The fraudulent claim of air and the Apollo 15 flag.

I think it is one of the most ridiculous and idiotic claims I have ever seen.

I have a big project coming up in a week's time so will be dumping this never ending repeat and rinse nonsense. If your proof that the Moon landings were hoaxed is a small snippet of video from one mission where you think it behaves like air, where it also behaves like a number of other things and subsequent bodily contact, then you deserve to be cast into that bog you referred to. What else is there? The serial forum spammer refuses to discuss anything else. It takes only a modicum of intelligence to see that all the so called hoax evidence is absolute hogwash, so why are you even entertaining this rubbish?

From a purely scientific standpoint, if you were 100% successful in showing that a flag behaves exactly that way, all you have done is proved that a tiny fragment of isolated video COULD have been faked. Hardly conclusive now is it? 382kg of lunar samples, that's conclusive even if that was all there were. But there are copious scientific reports, video, transcripts, photographs and third party evidence. What can hoax claimants do with the real evidence? Bluff at showing how maybe small segments of it could have been done, but offering no direct proof of that.

Your reference to the movement in my flag video has been mentioned many dozens of times. It occurs as he is level with it. Pixelation, air, I don't care.

Now, the big question you avoided again:-

I asked you quite specifically why the flag did not move as he approached it, just like the balloons. So, why didn't it? It was in front of him just like the balloons, had a slight flicker as he was level with it then followed him as he went past it. Completely unlike the balloons.

 

You wish to suggest that sound waves that move at 343 metres per second is the same as a human being running through air? Perhaps a sound wave can move a flag from over 4 feet away

Or is it the pattern of disturbance that you wish to draw a similarity upon?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bELu-if5ckU

Simply go to 4.11 in that video, look at the boat and the way there is no disturbance ahead of it. In a medium that is more dense, how come we don't see a wall of water?

 

Do you think that it is possible that the Apollo moon landings were faked?

OK - I will take that as a "NO" then...

Oh, there is much, much more if one is inclined to look...

I think some of the evidence is rather compelling.

Good question. I certainly have better things to do but it just seems to interest me. I think there are some important psychological, philosophical and historical questions embedded here.

WHY should ANY of the official NASA evidence be fake?

The sad truth is that there is NO CERTAIN PROOF that we went to the moon.

Once again - not the same scenario. A small amount of air hitting the flag edgeways is completely different than hitting it sideways.

 

I was pointing out that the pattern was similar - you know that.

Actually it does - but, of course, not quite in the same way

The same reason that you can't see the wall of air - because it is invisible. It has to actually move something to reveal its presence.

These dolphins seem to enjoy being pushed around by the pressure wave produced by the ship's bow:

Dolphins Bow Riding:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOLUQ-8xoCA

More Bow Riding:
http://www.dolphindock.com.au/behaviours/bow-riding/

Why Dolphins Bow Ride
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/questions/question/2569/

 

In a medium that is massively more dense with an object that is very big we still see them very close to the front.

 

Typical. You avoided the statement. Now answer it please - and do remember that you haven't yet proven that it COULD have been faked!

From a purely scientific standpoint, if you were 100% successful in showing that a flag behaves exactly that way, all you have done is proved that a tiny fragment of isolated video COULD have been faked. Hardly conclusive now is it?

Hogwash. There are 382kg of lunar samples just for starters. I don't know the figure for how much visible footage of astronauts moving in lunar gravity there is, but I do know that the claim of wires and slow motion is provable nonsense. There is enough evidence to satisfy any reasonable person. There is no hoax evidence that stands up to scrutiny and it is not even a tiny speck of the overall evidence supplied by NASA, LROC and numerous other third parties. That is why I ask why you would entertain it.

That is not what I asked! Answer please:-

I asked you quite specifically why the flag did not move as he approached it, just like the balloons. So, why didn't it? It was in front of him just like the balloons, had a slight flicker as he was level with it then followed him as he went past it. Completely unlike the balloons.

 

There is a forum populated by space travel and various other experts, I'm sure you know it. I have seen every piece of this "compelling" evidence and find it tedious. If you wish to discuss it, I've covered most of it on my blog, but am not going to be doing this for much longer, so you know where to go.

 

Here's some of it.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/347662-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio.html


This one turned out to be wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LouHGOEMmK0

I've never seen any of the rest of it disproved though.

 

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/

You only ever talk about two things, the flag and the even more idiotic Collins footage.

Every avenue you take, you make unsupported claims to wave away rebuttal. You use ad hominems at Windley, myself and others as a means to ignore concise and proven arguments!

Take one example from that stupid film. The cross-hairs that appear "behind" objects, do you believe this is evidence?

Explain this video totally:-

[video=youtube;3OVh0gm5vtc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OVh0gm5vtc[/video]

Even a cursory glance will see a single light source that has to be the Sun, with mountains in the very far distance that never get nearer. How in any mad world is that filmed in a damn studio!

 

I'm not an authority on photography so I don't usually deal with this anomaly. If it turns out that the picture isn't manipulated, that's not proof that it wasn't in a studio so it's a moot point. Another thing that makes it a moot point is that the flag anomaly and Collins' bouncing jacket corner have already proven the hoax.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1


That's why I don't spend too much time debating other anomalies that aren't as clear and are easier to obfuscate. On most hoax-debunking sites they don't even deal with those two anomalies; they are some of the clearest anomalies so if they were serious debunkers (not sophists), they'd deal with the clearest anomalies.

I don't see why.

Maybe they hadn't traveled far enough to show the difference. Anyway, that doesn't make this go away.
http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm


http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=362999&page=2&p=1064028979#post1064028979
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=403884&page=2&p=1064900819#post1064900819

 

Anything!

It's proof that your list is full of crap that you don't remove.

Translation: I have no answer to so many things that when I am completely unable to respond, I claim it is a "moot point" to avoid doing so, then fall back on my two insane spam subjects.

Collins' jacket is so obviously in a weightless environment, only terminally delusional spammers claim otherwise.

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/apollo-11-michael-collins-jacket.html

Hogwash. You don't debate them because they are easily explained and you have no answer to them. It doesn't stop you keeping them all in your wall of spam though.

You are a liar. The area in every direction for some considerable distance is lit up very brightly. Every single object that comes into view has a single clearly defined dark shadow in the same direction. Footage where we see the astronaut's visor shows quite clearly one light source. You will never admit anything, that is why you are not a truther, have no credibility and are largely regarded as a joke by all those who know the USA put men on the moon.

An absurd statement. We can see the speed of the vehicle and the time frame it is running to. They covered at least a kilometre!

What go away? A hopeless claim by a fictitious person who bases his findings on his own inability to correctly align two different views.

You have no answer to Windley's response to this, so fall back on your tired ad hominem crap:-

A quick summary:-

1. Step 3 of the proposed process mentions applying transformations in image space, such as perspective distortions, independent x- and y-axis scaling, and rotations. First, some of these would not be projection-preserving, and thus are invalid in rectification. Second, there is no mention made of how the parameters for these transformations are derived. Hence they amount to manual processing and therefore cannot be scientifically reproducible.

2. The proposed antiprojection, La = Lb b/a, is linear. Most lenses do not implement a linear projection model, and the Zeiss Biogon explicitly does not. Hence the mathematical framework is simplistic and incorrect.

3. Fig. 7 purports to show a parallax difference between two Apollo photos that include a distant background. The author believes that because a geometric change is apparent in the blink-comparator, this should be attributed to parallax. In fact the method fails.

4. No values are given for any rotations, distortions, or other transformations applied to the photograph(s). The results are therefore irreproducible and scientifically invalid.

5. A simple contrast expansion of the "difference" image shows misalignment in the ridge lines consistent with a rotation between raster images roughly coincident with the original line of sight. The author has misapplied his broken method and thus interprets the difference in rotation (and possibly subsequent distortive attempts to correct it) as parallax.

6. Figs. 10 and 11 are similar. The author applies uncontrolled, arbitrary image-space manipulations that are not projection-preserving, then proceeds to attribute resulting misalignment of the raster to parallax. And again, no method is shown for deterministically deriving the distortion parameters; it is purely subjective and therefore irreproducible.

7. The author then imagines that the effects he introduces through non projective-preserving manipulations are explicable in affine space by a sort of concave screen. This is pure fantasy: a much simpler explanation exists, that of the ineptitude of the author's image-space manipulation and his fundamental misunderstanding of the actual projective geometry at work here. He has proven absolutely nothing other than his ability to produce in one instance a distortion map that corrects for the distortion he previously applied in another instance. There is absolutely nothing here that is valid or proven to be a method for determining the authenticity of photographs.

8. He skipped the part where he validates that his method works for parallax at all relative scales (including the miles-long scales alleged in lunar photography).

9. Parallax does not exhibit linear behavior as distance varies. The ratio of distances from the viewer to two objects, the d1/d2 ratio in the projection math, determines the lateral effect of parallax observed between those objects. Hence if two distant objects are used as references such that the distance ratio approaches 1, little difference will be observed.

10. He skipped the part where he validates that his method works for determining via parallax whether subject photographs were taken in the field or in a studio, as he alleges the Apollo photographs were. Conspicuously missing is any study of the method as applied to known studio photography.

11. He skipped the part where he studied whether any distortions in the image might be caused by the non-linear effects of the Zeiss Biogon lens, a feature for which it is justly famous. In the larger sense, the researcher here has failed to perform any sort of error analysis. He simply attributes all anomalous data to the hypothesis he wants to test: that Apollo photographs were taken indoors.

12. He skipped the part where he determined that photographs taken in a domed studio, as he alleges, differ from photographs taken in the field in a way that his method can discern. This is pure question-begging. He determines analytically that a certain degree and type of distortion would occur if the backdrop were attached to a concave surface, but fails in any way to validate or confirm that it would produce the effect seen.

13. In short is a very common story: snappy visuals that seem to illustrate an important scientific point, with absolutely no scientific rigor placed behind it. Pseudoscience. He hopes the viewer will be impressed with his ability to distort photographs seemingly at random and make animated GIFs and assume that he got all the rest of it right.


I await your standard avoidance, obfuscation, diversion or other spammed response.


I attribute all 13 items to the expertise of Mr Windley.

THAT makes your "Ukranian expert" go away.

 

Yet again you avoid the sheer complexity of this film. How was it done? On the Moon with a 16mm film camera.

Go on, you or your new pal, how the heck did they film that bright surface, black sky, far off mountains, dark well defined shadows?

 

Beta, what is it with you and the Rover all of a sudden?
I thought this thread was about air movement and flags

Ok, I can combine the rover, air movement and flags all into one...

Check out this video about the flaps on the front of the rover - and notice that the "flag like" front flaps act just like they would in air! Who would have guessed?!!!

Apollo 15 Rover Traverse Issue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPzG_4H0anU

 

Is that it? You were asked how it was done and respond with a hopeless, poorly observed video?

The flap moves as the rover bounces, it is nothing to do with air!

Now answer the questions properly, what is it with you people! You scuttle and weasle around, constantly avoiding things then dumping manure into proceedings to distract.

How come the flag straight ahead did not move like the balloon straight ahead. It's perfectly straightforward.

 

I wouldn't have any objections to having an objective expert look at this anomaly.
http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

Jay Windley is not an objective expert though. He destroyed his credibility by saying that just transporting and placing dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=403884&page=2&p=1064900819#post1064900819

Betamax destroyed his credibility by agreeing with him. Betamax further destroyed his credibility by trying to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=362999&page=2&p=1064028979#post1064028979


It wouldn't be a bad idea to get some objective experts to analyze these anomalies but there don't seem to be any around. The only so-called experts around always fail objectivity tests so they're not to be taken seriously in spite of their authoritative patronizing attitudes.



*
http://www.clavius.org/about.html

 

Firstly that is not an anomaly. It is the work of an idiot, made up expert for the purposes of propogating the myth about a hoax. The object is to sell books and dvds to gullible folks like you.

Yes he is.

More moronic spam. Windley's credibility is fine. When the judge of it is a biased internet spammer who has no expertise at all, no integrity, no credibility himself and will use any excuse to avoid rebuttal, it can be dismissed. Transport of aggregate is the realm of the engineer not a geologist! Windley is an expert in the former and very informed of the latter.

Ditto.

Off topic spam and debunked to a level that a kindergarten would see.

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-1.html

They have been. They are routinely debunked on the apollohoax forum.

You don't have the slightest understanding of what an objectivity test is. To you, it means if somebody disagrees with your moronic claims. You fail at so many levels, but still make the same posts you were doing 10 years ago. You poor sad person.

 

I am going to try to keep on topic:

In post #3 of this thread you made the above comment where you were trying to compare Jarrah's flag with the Apollo flag - and you implied that the differences in the duration of movement was evidence that the Apollo flag was on the moon.

In this video - Physics of the Moon Flag:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgUncG26MMA

In the comments section of this video - there is an excellent discussion of the duration of flag movement by "Ouroboros Null" - here it is:

Ouroboros Null 10 months ago (edited)
+MTMind2 "Forget the calculations and talk of scientific methods,"

Hmm, why would we do that? Are you questioning the pendulum calculations from the physics departments of the 2 universities in question? If so why?

+MTMind2 "I would (and have) challenged others to make a sheet of thin cloth swing for over 30 seconds and at that frequency here on earth to prove it can be done (i.e. film it and then upload it to YouTube), and yet no-one has ever risen to the challenge,"

But the author of this video has done exactly that ... and confirms that the observed periodic motion of the bath towel conforms to the calculations for earth.

+MTMind2 "Try it yourself with difference sizes and types of cloth, such as an empty pillow case or a towel, and you'll see that the air resistance quickly slows the swinging cloth to a stop, causing it to halt after about 15 seconds or so."

How do you come up with this "15 seconds or so"? Putting aside factors that are constant such as gravity and atmospheric density ... wouldn't the variable factors such as uniform density of the material, friction from the amount of material against the horizontal suspension bar, the amount of wrinkles in the suspended material, the amount of inherent flexing/malleability of the material, wind, and humidity impact the overall length of time of visible motion (I.e. kinetic energy)? Logic dictates that it would. You said the "the problem with this claim is actually air resistance!" ... but the Myth Busters test was in a vacuum with no air resistance at all ... and the flag actually ceased motion in less jut under 10 seconds.

I think perhaps you are putting too much emphasis on overall length of time of motion ... which is influenced significantly by the variable factors I listed above ... and not enough emphasis on the overall length of time between pendulum swings" (I.e.periodic motion). Therein lies the difference between an earth-bound pendulum and a moon-bound pendulum ... which can be clearly observed by the naked eye ... and confirmed by the university calculation of mechanics, velocity, acceleration, and periodic motion. This is why I believe we cannot ignore these "calculations" as you suggest. As far as the scientific method ("of the cloth") you would like to focus on. We must be consistent. I will counter your argument ... with this: I too will forget the calculations for periodic motion on the following condition. I challenge someone to go to the moon and hang up a sheet of thin cloth or bath towel on his/her lunar module shower-curtain bar. Then walk across the towel briskly without touching it observe the simple harmonic motion that is caused. If it is 29.2 seconds ... I will eat my hat. Safe Harbor Statement: I don't actually own a hat.?

 

This is now becoming very obvious, are you one of Cosmored's cronies? Your comments about a bath towel are irrelevant again. The Apollo flag was made of lightweight nylon it compares to the flag used in the video used, despite your claims of it being not as heavy. In the absence of any information, we shall assume that the man at least attempted to use something similar.

ANSWER the question. It buries your argument and you know it. THAT is why you keep sidestepping it. You used a front on approach to balloons as evidence then ignore a front on approach to an actual flag that contradicts it.

 

Cosmo Who? Are you talking about this guy here?

Cosmo's Cosmic Adventures:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6-G6Nc9S30

Could you be a little more specific and detailed in your question? I don't understand why you are dwelling on this imperfect and somewhat irrelevant video of Jarrah's flag...

 

I am talking about the serial forum spammer and you know this full well.

You don't understand huh? You also know full well what I meant about this!

In the video created by an active hoax claimer, he sets up a flag that is supposed to show how the flag moves as he runs past it. As expected it does indeed do that. The flag is straight in front of him and I have hundreds of posts by Scott/Cosmored and some by you acknowledging this. You even alluded to the fact that there was a tiny movement rather than pixelation. This occured as he was level with the front on flag!

Now you presented as support for this claim, a video showing 2 balloons also straight ahead, then claimed that they moved because of the "wall of air". Yoiu even made some ridiculous claim that he was 4 feet away from them! I asked you and have been asking several times, why doesn't the flag in Jarrah White's video show this same movement before he reaches it? It most certainly shows nothing until he is level, then follows him as he passes.

You can squirm and avoid all you like, but we both know that you cannot answer this without it dismissing your own evidence as irrelevant.

 

This is the video segment that Beta is referring to - start at about 8:00 mark:

MoonFaker: The Flags Are Alive. PART 1.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr76qSQ9ZQQ

1. Well, first of all, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE FLAG IS PUSHED FORWARD BY THE PRESSURE WAVE - just watch the bottom corner of the flag.

2. The flag is aligned very close and parallel to the back wall. As you, yourself, have previously pointed out - a small room can affect the air flow and I think part of the cause for the small amount of movement is that the pressure wave ends up being a standing wave because it is hitting the back wall.

3. Jarrah has the very flimsy flag suspended in an odd sort of way. I think that it is difficult to get a very light weight of material to move in a predictable way under ideal conditions and I think that the odd suspension of the flag acts further to dampen any movement. Try it yourself with a silk scarf.

4. Jarrah's purpose in making this video was not to show pressure waves or the Bernoulli effect on the flag - his purpose was to demonstrate that static electricity was not the cause of the flag movement - and as a result, he did not try to recreate a perfect Apollo 15 flag setup.

5. I still don't think much of this is relevant...

 

I'm seriously wondering how you can actually believe any of the rubbish you just responded with. It smacks of a desperate attempt to fudge an excuse and fails miserably. Bolding and caps doesn't alter the fact that the flag doesn't move until he is level with it. Your balloon according to you was moved from 4ft(in reality around a foot) but the flag doesn't. I've even highligted it with frame grabs and zoomed in. There is the tiniest of movements at the point when his arm is level with the left edge. Your comment is hogwash.

What a crock. The back wall is some two metres away from the flag as can easily be seen when he runs past it! As for the back wall mysteriously cancelling out the "invisible" "wall of air" that is a ludicrous claim. I pointed out that a closed system actually makes the air move around even more! Quite how something beyond the flag will stop the "wall of air" from moving it is a real magic trick.

More hogwash. The flag is balanced 2/3 of the way on a horizontal support. YOU are the one who claims it is flimsy with nothing to support this. The flag billows very noticeably. One minute you say the light weight material is what makes it billow the next you say that it is dampened.

[quote[4. Jarrah's purpose in making this video was not to show pressure waves or the Bernoulli effect on the flag - his purpose was to demonstrate that static electricity was not the cause of the flag movement - and as a result, he did not try to recreate a perfect Apollo 15 flag setup.[/quote]

Wow, How useless you are at actually watching the video. He spends much of the time running past it and comparing the resulting pendulum motion with the Apollo 15 flag. Sadly his flag billows and slows much quicker, so an epic fail. As for his attempt at trying to create a triboelectric discharge similar to one in a vacuum, rubbing a balloon against his head is moronic in the extreme.

Your whole post is irrelevant as is your opinion.

The bottom line is that the flag doesn't behave as you claim it should. You cited a balloon moving as proof that an approaching person would move a flag, and we see nothing of the sort.

 

Why do you call what I do "Spam"? I start threads on the Apollo hoax and I stay and debate. What's wrong with that?

The pro-official version side has coopted the term "Spam" to describe any truther info. They used it here as a lame excuse to censor a summary of hoax proof.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1

Here's the link that got deleted from that post.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487


The real reason for the deletion is that they didn't want the viewers to see the info. Tell us whether you agree with the deletion of that info.

 

You stay on debate? Don't make me laugh! My whole blog was put up because you kept avoiding my posts. You are a complete disgrace, every post you make has the same linkls in with the same tirade of duplication. You've put that crap on over a 100 forums and you wonder why it gets classed as spam?

They use the term to reference serial forum spammers who have delusion.

Snipping the number one spammed link!

Your bullcrap claim is not why you get your repeat rubbish deleted. It is because you are a known forum spammer who is incapable of debate or reason. If it was down to me, I would make you answer every damn thing properly or get your sorry butt kicked off the forum.

 

You can pretend all you want. Once the viewers have seen this info...
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=362999&page=2&p=1064028979#post1064028979
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=403884&page=2&p=1064900819#post1064900819

...they know you aren't a serious poster so I'm not going to waste a lot of time on you. Once objective thinking people have seen the flag anomaly (see post #4) and Collins' jacket corner bouncing around the way it would in earth gravity,...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1

...they know the moon missions were faked. Once that's accomplished, dealing with your sophistry is just a waste of my time.

It's impossible to put that info anywhere where it will be seen by a wide audience; it just gets deleted as soon as the moderators see it and the poster gets banned. The only way to get around that is to put it on a lot of places where it will be seen by a small audience. This is an information war and I'm doing my part.

Tell us why you think that info gets deleted in the comment sections of articles in Yahoo news about Apollo. If a theory is wrong, it will fall by its own lack of merit. Censorship is only necessary when a lie is being defended.