , and i personally think that this additional EVA (that they made on the way back to earth in cislunar space , wich is not a mastered space at all since there is no magnetosphere protection at all , but of course this is my point of view on this i agree EVA are probably much less dangerous than lunar landing , but for me it seemed an uneccesary additional task while they have made the major goal already .

No, Hat, that is not true.
Nothing of the sort was ever said or implied.

As I said, you're welcome to it.
Ignoring you will follow, if all you intend to do is argue a skewed opinion...





That you do not understand that it most certainly has is distressing...










No, I did not. Friction is what was overcome by gravity to cause the rotational twitch in the insert tube, which was, of course, canted away from the gravity vector. This was implied in my original discussion...




And you forgot to quantify that argument, by telling me, as I asked you, just how much different the perhaps 1/64 to 1/32 inch rotational motion of that pole inside it's receiver tube motion might be in 1/6 g.


There is a reason why you didn't.




They are obvious.




I am pleased you understand...

Ok,thanks for the explanation.
And I agree with you again...I didn´t know that this EVA was needed.What a tremendous absurd it is.
You see ,MID, as we exchange informations in this forum,we gather more and more indicatrions that men never went to the moon.And LLL is right.If the flag moved on apollo 15 indicating that it was filmed on earth,it is automaticaly proved that all apollo missions were faked.

Why am I not surprised...?


As was indicated by MID earlier, that claim was never made. You are obviously misunderstanding the events in question. This could be due to the fact that English is not your first language (not that there's anything wrong with that), or that you are purposely posting these misleading interpretations in some effort to further an HB agenda.

If it is the former, then perhaps a little more care in reading the posts would help you in your interpretations, and if still unclear, asking for a clarification should help remove any further confusion.

If it is the latter, then I suggest that this forum is not suitable for your agenda as you will eventually be ignored as background noise.

Now, all that said and behind us, even IF the astronauts HAD taken pictures from outside the CSM to take pictures, that in itself would not be an indication of a "tremendous hoax" since they would have had to have been in Lunar orbit anyways, which itself negates a large portion of most Hoax claims, and that theory could also not have explained how the pictures, video and the documented quantity of rock and soil samples from the Lunar surface were obtained.


Cz

LLL explained it for me Czero. And I still think that it was an absurd risk to go out there and get the camera.What a tremendous absurd and another huge indication that it was all a hoax!!!!

And yet you still show no understanding of it whatsoever.




No, Hat, what is tremendously absurd here is the fact that you continually post tripe like this and seemingly show no intentions whatsoever of actually learning about this subject that you so obviously know so little about.


The information that is being gathered here is that it is becoming more and more apparent that your only reason for being here is to blindly agree with with any fantastic, unproven claim put up by anyone who appears to have similar ideas as you. Time and time again you prove yourself to be someone who has no intention of taking any time to actually LEARN about Apollo, to ask questions with the intention of actually learning from the answers provided and no intentions of doing any actual research on your own to educate yourself on the topic being discussed. You are apparently choosing to be a troll rather than taking the opportunity to gain actual knowledge of the single most amazing technological achievement in mankind's history from people who have studied it extensively or, in some cases, were an actual participant in it.

You claim it all a hoax and yet you have shown nothing but apparent deliberate ignorance and continual "misunderstandings" to back up your hand-waving claims of a hoax. You have no evidence, no proof, just an opinion, and a poor one at that.

This is my last response to you. Have a good day.


Cz

MID, you are an inteligent guy. I think it is time for you to accept that the appolo 15 moving flag is an important event. If you could analise impartialy only for one day that video ,I am sure that it would be very hard for you to believe that it was filmed on moon surface.

LLL is right.You should accept the easiest answers as true,just as the doctors do before prescribing treatments to their patients.And 99.9% of times , they are right. This is almost a rule taught on medicine universities. Your delirious answer for that flag moving has not to be considered (I am sorry for my honesty about it).Not only your conclusion.All propagandists conclusions about that event were very weak and inconclusive.

Another important point.We have to prove that men never went to the moon using videos and materials provided only by one "person".The "accused" (NASA).Do you think that the accused will provide you with information that will put him in jail? Never! If one video escaped from NASA´s scissors,then we have to show it to the whole world.And you have to accept that in this condition,one flag moving is enough to show us that apollo missions were all faked.

A flag moved by an air gust would only occur in the presence of atmosphere (Earth).Apollo missions were a hoax.Men never went to the moon.

You are being a troll! And very ignorant as well!!
Actually I did a research about a flag moving by an astronaut passing by it and I concluded that it was filmed on EARTH ,where we have ATMOSPHERE!!!!
You have to prove me where is the incoherence here.And stop being a troll if you don´t have an inteligent answer to bring up here.

I haven't been following the thread, so apologies if repeat something that has been said or already resolved. LLL is looking at the risk associated with the EVA on the journey back to Earth.

It's a fair call, and something the mission planners would have looked at. Lets have a look at it, but remember that what we are looking at is risk versus benefit, not just risk. BTW, this is just an abbreviated version of what would have gone on; HRAs are much more complex.

You have a scientific module you want to utilise. It will gather important data. It can be carried inside the spacecraft or outside.

PRO: If you carry it inside, you eliminate a lot of the risks associated with having to retrieve it from outside the spacecraft. If there is a malfunction, it will probably be easier to fix.

CON: Carrying the whole package inside the spacecraft takes up additional living space, limiting size of package. Utilising from within the spacecraft will eliminate some of the benefits of using it outside (ambient readings, special cameras, limited by docking / viewing windows, etc).

So what do we think about if we do an EVA to retrieve the data package?

- It's a (CM) cabin depres/repres, and you want to keep them to a minimum... or not at all.

- Contingency procedures for an inability do get a hard dock with the returning ascent stage require the ability to safely do an EVA. This means that the system must be confident of being able to do at least one cycle. If a contingency EVA is required for the LM, then perhaps scrubbing the SIM bay retrieval EVA will be an option.

- The EVA will be after all other major mission objectives have been achieved (e.g. lunar landing and return). It can be scrubbed at any time without affecting overall mission success.

- A test of the pressure suits is conducted before the CM hatch is opened. If there are any problems with astronauts suits, a rapid repress can be conducted.

- If it is found that after the EVA a hard seal cannot be obtained on the CM hatch and a cabin repress cannot be obtained, then the EVA can be planned to occur at such a time that their is sufficient O2 remaining for the crew to remain in pressure suits for the remainder of the return journey.

- Worst case scenario is being unable to close / latch the hatch at all. This must also be a consideration in case of contingency EVA. There is very high confidence in the hatch design but if the scenario occurred, I believe that it MAY have been possible to conduct re-entry with a partially open hatch. This scenario was considered for Gemini, in case of an astronaut becoming disabled during EVA.

So, looking at it holistically, there are risks - but in most cases there options if the hazard associated with that risk materialise. The gains for a single EVA (which must be planned for as a contingency in any case) are high and not economically achievable with other means. There are numerous risks associated with a lunar mission - with any spaceflight - and they considered this to be a justifiable one.

UNDER THE HAT,
Once again you are resorting to personal attacks and insults. You are fully aware that this is against the rules. I suggest that you stop this tactic immediately.

If you believe that someone is trolling then report the post, be aware though, someone expressing a view that opposes your own does not constitute trolling, it constitutes discussion and this is, after all, a discussion forum.

Admit it, MID, you've run into an expert here. I think you're gonna have to bow to superior knowledge.

To my mind, the pictures from the hi-res cameras on the last three Apollos are pretty good evidence for NASA being honest. These pictures are by a long way the best available for the strips of the moon they cover, and the sheer quantity of data contained in them make their retrieval by any means other than film return impossible. In other words, if they are real, they must have been taken by real Apollo missions, if they are fake, then NASA has given any other nation - eg Russia - a way to expose the hoax by getting actual hi-res pictures of the areas in question. Why should NASA do this? They didn't have to fly hi-res cameras, saying they flew them if they didn't would be a pointless risk.

Ok then...If I had hi-res pictures of "gone by the wind" would you accept that the history was true?Or perhaps a king kong hi-res picture! I don´t understand the logic of your argumentation.

Under The Hat

You seem to be making the same mistake various people have made in analysing the Apollo 15 video. Your explanation must be valid for all the data and evidence available in the clip, not just the initial movement of the flag. Here are some of those extra points below.

Motion of kicked up dust: is it commensurate with motion in an atmosphere and earth gravity?

Motion of flag after being moved is very regular and pendulum-like: is it compatible with motion in an atmosphere?

Time flag continues to oscillate: does it indicate an atmosphere or a vacuum?

Motion of astronauts: earth gravity or reduced gravity?

It's not sufficient to say "IMO the neatest explanation for the initial displacement of the flag is that it was filmed in an atmosphere, hence we can ignore all other evidence, hence Apollo was faked." You've thrown the baby out with the bath-water.

I'll try and use a better analogy than the "murder scene" from a few days ago. Ever seen the programme House? Great show. Typically, a patient presents to House and his team with a set of symptoms. The symptoms point to a particular diagnosis, and treatment is started accordingly. As the show progresses, new symptoms occur, rendering the initial diagnosis incorrect. Eventually a diagnosis is arrived at that explains ALL the symptoms.

Similarly, any conclusion you come to about this Apollo clip must hold true for the entire clip, not just the part where the astronaut bounces past the flag.

Just some thoughts!

First, I want to appologize to any and all, for acerbic comments. The truth is arrived at constructively, as I have noticed, here.

I agree with these observations regarding the question of atmosphere, and have added italicized remarks.

For example, I have a fine linen cloth, which measures 2ft. by 4 ft. It was suspended vertically using a clothes hanger, with one edge fixed to a wall. When I raise a flat object along the vertical (y) axis, trying to imitate the motion of the passing astronaut, the cloth responded to the motion, quite easily.

I conclude that it is likely, any such activity will be reproduced under any remotely similar circumstances.

And, since the flag is wrinkled, it must be made of lightweight nylon. It even looks like nylon, being so transparent to sunlight.

At 37 seconds into the video, the astronaut having his picture taken says, "Let me get up on the high part."

Hi-Res Image Of Astronaut, and LEM Camera Recording the Event, EVA 2

First of all,we have to know which kind of dust was used on that film.For me ,it is a cement dust that could be combined with another materials.We didn´t have access to that dust,so it is impossible to evaluate its behaviour when kicked up.


It depends on the flag material.NASA can say whatever they want about what the flag was made of.We were not there to verify if it was made of a soft or hard tissue.


It indicates that the film was slowed down to fake a low gravity scenario.


Earth gravity with video reduced speed and wires attached on the astronauts.



House is a great entertrainment TV show.This is the way you can compare it to NASA fake apollo missions.But please,don´t try to convince me that HOUSE is based on 100% clinical experiences.House shows the 0,01% of very rare cases that happens in the hospitals around the world.

Another very weird picture here.
Again,we can´t see the roover tracks behind its wheels.
In the gap between LM and the flag (if you maximize the picture-zoom in) the difference between the dark dust and white dust is absolutely impressive.You have the clear sensation that you are watching a great mountain picture on the background.

I also noticed the flag intially begins to move at 2:36. Yes, it is as the astronaut is passing by. But, apparently before he is aligned in time and place to suggest any reaction from his presence. The timing, perhaps, is not related to his speed, motion, or direction of travel.

Yes,perhaps it was just a breeze not caused by the astronaut´s movement. But I still think that the air gust was caused by the astronaut´s movement.

I prefer to look at the bigger picture and see all the times the flag didn't move.

First, the astronauts put the flag in its place. All good and stuff, and we can see the flag swinging because of all the rotation the astronauts did. Then, one of the astronauts walks by it from one end to the other. No gust of wind that moves the flag at all. Flag stays perfectly still. Then, the other astronaut comes in for some holiday snapshots. Flag stays perfectly still, no gust of wind. In fact, the flag does not appear to be disturbed by anything at all, except for this one single case. In other words, if there really was an atmosphere, the flag is completely unaffected by it, except for this one single exception. There are absolutely no "atmospheric disturbances", except for this one single time when the astronaut struts by.

Then, let's take is this one single exception itself. (Or this single case, time when the... whatever I just called it. It's really hard to keep coming up with synonyms, ya know.) As magnetar showed, the flag starts moving before the astronaut walks by. That wouldn't happen if the astronaut caused wind movement in an atmosphere-filled area. At the very least, this indicates that if it were caused by the presence of air, it was not the astronaut walking by that caused the flag to start moving. So, assuming it was taken in an atmosphere and it was air that caused the flag to move, we can say there's more air movement in this studio apart from the air movements caused by the astronauts (after all, if it wasn't the air movement caused by the astronauts, it was air movement caused by something else!). Let's call that extra air movement not caused by astronauts "the breeze".

(Remember, I'm speaking hypothetically here, under an assumption.) So, the flag moved by "the breeze" and not by "the astronaut". Where is this breeze? Where did it come from? Why is there only a breeze at that one moment? There is nothing like any air movement picked up by the flag for the whole film (not even when the astronauts walk right by it), and right this one moment it happens.



My point is, this assumed atmosphere only acts for one second in a two minute, fourty second film (not counting the time the flag takes to stop swinging; the fact it takes time to stop swinging has nothing to do with the presence of an atmosphere). The other two minutes and, thirty eight-ish seconds, nothing gives a show of an atmosphere.

I've read your previous posts, so I'm not surprised that you don't understand the logic. Let's try again:
NASA have published hi-res pictures of something that is definitely real, the surface of the moon. The question is not the reality of the moon, but the reality of the pictures. The Russians could have gone and taken their own pictures of the same bit of the moon at any time, they had the capability in the 1970s, they would not need to match the NASA resolution, just get something better than that available from any pre-Apollo source. (In reality they never did, but how was NASA to know they wouldn't?) The pictures are therefore checkable - if fake they can be proved fake. NASA did not have to publish this checkable data, they were not pressured by anyone to produce them, so the fact that they did suggests that the data will stand up to checking. This is evidence in favour of Apollo.

Hat, there is information exchange between you and whichever HB happens to come along and present something that supports your beliefs.

There is, apparently little information exchange coming from those of us who know something about Apollo, and you, or LLL, for that matter.

I'll tell you this, you're right.
IF that flag can be proved to have moved because of a "gust of wind", that would be convincing evidence of a fake.

However, you cannot prove that. You never will. Nor will LLL prove it.

No contention of any HB, ever, has been provable. Virtually all of them have been fully explained--filling in the blanks where the HB's knowledge is lacking, and many have been guided to understand what they were missing and why their position was in error.

Of course, belief is a very strong thing. It takes some people a very long time to ascend from faith and conjecture to knowledge. This, unfortunately is something we're going to have to live with, and so, I say this:


If you want to believe this tiny flag movement was caused by a wind gust, you're welcome to.
However, unless you're prepapred to prove the accusation, your case has been rendered moot by the knowledgable explanations put forth to the contrary, and the utter preponderance of the evidence available on the very films you cite as support for your idea.

This flag issue is an oft repeated and typical HB M.O., taking a miniscule part of a massive body of evidence to the contrary, and using it to declare proof of what the rest of the body of evidence clearly shows to be silly:

...case in point, 20 seconds of Apollo lunar suface video, out of almost 75 hours of TV from the surface. 7/1000 of 1 percent of the record...all of which shows clear evidence of 1/6 g vacuum operations, and you folks will adhere to this 1/14,000 of that record to "prove" your case. Utterly incomprehensible...


It is an absolutely untenable idea that the basic physics of my explanation (something that is common on Earth and can be illustrated in many forms) cannot be understood. Ever see a door in your house move all by itself? It shouldn't theoretically, but some doors, by virtue of gravity and a very slight misalignment, close all by themselves, or swing a little...sans any wind. Same principal...exactly.

But whatever, it doesn't matter.


You are declaring proof. You have none.
You are ignoring simple explanations, because you want to.

But as I said:

There will NEVER be an "official" explanation for this movement. Ever. We don't have the flag pole and cannot replicate the identical conditions that existed with it at the time. Besides, it doesn't matter one bit.

Thus you have alternatives:

1...You can understand the plausible reason for this motion given by people with some knowledge of science, physics, etc....
2...You can believe it was air, despite the complete lack of evidence for that...in the very film you cite (and in all other Apollo film).

I prefer the explanations of those who are literate in the sciences.
I also prefer not to dwell too much on such nonsense, because this little movement is not an important issue for anyone in Apollo. It is merely a curiosity. It means nothing, and it proves nothing.

Since there will never be an explanation that suits you, and since you cannot by any remote stretch of the imagination prove that it was air, the issue is closed.

Hat:

Impartial, logical, rational analysis of this inconsequential yet curious snippet of video is what led me to arrive at my idea about the motion.
Nonetheless, I do not accept that this is at all significant. It is explainable, but as I said, never shall it be officially explained.

It doesn't matter a bit. The preponderance of the evidence clearly shows this to be a 1/6 g vacuum, and in fact, Apollo 15 was instrumental in proving that for the world, when on the day after this little snippet of video was filmed, Dave Scott dropped a hammer and a feather (painfully plucked from the Air Force Academy's mascot falcon), and showed the facts of the matter.



Hat, I do accept the easiest answer.
The problem is, because of a lack of knowledge, you don't recognize the simplicity of the easiest answer and insist upon a complex and unprovable explanation.

Further...it's completely off topic to get into a discussion of modern medicine here (most of us engineering / pilot types have a healthy distain regarding the overt involvement of medicine in what we do), but if you and LLL think that doctors are 99,9% right in what they prescribe for their patients...you are grossly misled (of course it's a rule in modern medical schools...but again, let's not go there...it's completely off topic).




...what you must do with that one that "escaped" is show that it was air...and you won't, Hat. It's not possible.




Again, prove it, Hat.
If that's your accusation, you hold the burden of proof.

But again, I admonish you to ask about your doubts, not to argue untenable points. Learning is alot more fun than losing your case.

I am getting that impression.
The impeccability I am observing is becoming overwhelming...

Mid,the flag movement is there for everybody .An air gust is the most reasonable explanation for that.So,this is not me that have to prove something. Propagandists have the hard task to convince the whole world that the movement was not caused by an air gust.Please,don´t invert the situation.

Fly, your way to think about this issue only shows us how easy it was for NASA to cheat the whole world. If somebody can think like you, then NASA would be certain that we were all sheeps prepared to be cheated.Fortunately,NASA was wrong.There are inteligent beings among the sheeps to indicate the right way to go.It may take sometime,but everybody will know the truth about fake apollo missions.

Hat, you cannot see rover tracks "behind" the wheels because you are looking at the front of the rover...(you can't actually see "behind" the rover's wheels in this picture.


Regarding the "great mountain picture" in the background, you are correct. That is a mountain in the background.
One of those wild things about visual acuity in vacuum...you can see clearly for miles.


This photo is properly labeled AS15-92-12446, taken by Dave Scott of Jim Irwin (rest his soul...).
In the background you see Mount Hadley Delta, which is located at a distance of approximately 3.5 miles. It is about 11,000 feet tall.

You are looking at a great mountain picture...

Invert the situation???

Hat, I am losing patience with you.
A long post is reason to read it carefully, not neglect everything it says.

Of course the flag movement is there for everybody! What the hell does that mean?!

The issue is YOUR BURDEN OF PROOF, not ours. It never was ours. Burden of proof is firmly laid upon the accuser. Not the accused.

You cannot prove it, and don't hand me any of this crap about "inverting the situation". It's never been "inverted". The burden is on you as it always has been.


I suggest you go back and read carefully...everything.
Then, come back and ask what you like.

This issue is concluded.

Oh yes MID ,we can see behind the wheels.Look behind the front right wheel,(between the front and hear right wheels).You see....No tracks!

Mid, it is a pleasure for me to be part of this forum and have the oportunity to exchange information with somebody like you.Really.

I forgive you about your last agressive message.You really deserve it!

I am sure that you are a great guy. You can be sure that I would never send an agressive message for you. The coin has 2 sides and I have to be patiente with you as well,since we have different opinions about apollo missions.

If you don´t think that you are inverting the situation,ok! I will keep thinking that you are and nobody will change my mind.So, all we have to do is go ahead and leave this detail behind.

About accuser and accused - We have an astronaut passing by a flag , creating a flag movement by an air gust. If somebody accuses it not to be an air gust ,then this person has the burden of proof.

If you simply want to stop talking about an important event like this (and I can imagine how hard it is for apollo believers deal with it),no problems. But please don´t close the way of communication between us because another important issues will appear on this forum and I really want to discuss them with you.

Thanks!!!

Wrong! Very wrong! Couldn't be more wrong if you tried!

Whether you like it or not the truth of Apollo is accepted by the vast majority of the worlds population. More importantly it is accepted as fact by just about every expert in relevent fields in the world. It is accepted by just about every astronomer, astrophysicist, physicist, geologist, planetary scientist, aeronautical/astronautical engineer and all by a tiny fraction of professional photographers. That means that Apollo is the accepted truth. As such those that wish to overturn this perception have the total burden of proof. That is the wat that logic and the scientific method works.

What proof have you offered? None. You have offered your opinion but not proof or even much in the way of evidence. What you fail to understand is that not all opinions are equal. The opinions of the vast number of experts I have listed above out weight the opinion of a handful of conspiracy theorist every time.

This, of course, does not prove the experts are right, but those of us who understand logic and scientific method will continue to believe what those experts say until proof (or at the very least strong evidence) is offered to show they are wrong.

"I think that..", "I believe that..", "in my opinion..", "it seems to me that..", "could have..", "might have.." "possibly..". These are always present when an HB posts, they are opinions and as evidence they just don't cut it.

I am sorry waspie,I disagree with you.I don´t think that all NASA says is true.We don´t have to accept all that NASA says as a federal law.They commit errors and lie ! That is why we are here at this forum!

You are failing to understand the point. The point is that Apollo IS accepted as true (whether it is or not). It is up to the hoax believers to show that the accepted view is wrong. It is not up to the Apollo believers to prove Apollo happened because that is already accepted as fact by virtually everyone in the world. This is why you have the burden of proof.

The point is, that regardless of what you believe, you and all the other HBs have failed dismally to produce any hard evidence to support your beliefs. Hence you will always be regared as irrelevant and/or crackpots by the majority unless or until you do produce that evidence. That is not an insult, it is just the way it is, whether you are right or wrong.

Now the pertinent questions that you really should be asking yourself are these:

• If Apollo really is a hoax why can you not produce any real evidence?
• If Apollo really os a hoax why do none of the experts se it in the same way you do?
• Do you really believe that you have a better understanding of Apollo than all the worlds experts?

I ask the last question because they do not agree with you. They are highly educated in the relevent subjects and yet they not only do not see the evidence as being obvious that Apollo is a hoax but see the evidence as being obvious that Apollo is genuine.

When the astronaut pass close to the flag at 31 to 40+- seconds , he pass very slowly , he made somewhat cautious steps first then slow steps and go place himself for his flag-salute photos , also note that the flag is still moving a little from his last 'planted motion' , that mean that , if this flag was affected (a little eventually because the astonaut is moving veru slowly and no jumps nor fast arms movements) then this eventual motion would have been harder to catch , because the flag was already moving a bit , it was not from a standstill , after than , when the astronaut come at 1'27" , he is jumping a bit , but he is already decelerating (and come to a stop then turn around for hos photos) , he is also in the pole side of the flag , the pole is less affected by wind gust , the astronaut motion there , decelerating and stopping in the pole side , is not comparable at the passing-by astronaut in continuous motion jumping at the 2'37" frames , that's why you don't see any atmospheric disturbance there , because there shouldn't have any visible ones from these slow movements in the pole side.

Is the 2'37" passing-by astronaut movement , the fastest movement of that video ? , my answer is yes (from what we can see at least)
Is this astronaut passing-by on the sensible part of the flag ? , for me it's a clear yes , (i agree he is closer of the flag at 31-42 seconds tough , but much slower)
Is this flag moving when the astronaut pass close to it ? , my answer is yes , and i did see that the flag start a little bit before the astronaut is at the perpendicular of the sensible part of that flag , but this 2'36" frame is not the real start of that motion i think , this 2'36" frame is looking more like a color vibration / video compression issue , since looking at these 2 frames even the ground seems to move .

Also a question to everyone interested in that moving flag issue ,
If this scene was filmed on earth (just imagine this , no need to find a particular reason there) , will the flag move when the astronaut pass at that pace , in the 2'36" to 2'38" timeframe ?

, for me it is of course yes

A weird picture, perhaps in several contexts. I will admit, they sometimes present appearances that make me wonder just why they look so real (no atmosphere effects) or even with unfamiliar details.

The images taken around the LLM reveal a hub of activity. In one frame we might see a tire track, and in the next, a foot print or scuff of regolith. Which to me, indicates people are busy "hopping around", doing science with various experiments and equipment. I assume they were given a few minutes to rest inside the Lunar Lander Module.

In this image, I certainly think I can see a wheel track (pretty cool tires, if you ask me). I assume it was the result of the wheels on the side that the cameras are mounted on. There may have been discernable tracks clear up to the front wheels, at some point. But, the activity of boots and equipment moving about may have obscured anything being visible from the vantage of the camera and the picture taker.

another strange flag movement , in this video , at 10 to 16 seconds ,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmQ8UPekwTU

if this one not caused by an atmospheric disturbance , i wonder what could it be .

In other words, you can't think of a counter to my argument, so you just repeat your belief again.

Look closely at that picture, it's simply full of examples of rover tracks obscured by the dust from subsequent footprints. Does that give you a clue as to why you can't see a track behind the rover?

There's plenty of evidence in the TV and DAC record that shows the material was very flexible, just like nylon. It was also translucent, just like nylon. It also stayed wrinkled, just like nylon.



Pure speculation. Try looking at the film sped up. Doesn't look remotely realistic.



Again, pure speculation. There are many examples of TV footage where the astronauts display unnatural limb movements when sped up.



Sorry, you missed the point of he analogy, my fault for not being clear enough. Your theory (diagnosis) needs to explain (or at the very least, not contradict) all other available data (symptoms).

At the time stamp you gave, the astronaut is manhandling the flagpole. At the point where the flag flips up, it looks like he has grabbed hold if it near the flagpole. If this was filmed on earth, I wouldn't expect that to cause this kind of sudden motion.

How about in 1/6th gravity, in a vacuum? Doesn't seem unlikely to me.

This very issue was raised on the Education Forum a month ago. You can read my response here.

Here is an animated GIF I produced which shows the Hadley Delta taken from two slightly different vantage points - one out of the top hatch of the LM during the SEVA (stand up EVA prior to the first EVA), and the other one on EVA3 from behind the LM.



(Cropped animated GIF of AS15-87-11479 and AS15-88-11865).

-edit- showing the pictures twice wasn't needed.

And don't tell me that the mountain bit , in the upper left corner of your animated gif is looking the same for you ? , these are not the same it seems , the moon have moving mountains like that ?