Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 105

Thread: Proof that the Apollo footage was filmed in air here on earth

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    42

    Proof that the Apollo footage was filmed in air here on earth

    The Apollo footage was filmed in air. Check out the movement of the flaps in this video.

    Apollo 15 Rover Traverse Issue
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPzG_4H0anU
    (Be sure to watch at the 3:13 time mark)


    The bumpy ride causes the flaps to go up but air is keeping them from coming back down.

    This would explain why it looks like they're on the moon.
    http://apollofake.atspace.co.uk/


    More proof of air. Air makes the flag move in this video.

    Apollo 15 flag, facing air resistance; proving the fraud of alleged manned moon landings.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn6MTrin5eU
    (2:35 time mark)


    These two videos show that the flag had started to move before he got close enough to touch it.

    Initial Apollo 15 Flag Movement
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW9qcL4LiUg

    The flag that moved
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0


    This video shows that the flag movement is consistent with atmosphere.

    windyz.wmv
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00
    (00:50 and 1:50 time marks)


    So does this one.

    Physics of the Moon Flag
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgUncG26MMA
    (18:50 time mark)


    Here's some more stuff on the flag.

    Moonfaker: LRO, Flag or no Flag?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRXretl0amQ

    Physics of the Moon Flag - part 2
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EscIMIkiER8

    https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...lags+Are+Alive
    https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...he+Dead+Horses

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    The Apollo footage was filmed in air. Check out the movement of the flaps in this video.

    Apollo 15 Rover Traverse Issue
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPzG_4H0anU
    (Be sure to watch at the 3:13 time mark)


    The bumpy ride causes the flaps to go up but air is keeping them from coming back down.

    This would explain why it looks like they're on the moon.
    http://apollofake.atspace.co.uk/
    <snip for brevity>
    I'm only going to address this Gish Gallop of willfully ignorant observations. I see nothing wrong with the movement in the first video; the flaps move in relation to the rover going over bumpy ground. When the rises and falls of the rover are sufficiently long enough for the flaps to complete a cycle, but when the bumps transfer a momentum prior to the flaps falling from the camera view they "appear" to not fall, but this is not caused by "air" as that would have little restrictive effect.

    You really need to think about what people present and you observe in the real world. I didn't look at any of the rest but my same observation of your lack of observational skills would apply, I suspect since the Apollo missions were real.

    One last comment, stay away from Jarrah White as he has bee patiently incorrect on any of his Apollo videos, just THINK about the real world and then apply that reasoning to his work.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,148
    Since the OP likes proof by YouTube, the Mythbusters busted this a long time ago.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,665
    perhaps it is good that there are people who challenge the consensus, it should keep us on our toes and avoid lazy, dogmatic thinking. But it would be nice to have some variety, the flag challenge and the flat Earth do seem to have been over rehearsed. Have we established now whether it was a small step for man or a small step for a man? I mean that is flag waving and maybe we need to know if its sizeism, sexism or usaism?
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    Since the OP likes proof by YouTube, the Mythbusters busted this a long time ago.
    I predict his response will be to say they are discredited because another silly YouTube video says so.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    The Apollo footage was filmed in air. Check out the movement of the flaps in this video.

    Apollo 15 Rover Traverse Issue
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPzG_4H0anU
    (Be sure to watch at the 3:13 time mark)


    The bumpy ride causes the flaps to go up but air is keeping them from coming back down.

    This would explain why it looks like they're on the Moon.]
    They are on the Moon. How on Earth did they film a jet black sky with big mountains, grey surface lit by the Sun.

    Air doesn't keep things up like that. It's simply inertia and the way the flap is bent over.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    So does this one.

    Physics of the Moon Flag
    I hate to burst your bubble, but to compare a single point pendulum to a multiple pivoted complex pendulum is nonsense

    A flag with a cross support pivots along the diagonal, which has a whole host of variable different fall lengths. In addition, the fabric in a flag acts as an on going energy transfer for the momentum. The best way to compare motion of a flag on Earth with the Moon, is to use the Mythbusters footage. It clearly shows the Earth flag is faster than the Apollo flag.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    42
    Since the OP likes proof by YouTube, the Mythbusters busted this a long time ago.
    This video...

    Mythbusters Moon Hoax Flag Flapping
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhab86KoVjU

    ...has been shown to be sophistry by this video.

    windyz.wmv
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00


    The best way to compare motion of a flag on Earth with the Moon, is to use the Mythbusters footage. It clearly shows the Earth flag is faster than the Apollo flag.
    See above.


    How on Earth did they film a jet black sky with big mountains, grey surface lit by the Sun.
    Like this...

    http://apollofake.atspace.co.uk/


    The bottom line is that this video shows that the footage was taken in air.

    Apollo 15 flag, facing air resistance; proving the fraud of alleged manned moon landings.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn6MTrin5eU
    (2:35 time mark)


    The flag started moving before the astronaut got close enough to touch it.


    Check out some of this research.
    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...jY5HQqbjeoyC4Q

    Here are two from that link.

    Galileo and the Apollo Moon Jump
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLta...E&index=2&t=0s

    The Apollo Moon Jump Salute Refute
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AWemWrsZn4


    The soil starts falling before the astronaut starts falling which shows they were using wire supports.


    Here's some proof that the mountains in the background are backdrops.

    Go down about half way on this page to where it says, "The Hills Are Alive".
    http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

    http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm


    The rocks are not proof of anything.

    http://www.geschichteinchronologie.c...arth-ENGL.html
    (excerpt)
    ------------------------------
    "Moonstones" have no possibility to be compared on moon itself, because there is no possibility of a neutral control on the "moon". So, it's permitted for anybody to claim this or that stone would come from the "moon". Also when certain "moon probes" are said having landed on the moon also this is not controllable. And it's not possible to control if these "moon probes" have brought stones or dust from the "moon" to the Earth or not either. At the end the super powers "USA" and "SU" claim together to the public that "moonstones" would be "very similar" to "Earth stones". This "similarity" brings up some new questions (Wisnewski, p.209).
    -----------------------------


    There's a ton of proof that the missions were faked and I've never seen anything that could be called proof that the missions were real. Post something you consider to be proof that the missions were real and we can talk about whether it's really proof.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    42
    but this is not caused by "air" as that would have little restrictive effect.
    Wrong. If the flaps are light enough, air would keep them up. The footage is one hundred percent consistent with its having been taken in air.


    I hate to burst your bubble, but to compare a single point pendulum to a multiple pivoted complex pendulum is nonsense

    A flag with a cross support pivots along the diagonal, which has a whole host of variable different fall lengths. In addition, the fabric in a flag acts as an on going energy transfer for the momentum. The best way to compare motion of a flag on Earth with the Moon, is to use the Mythbusters footage. It clearly shows the Earth flag is faster than the Apollo flag.
    Give me some time to go back and review this as I haven't watched that particular video for a long time. It's a moot point anyway though as the movement of the Apollo 15 flag has already proven that the footage was taken in air*.


    *
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn6MTrin5eU
    (2:35 time mark)
    Last edited by Craig2; 2018-Jul-17 at 01:50 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,148
    Craig2

    Now I'm going to put on my moderator hat. If all you are going to do is post links to lots of videos with "watch this", this is going to be a very boring discussion. You need to explain a little more about what is in the video you are linking to, and what it demonstrates.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    42
    A flag with a cross support pivots along the diagonal, which has a whole host of variable different fall lengths.
    In the video he does make a distinction between a simple pendulum and a rod pendulum but I'm still trying to understand it. Anyway, the difference wouldn't be like day and night as it is when he plugs in the two different forces of gravity; the pull from the part of the flag that's attached to the pole is about five feet away and it wouldn't account for that big a difference.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    42
    You need to explain a little more about what is in the video you are linking to, and what it demonstrates
    I didn't think it would take very long to look at the evidence but ok.


    Here's some proof that the mountains in the background are backdrops.

    Go down about half way on this page to where it says, "The Hills Are Alive".
    http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

    http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

    If you go to where I said to look in the UFO/Aliens site, you'll see two pictures supposedly from two different Apollo missions that show the same mountains in the background. If there's been some kind of mistake here, could someone please point it out?

    The parallax site purports to show that the distance of an object can be calculated if there are two photos of it from different locations that are more or less parallel. If they're not one hundred percent parallel, you can still get a good enough idea of the distance and this guy's research seems to show that the mountains in the background are less than one hundred yards away so they must be backdrops and not mountains in the distance.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    Wrong. If the flaps are light enough, air would keep them up. The footage is one hundred percent consistent with its having been taken in air.


    Give me some time to go back and review this as I haven't watched that particular video for a long time. It's a moot point anyway though as the movement of the Apollo 15 flag has already proven that the footage was taken in air*.

    <snip>
    Clearly the flaps are not light enough to be effected by "air". And clearly the video is not "The footage is one hundred percent consistent with its having been taken in air". Too many inconsistencies are presented that make that statement null and void.

    Considering the flag movement, air can not "push" the flag as its material precludes movement by "air". Did you consider static electricity may have caused the movement, because Dave was clearly very close to the flag?


    Clearly you don't have the ability to make conclusions of presented material.
    Additionally I request/suggest that you properly quote comments to make reading your posts easier.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    Wrong. If the flaps are light enough, air would keep them up. The footage is one hundred percent consistent with its having been taken in air.
    No, not wrong. The only way air keeps something up is if it is extremely light and in a strong draft. The flap in question is fabric layered with stiffened edges. You are asserting without anything more than a very biased opinion.


    Give me some time to go back and review this as I haven't watched that particular video for a long time. It's a moot point anyway though as the movement of the Apollo 15 flag has already proven that the footage was taken in air*.
    Incorrect. You don't get to dismiss evidence merely because you have reached a conclusion on a 5 second clip of video.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    In the video he does make a distinction between a simple pendulum and a rod pendulum but I'm still trying to understand it. Anyway, the difference wouldn't be like day and night as it is when he plugs in the two different forces of gravity; the pull from the part of the flag that's attached to the pole is about five feet away and it wouldn't account for that big a difference.
    None of the pendulums are 5ft. The line of rotation is along the diagonal vertically. They are all multiple sized and no more than the width of the flag all the way down to zero on the bottom edge. The fabric acts as a dampening effect by distributing the energy to fabric above the diagonal.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    This video...

    Mythbusters Moon Hoax Flag Flapping
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhab86KoVjU

    ...has been shown to be sophistry by this video.

    windyz.wmv
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00
    No it has not. The "windyz" video for all its hot air makes just one single point. It suggests that because they say the Earth flag stops in no time at all and the Apollo 17 flag stops its wild motion quickly, the two must be the same. On Earth.

    The mythbusters flag is left unattended. The Apollo 17 flag still has Cernan holding it. Quote clearly he twists it really gently to get it going then after seeing it move and commenting on it, he simply gives the same counter twist to stop it.

    For you to call that evidence is laughable.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    I didn't think it would take very long to look at the evidence but ok.





    If you go to where I said to look in the UFO/Aliens site, you'll see two pictures supposedly from two different Apollo missions that show the same mountains in the background. If there's been some kind of mistake here, could someone please point it out?

    The parallax site purports to show that the distance of an object can be calculated if there are two photos of it from different locations that are more or less parallel. If they're not one hundred percent parallel, you can still get a good enough idea of the distance and this guy's research seems to show that the mountains in the background are less than one hundred yards away so they must be backdrops and not mountains in the distance.
    The UFO site's images are both from Apollo 17, not different missions. They are simply different viewpoints of the same mountains and different image types.

    The 'research' on stereoparallax is riddled with assumptions and it is quite easy to demonstrate that the mountains are where they are supposed to be by looking at images taken from orbit by modern probes and generating 3D views from the data.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    There's a ton of proof that the missions were faked and I've never seen anything that could be called proof that the missions were real. Post something you consider to be proof that the missions were real and we can talk about whether it's really proof.
    Apollo is a matter of historical record it is up to the people who believe that a totally fantastic hoax has been perpetrated to prove that hoax. An incredible claim of a hoax must be supported by evidence of said hoax. Nothing on YouTube or nonsense sites such as Aulis has ever survived even the slightest scrutiny.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    So your method involves using modern digital software on a single image, to create a 20fps video in 1971? Forgive me if I ask you to try again!

    It is a continuous video with mountains that don't get any nearer over several miles. The surface is lit for as far as can be seen. The sky is black. When the rover turns across Sun, the phase angle of the Moon changes and the whole surface is less reflective.

    Direct question: Can you explain in detail how that could possibly be done?


    The bottom line is that this video shows that the footage was taken in air.
    You clearly don't have any education in basic physics.

    There's a ton of proof that the missions were faked and I've never seen anything that could be called proof that the missions were real. Post something you consider to be proof that the missions were real and we can talk about whether it's really proof.
    You aren't fooling anyone btw. There's a blog out there that debunks your whole "ton of proof". I know you've seen it and been pointed to it hundreds of times. You studiously avoid it and offer ad hominens to dismiss it.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Clear Lake City, TX
    Posts
    12,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    I didn't think it would take very long to look at the evidence but ok.
    Welcome to the Forum, Craig2. Since you're new here, a bit of explanation may be warranted.

    First, read the Rules for Posting, especially 13, 13B and the Advice (esp #8) linked in it.

    Second ... well...
    17. Moderator Actions

    If there is a rule violation, then a moderator will take action. This may include: the deletion of a word or phrase (if it breaks the rules), the removal of an entire post (if it is beyond redemption, or if it's a spam, etc.), the merging of a new thread with an existing one on the same topic, the closing of a thread if it wanders too far off-topic or gets too heated, a gentle warning to a user or users, a not-so-gentle-warning, and as a last resort, the banning of a user. This banning may be temporary or permanent, as outlined above. If a moderator gives you advice, we advise you to take it.

    Do not respond to moderation in-thread, unless asked a question by a moderator. If you wish clarification, want to question the moderation, or need to explain your actions, report the post and/or PM a moderator. If you wish to publicly discuss any act of moderation, start a thread in the Feedback forum. You may report the first post of that thread to ensure it is brought to the attention of the moderators.
    (Emphasis added.)
    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
    Isaac Asimov

    You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They donít alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views.
    Doctor Who

    Moderation will be in purple.
    Rules for Posting to This Board

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by postbaguk View Post
    Oh no he (I) didn't!

    For viewers of the thread who haven't dipped their toes into the Spurs Talk forum, here is the GIF in question.



    It was made by taking 2 screenshots, the first with the astronaut just coming into the frame, the second as the astronaut is just about to cross in front of the flag. Zoom in, crop to the flag, use a freebie programme called GIF Animator using those 2 frames, and hey presto! You can see the lens flares appearing to move in the same way that the flag appears to move. Notice I say appears to move. I used ot think the flag actually did move, but was caused by something else other than wind. I was wrong. The apparent movement is some kind of video blooming effect, as shown by the movement of the lens flare.

    Cosmored implicitly agrees that movement of the lens flares destroys his argument, otherwise he wouldn't falsely accuse me of doctoring the gif. He's been shown how to take suitable screenshots and prove to himself that the GIFs weren't doctored, yet he refuses to do so. Why? We can only speculate at his refusal. Regardless, here's a link showing the simple steps to follow, should anyone who thinks I doctored the gif want to learn the truth for themselves.

    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post6799568
    This was a post made to Cosmored. He didn't respond to it. Quite clearly there is something odd about the tiny initial movement, when lens flares move as well.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    202

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    This was a post made to Cosmored. He didn't respond to it. Quite clearly there is something odd about the tiny initial movement, when lens flares move as well.
    Ah Cosmored, and his many alias's, is by far one of the most willfully ignorant individual ever to post on the internet. Here is a web page dedicated to debunking all his beliefs.

    http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/

    This is for the benefit of Craig2 although I doubt he will look at any of this as it completely destroys Cosmored and his Moon Hoax comments.


    Cheers and have fun.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,148
    closed pending moderator discussion
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Clanger View Post
    Clanger,

    We encourage our members to Report posts and activities they have concerns about, such as sockpuppetry. But it is completely against our rules to publicly accuse another member of being a sockpuppet, either directly or subtly. This is a serious rule 2 violation.

    I strongly suggest that others follow this advice too.

    With that, this thread is reopened.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    42
    Clearly the flaps are not light enough to be effected by "air"
    How do you know?


    Considering the flag movement, air can not "push" the flag as its material precludes movement by "air". Did you consider static electricity may have caused the movement, because Dave was clearly very close to the flag?
    Any material can be pushed by air if it's light enough. Could you explain how certain materials can't be pushed by air? Wouldn't static electricity attract the flag? The initial movement is away from the astronaut. Also, there are other cases where astronauts are near flags and there is no attraction. Why would there be attraction only in the case where the movement is consistent with the atmosphere explanation? That's quite a coincidence.


    The only way air keeps something up is if it is extremely light and in a strong draft. The flap in question is fabric layered with stiffened edges.
    We still can't be sure about the weight and we can't be sure about the real speed of the rover as the footage may be shown in slow-motion.


    None of the pendulums are 5ft.
    I was talking about the length of the flag. I had the idea that the flags were three feet by five feet. Maybe I'm wrong about that.


    The Apollo 17 flag still has Cernan holding it. Quote clearly he twists it really gently to get it going then after seeing it move and commenting on it, he simply gives the same counter twist to stop it.
    He's referring to what happens starting at the 1:50 time mark of this video.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00

    If his twisting the pole were causing the flag to stop, the support rod would be moving. It's not moving. It's very clear that the rod is not stopping the flag from moving. The only identifiable force that stops the flag is air.


    The UFO site's images are both from Apollo 17, not different missions. They are simply different viewpoints of the same mountains and different image types.
    This might turn out to be true but it has to be proven. Can those two photos be identified quickly? I think they have numbers. There's also this issue.
    http://epiphanyoftruth.com/the-hawai...icture-frenzy/

    There's a mountain in Hawaii that looks like that mountain on the moon.


    The 'research' on stereoparallax is riddled with assumptions and it is quite easy to demonstrate that the mountains are where they are supposed to be by looking at images taken from orbit by modern probes and generating 3D views from the data.
    I don't see how pictures taken from lunar orbit proves those other pictures weren't taken in a studio.
    http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

    If there's a picture supposedly taken from lunar orbit showing the Apollo lander, we don't know if it's a real picture. Pictures are fakable so they aren't proof of anything.


    Nothing on YouTube or nonsense sites such as Aulis has ever survived even the slightest scrutiny.
    Anyone who does a little research knows that this simply isn't true. I suggest that the viewers start watching Jarrah White's videos.
    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=moonfaker

    There's also a good one called "What happened on the moon".


    It is a continuous video with mountains that don't get any nearer over several miles. The surface is lit for as far as can be seen. The sky is black. When the rover turns across Sun, the phase angle of the Moon changes and the whole surface is less reflective.
    Can I get back to you on this? It will take some time for me to check this all out and I want to make this post today. In the comment section of this video...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OVh0gm5vtc

    ...I found this.
    There were film projection techniques available that could have been used to keep the "distant" mountains in this video at a constant magnification as the rover drove toward the screen on which the mountain scenery was being projected.
    I don't have any background in this so I'll have to do some googling.


    Quite clearly there is something odd about the tiny initial movement, when lens flares move as well.
    I just looked at the flag movement and I saw the spots. They appear to be spots on the lens.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y

    Start watching at the 2:30 time mark.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    How do you know?
    Visually for one and because it clearly returns to a down position

    Any material can be pushed by air if it's light enough. Could you explain how certain materials can't be pushed by air?
    A straw man. The issue isn't whether air is pushing the flap, moving around from the bouncing, but whether it is strong enough to hold it up.

    When an object like this gets vertical, its downward progress falls through its own centre of gravity. This makes it slower to drop.

    Wouldn't static electricity attract the flag? The initial movement is away from the astronaut.
    Static can attract or repel.

    Also, there are other cases where astronauts are near flags and there is no attraction.
    Show them. Scott was running as he approached. A build up of static in a vacuum can be very large without air to dissipate it.

    Why would there be attraction only in the case where the movement is consistent with the atmosphere explanation?
    Begging the question. It isn't the only case, just potentially the only one noticeable on camera. It is not consistent with atmosphere at all.

    This is what happens with an air draft -

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xyG2aXH7Ik

    Anticipating a response, rotate the scene 90 degrees and it mimics an object passing a flag


    We still can't be sure about the weight and we can't be sure about the real speed of the rover as the footage may be shown in slow-motion.
    The rover was designed, built and tested by a large team of people outside NASA. Besides, it is your burden of proof if you dispute given figures.

    I was talking about the length of the flag. I had the idea that the flags were three feet by five feet. Maybe I'm wrong about that.
    Clearly the longest drop is 3ft. You completely avoided the point I made. Respond please.

    He's referring to what happens starting at the 1:50 time mark of this video.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00

    If his twisting the pole were causing the flag to stop, the support rod would be moving. It's not moving. It's very clear that the rod is not stopping the flag from moving. The only identifiable force that stops the flag is air.
    More begging the question and bare assertion.

    The support rod DOES move and it is very easy to simply do the same twist in reverse. Stir a cup of coffee. Stir once in the opposite direction and it stops circulating. This video is a direct debunk of the "windyz" video. Please answer all points made. I will press you on this with direct questions if need be.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc6sqIe3Aio

    There's a mountain in Hawaii that looks like that mountain on the moon.
    Similar to part of one. Not either side. Are you suggesting they magically made the ground grey, the sky black and had astronauts bounding around at a famous tourist spot?

    Anyone who does a little research knows that this simply isn't true.
    Your opinion is not fact. Aulis is a very deceitful and dishonest site. Jarrah White is an appallingly inept maker of rubbish.

    There's also a good one called "What happened on the moon".
    Totally debunked. The Betamax blog above!

    Can I get back to you on this?
    ...I found this.
    I don't have any background in this so I'll have to do some googling.
    Please don't cite non-existent magic film projectors that invisibly move and faultlessly project mountains. Black sky. Evenly lit. Single shadows. Reflection changes cross Sun.

    I just looked at the flag movement and I saw the spots. They appear to be spots on the lens.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y

    Start watching at the 2:30 time mark.
    They are clearly and provably NOT spots on the lens. They contract as the camera zooms. But anyway, how in any optical world do they move anyway. Spots are fixed on the lens!

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    How do you know?

    This might turn out to be true but it has to be proven. Can those two photos be identified quickly? I think they have numbers. There's also this issue.
    http://epiphanyoftruth.com/the-hawai...icture-frenzy/
    It is true and can be proven very easily. One of them is a still from the final TV broadcast before they took off from the surface

    https://youtu.be/RWoMW9thdqc?t=27778

    the other is a section of this panorama

    https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17.1464906_gpan.jpg


    There's a mountain in Hawaii that looks like that mountain on the moon.
    "Looks like" and "is" are not the same thing, particularly when the hill in Hawaii is tiny in comparison with the ones on the moon, and even more so when images taken of the moon are an exact match for images taken by Apollo. Not 'a bit like', 'exactly'.


    I don't see how pictures taken from lunar orbit proves those other pictures weren't taken in a studio.
    http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm
    Because they can verify that what is on view in the Apollo images is an exact match for images taken by orbital probes - especially when you reconstruct the views using that orbital data:

    http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/3D/A15/a15-3d.html

    If there's a picture supposedly taken from lunar orbit showing the Apollo lander, we don't know if it's a real picture. Pictures are fakable so they aren't proof of anything.
    There are many shows Apollo hardware and evidence of human activity, including images taken by American, Chinese, Indian and Japanese probes. All those images show the same things and are available for anyone to download and process for themselves.

    Aulis are not the only people independently scrutinising images of the moon, and many other people draw completely different conclusions to them.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    14,122
    If it is such a huge conspiracy with massive resources, why did they release video that is full of apparently easy to spot 'give aways'?
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    42
    Visually for one and because it clearly returns to a down position
    That can happen if the speed of the wind holding them up decreases.


    The issue isn't whether air is pushing the flap, moving around from the bouncing, but whether it is strong enough to hold it up.

    When an object like this gets vertical, its downward progress falls through its own centre of gravity. This makes it slower to drop.
    If the flaps are light enough, it wouldn't take much wind to hold them up. We don't know the weight of the flaps and, due to the possibility of slow-motion having been used, we don't know the speed of the rover.


    Show them.
    Start watching here at the 1:55 time mark.

    Apollo 17 crew setting up the U.S. flag
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeiMHK8Jom4

    He walks right by the flag and there is no sign of the flag's being attracted to or repelled by the astronaut.


    This is what happens with an air draft -

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xyG2aXH7Ik
    This video doesn't duplicate the Apollo scenario. The object is passed under the hanging cloth. Anyone can have a friend hold a cloth while he runs by it. The cloth will first move away and then toward the direction of the runner as the Apollo flag did.


    Besides, it is your burden of proof if you dispute given figures.
    Only a person with a high security clearance could verify this. The fact that it's possible means it's not proof.


    Clearly the longest drop is 3ft. You completely avoided the point I made. Respond please.
    Ok. I'll go back to this.

    None of the pendulums are 5ft. The line of rotation is along the diagonal vertically. They are all multiple sized and no more than the width of the flag all the way down to zero on the bottom edge. The fabric acts as a dampening effect by distributing the energy to fabric above the diagonal.
    Physics of the Moon Flag
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgUncG26MMA
    (18:50 time mark)

    I know the pendulum is not an exact comparison as the flag is attached to the pole and to the whole support rod but it still gives a good idea of the difference in the speeds at which the flag would move back and forth. I wouldn't say it's total nonsense.


    The support rod DOES move and it is very easy to simply do the same twist in reverse. Stir a cup of coffee. Stir once in the opposite direction and it stops circulating. This video is a direct debunk of the "windyz" video. Please answer all points made. I will press you on this with direct questions if need be.
    I simply can't identify that movement that you describe.

    windyz.wmv
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00
    (00:50 and 1:50 time marks)

    I think you're seeing what you want to see.


    Aulis is a very deceitful and dishonest site. Jarrah White is an appallingly inept maker of rubbish.
    People can decide for themselves.
    https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF...arch=aulis.com
    http://www.moonfaker.com/home.html


    They are clearly and provably NOT spots on the lens.
    Start watching at the 2:30 time mark.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y

    When the camera moves, the spots move with the camera. Those are not lens flares. They are spots on the camera lens.


    to be continued....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •