Es ist unerheblich, wie die Flaggenschwingung angeregt wurde. Wesentlich ist nur ihre messbare Schwingungsperiode. Sie beträgt 2,0s und dies ist für die Mondschwerkraft viel zu schnell. Ein Originalnachbau der Mondflagge in einer Nasa Vakuumkammer (Mythbosters) schwang mit den zu erwartenden 1,4s. Demnach hätte die Flagge auf dem Mond mit 1,4s*sqr(6) =3,4s schwingen müssen und nicht mit 2s. Schwindel! 2s Schwingungsperiode werden in Luft auf der Erde erreicht.
@davewatcher Thanks for the analysis. Unfortunately for us, there was very little 16mm film developed from this mission to correlate the video footage. I have been doing that type of work with A11, and have the split-screen work for the first EVA, comparing the two. I also did a closeup of the flag from the 16mm film, and split-screen the ascent films (my favorite!).
Ironically, I had originally set out to prove the Apollo hoax. That did not happen...
@davewatcher whot cheer, dave. if u care to watch v=oFMpmjEv9o0 u'l c the flag moov BEFOR the terranaut passiz it. QED. Incidentally, Ol'sun, the video is postid by a nasa apollo-gist, who altugethr, seems to be in denial, and is gropily seeking ansrs that'l assur him, and firm his wonkin faith. it's, 'v cors, a moral imperativ t ixpoz eny hoax lunar, secular or stellar.
Every single bit of 'evidence' for a hoax has been rubbished. All that's left is the flag moving as the astronaut goes by. He was very close to the flag; that the tip is seen to move first doesn't discount that he touched some other part of the flag first. Meanwhile, you ignore the obvious evidence for the moon landings such as the extraordinary behaviour of the dust as it's kicked around. Moon hoax advocates are either deluded or liars with books and CDs to sell.
@MaskelynMage The point I'm trying to make is that it is perfectly possible he could have touched the flag; that his apparent distance is an exaggeration of the camera lens. For me, it's not about belief, it's about knowing. It has become fashionable to doubt the moon landings took place which is a shame because the people who took part really did work their balls off and took enormous risks to make it happen. It's a moral duty to stick up for them.
"we cannot see if..." You fail to understand that much of science involves figuring out things that we can't see directly. We do so by observing their consequences that we CAN see, and then ruling out the possibilities that conflict with them.
For example, here we can rule out air in the "soundstage" from the fact that the flag doesn't move all the other times the astronauts pass by it closely. Showing that Scott was close enough to brush it here is just icing on the cake.
On a side note, did you noticed, that on this particular picture, the astro-clown is facing someone else ? look closely, the guy is not facing who is supposed to have taken the photo at all, but more someone standing to the righ.
What I am saying is that the guy, in his attitude, is not looking at the one taking the photo, but rather to his right (to the right of the one taking the photo that is, or to the left of the subject if you prefer)
for the ones that are VERY lazy , just ask davewatcher to position the astroclown that he is showing at 0:16 in his video, on the side photo, (he will refuse to do this don't worrie, but you will quickly guess why he will refuse)
At 0:16 the camera was pointing to a different position to that which I based my idea. You obviously haven't watched my clip properly. Who's the lazy one? See 1:18.
Now seriously, this is more or less the same thing that i have debunked already, comming from a guy named infocusinc, please take a look at your hilarious mistake by searching 1plus8 in photobucket, and have a good laugh at yourself dave :)
Hard to understand ? I fail to see how this would be hard, but anyway since you are that dumb, i will explain more.
Your position (that is the position at 2:37 on the moontrue video) was examined by someone named infocusinc, who pretended, just like you, to have 'proved' that he was close enough to have possibly touched the flag, it is the position marked 2"37 on the image, got it since there ?
I have added a double check position (since position must be coherent with each others you see>>
>> this double check is the position of the astroclown at 0:31 seconds in moontrue video (and 0:16 seconds in your video right here) i'm perfectly aware that the position are DIFFERENT, that is why i ask you, as a double check, to place on the side photo, the 0:16 position on the frame, to compare with the 2:37 position you have placed, so we can all laugh together (but if you understand, you will rather chose to avoid doing this, since it would prove how much of a retard you are with your video
the double check position is the vertical yellow line by the way (marked 31") and the two horizontal lines are just to confirm something else, which was that infocusinc didn't even took perspective into account)
You're 1plus8, then. How tedious. My analysis is for the 2:37 moment. Your argument , whatever that is, is irrelevant. Why don't you calculate where he was standing at 2:37. Perhaps you can prove that he was standing behind the camera.
What is relevant, is to be able to confirm that the method you used to determine his position on the side photo, is valid, that is why i ask you, to replicate your analysis, for the 0:16 position, please prove that you are confident in your method, and do it (or better, delete your video, because your method sucks :)
Clearly he was standing nearer to the flag at :31 than at 2:37. The next moment he is behind the thing. The fact that you completely ignore all the low gravity/vacuum behaviour of the flag, the dust and the astronauts (who's boots you are not fit to lick) makes you a first-class arrogant ignorant prick.
Clearly you say? What about you use your own method and put it on the side photo? Are you affraid that peoples might discover how stupidly wrong you are?
By the way , I do agree that he is closer at 0:31, but unfortunately for you, he is not SO CLOSE as to touch the flag (he can touch it, but he doesn't) which will reveal your flaw, since you perfectly know, that if you use your method to place this figure, it will end well inside the middle of the flag! which will prove your method wrong.
It doesn't matter. My estimation of his position is about right. The astronaut's apparent size changes much in a single step. Watch carefully at 2:37. What is his left hand doing? He could easily be touching the flag.
This is all you hoax nuts have left. You ignore all the big visual evidence. Watch the extraordinary dust behaviour in "Apollo 15 Digging a trench". If you still think they were on earth then you are not just stupid, you are really f-ing stupid.
It does matter, i tell you your method is flawed, since using your method, you wouldn't be able to position the clown at 0:16 (or 0:31 depending which video you talk about) in the side picture, meaning how can you know that your position is 'about right' when the other position using the SAME METHOD would be CLEARLY OUT OF PLACE ! got it ?
As for the apollo 15 digging a trench, nice one, it look decently realistic, i was currently looking at a similar one (apollo 16 threeshades trench) >>
It is clearly a good job by NASA on these two, hard to catch, the trick is, in this particular one, they probably told the clown to dig as fast as he could (with fast movements then) then used a greater amounf of slow motion than they usually do, to blend the two together.
The range, in both case, is not looking like something you would obtain in 1/6g anyway, but the slow motion effect on the fallrate is quite decently achieved, one of their best one so far.
I also suspect they used multiples level of slow motion (which is what i would have done to fake it, at the time, since it is much harder to catch than just one slow motion being used) multiples level of slow motion, within the same scene that is.
Those guys had balls of steel. You, on the other hand, are a lying-eyed little creep. If you really believe what you say, you ought to seek psychiatric help.
You are in the emotional, obviously you can't debate (balls of steel heros blahblah) I'll eventually get back to you later, if somehow your stupid video come back at any point in the debate (but so far, since we are apparently the only two person in the world to look at it, and that you refuse to check your own work, that iwll be a good bye) ciao.
You have the most appalling command of the English language. Perhaps you are using poor-quality translation software? It gives me me a headache trying to understand you.
Shanedk showed this idea recently with software 3D model based on geometry and physical size of the astronaut and the flag. Same conclusion: it was very likely Dave Scott brushed against the flag as he was walking near it.
The way the flag behaves later i.e. oscillations lasting over 30 seconds, proves it took place in vacuum environment, but hoax advocates are blind to those facts.
Yes, the hoax advocates certainly are blind to the logical consequences of their own claims. If "air on the sound stage" caused the flag to move when Scott passed it, then where is that same air all the other times that he and Irwin pass closely by the flag and it doesn't budge? And why does the flag keep swinging for so long?
It would seem that the air was pumped in and out of the studio quite rapidly, yet never so quickly as to disturb the flag. :-)
Just wait, In about 100 years or more we will be able to live there >:P WE ARE DEH MOON PEOPLE!!! Lol....
xXKillerSkunkJoshXx 6 months ago
Es ist unerheblich, wie die Flaggenschwingung angeregt wurde. Wesentlich ist nur ihre messbare Schwingungsperiode. Sie beträgt 2,0s und dies ist für die Mondschwerkraft viel zu schnell. Ein Originalnachbau der Mondflagge in einer Nasa Vakuumkammer (Mythbosters) schwang mit den zu erwartenden 1,4s. Demnach hätte die Flagge auf dem Mond mit 1,4s*sqr(6) =3,4s schwingen müssen und nicht mit 2s. Schwindel! 2s Schwingungsperiode werden in Luft auf der Erde erreicht.
paule133 1 year ago
@davewatcher Thanks for the analysis. Unfortunately for us, there was very little 16mm film developed from this mission to correlate the video footage. I have been doing that type of work with A11, and have the split-screen work for the first EVA, comparing the two. I also did a closeup of the flag from the 16mm film, and split-screen the ascent films (my favorite!).
Ironically, I had originally set out to prove the Apollo hoax. That did not happen...
cliffspc 1 year ago
yet the flag moovz befor any putativ glance.
muskier 1 year ago
no it duzent
davewatcher 1 year ago
@davewatcher whot cheer, dave. if u care to watch v=oFMpmjEv9o0 u'l c the flag moov BEFOR the terranaut passiz it. QED. Incidentally, Ol'sun, the video is postid by a nasa apollo-gist, who altugethr, seems to be in denial, and is gropily seeking ansrs that'l assur him, and firm his wonkin faith. it's, 'v cors, a moral imperativ t ixpoz eny hoax lunar, secular or stellar.
muskier 1 year ago
@muskier
Every single bit of 'evidence' for a hoax has been rubbished. All that's left is the flag moving as the astronaut goes by. He was very close to the flag; that the tip is seen to move first doesn't discount that he touched some other part of the flag first. Meanwhile, you ignore the obvious evidence for the moon landings such as the extraordinary behaviour of the dust as it's kicked around. Moon hoax advocates are either deluded or liars with books and CDs to sell.
davewatcher 1 year ago
@davewatcher
"Every single bit of 'evidence' for a hoax has been rubbished."
No it hasn't. You people just keep saying that to try to sway those who haven't seen the evidence yet. Here's a link to some of it.
politicalforum (dot) com/moon-landing/190138-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio (dot) html
Cosmored 8 months ago
@Cosmored
What? "The corner of Collins' jacket swings back and forth the way it would in gravity"?
Collins 'running' on the spot compared with iss person not running on the spot.
Kind of like the 'look the flag blows in the wind but only when the astronaut is twisting the pole' syndrome.
Collin's jacket is behaving nothing like it would in gravity; look at the rest of his jacket.
You must be joking, Mr Troll, otherwise you are one sad sod.
davewatcher 8 months ago
If I may state the obvious...
WE CANNOT SEE IF HE TOUCHES THE FLAG OR NOT. PERIOD!
Everything here is speculation. EVERYTHING!!!
We weren't there..We can't see the other side of the astronaut. We cannot know for sure. FACT!
But here is a wonderful quote (used by David Blaine, on his Dvd promo') by Joseph Dunninger a Vaudvillian mind reader.
"For those who believe, no explanation is nedded"...
"For those that do not, none will suffice"!!!
I think this fits both sides equally!
MaskelynMage 1 year ago 3
@MaskelynMage The point I'm trying to make is that it is perfectly possible he could have touched the flag; that his apparent distance is an exaggeration of the camera lens. For me, it's not about belief, it's about knowing. It has become fashionable to doubt the moon landings took place which is a shame because the people who took part really did work their balls off and took enormous risks to make it happen. It's a moral duty to stick up for them.
davewatcher 1 year ago
"we cannot see if..." You fail to understand that much of science involves figuring out things that we can't see directly. We do so by observing their consequences that we CAN see, and then ruling out the possibilities that conflict with them.
For example, here we can rule out air in the "soundstage" from the fact that the flag doesn't move all the other times the astronauts pass by it closely. Showing that Scott was close enough to brush it here is just icing on the cake.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
Mock derisory laughter is not an argument.
davewatcher 2 years ago
On a side note, did you noticed, that on this particular picture, the astro-clown is facing someone else ? look closely, the guy is not facing who is supposed to have taken the photo at all, but more someone standing to the righ.
AstroClownBuster 2 years ago
So what you are saying is that there were two cameramen and the wrong photo was printed. That's really feeble.
davewatcher 2 years ago
What I am saying is that the guy, in his attitude, is not looking at the one taking the photo, but rather to his right (to the right of the one taking the photo that is, or to the left of the subject if you prefer)
AstroClownBuster 2 years ago
for the ones that are VERY lazy , just ask davewatcher to position the astroclown that he is showing at 0:16 in his video, on the side photo, (he will refuse to do this don't worrie, but you will quickly guess why he will refuse)
AstroClownBuster 2 years ago
At 0:16 the camera was pointing to a different position to that which I based my idea. You obviously haven't watched my clip properly. Who's the lazy one? See 1:18.
davewatcher 2 years ago
Now seriously, this is more or less the same thing that i have debunked already, comming from a guy named infocusinc, please take a look at your hilarious mistake by searching 1plus8 in photobucket, and have a good laugh at yourself dave :)
AstroClownBuster 2 years ago
for the lazy ones here is the link :
s322*photobucket*com/albums/nn403/1plus8/?action=view¤t=shit6.png
AstroClownBuster 2 years ago
mmmh actually this link don't show up right, just google photobucket 1plus8 and it should be the first link anyway...
AstroClownBuster 2 years ago
I did find the 1plus8 stuff eventually. It's really hard to understand what he's on about. Could you translate it for me?
davewatcher 2 years ago
Hard to understand ? I fail to see how this would be hard, but anyway since you are that dumb, i will explain more.
Your position (that is the position at 2:37 on the moontrue video) was examined by someone named infocusinc, who pretended, just like you, to have 'proved' that he was close enough to have possibly touched the flag, it is the position marked 2"37 on the image, got it since there ?
I have added a double check position (since position must be coherent with each others you see>>
AstroClownBuster 2 years ago
>> this double check is the position of the astroclown at 0:31 seconds in moontrue video (and 0:16 seconds in your video right here) i'm perfectly aware that the position are DIFFERENT, that is why i ask you, as a double check, to place on the side photo, the 0:16 position on the frame, to compare with the 2:37 position you have placed, so we can all laugh together (but if you understand, you will rather chose to avoid doing this, since it would prove how much of a retard you are with your video
AstroClownBuster 2 years ago
the double check position is the vertical yellow line by the way (marked 31") and the two horizontal lines are just to confirm something else, which was that infocusinc didn't even took perspective into account)
AstroClownBuster 2 years ago
and to finish, the green line is representing the upper edge of the frame at 0:31 on moontrue video (or 0:16 in this video right here)
AstroClownBuster 2 years ago
You're 1plus8, then. How tedious. My analysis is for the 2:37 moment. Your argument , whatever that is, is irrelevant. Why don't you calculate where he was standing at 2:37. Perhaps you can prove that he was standing behind the camera.
davewatcher 2 years ago
What is relevant, is to be able to confirm that the method you used to determine his position on the side photo, is valid, that is why i ask you, to replicate your analysis, for the 0:16 position, please prove that you are confident in your method, and do it (or better, delete your video, because your method sucks :)
AstroClownBuster 2 years ago
Clearly he was standing nearer to the flag at :31 than at 2:37. The next moment he is behind the thing. The fact that you completely ignore all the low gravity/vacuum behaviour of the flag, the dust and the astronauts (who's boots you are not fit to lick) makes you a first-class arrogant ignorant prick.
davewatcher 2 years ago
Clearly you say? What about you use your own method and put it on the side photo? Are you affraid that peoples might discover how stupidly wrong you are?
By the way , I do agree that he is closer at 0:31, but unfortunately for you, he is not SO CLOSE as to touch the flag (he can touch it, but he doesn't) which will reveal your flaw, since you perfectly know, that if you use your method to place this figure, it will end well inside the middle of the flag! which will prove your method wrong.
AstroClownBuster 2 years ago
It doesn't matter. My estimation of his position is about right. The astronaut's apparent size changes much in a single step. Watch carefully at 2:37. What is his left hand doing? He could easily be touching the flag.
This is all you hoax nuts have left. You ignore all the big visual evidence. Watch the extraordinary dust behaviour in "Apollo 15 Digging a trench". If you still think they were on earth then you are not just stupid, you are really f-ing stupid.
davewatcher 2 years ago
It does matter, i tell you your method is flawed, since using your method, you wouldn't be able to position the clown at 0:16 (or 0:31 depending which video you talk about) in the side picture, meaning how can you know that your position is 'about right' when the other position using the SAME METHOD would be CLEARLY OUT OF PLACE ! got it ?
As for the apollo 15 digging a trench, nice one, it look decently realistic, i was currently looking at a similar one (apollo 16 threeshades trench) >>
AstroClownBuster 2 years ago
It is clearly a good job by NASA on these two, hard to catch, the trick is, in this particular one, they probably told the clown to dig as fast as he could (with fast movements then) then used a greater amounf of slow motion than they usually do, to blend the two together.
AstroClownBuster 2 years ago
The range, in both case, is not looking like something you would obtain in 1/6g anyway, but the slow motion effect on the fallrate is quite decently achieved, one of their best one so far.
AstroClownBuster 2 years ago
I also suspect they used multiples level of slow motion (which is what i would have done to fake it, at the time, since it is much harder to catch than just one slow motion being used) multiples level of slow motion, within the same scene that is.
AstroClownBuster 2 years ago
Those guys had balls of steel. You, on the other hand, are a lying-eyed little creep. If you really believe what you say, you ought to seek psychiatric help.
davewatcher 2 years ago
You are in the emotional, obviously you can't debate (balls of steel heros blahblah) I'll eventually get back to you later, if somehow your stupid video come back at any point in the debate (but so far, since we are apparently the only two person in the world to look at it, and that you refuse to check your own work, that iwll be a good bye) ciao.
AstroClownBuster 2 years ago
Twat.
davewatcher 2 years ago
You have the most appalling command of the English language. Perhaps you are using poor-quality translation software? It gives me me a headache trying to understand you.
davewatcher 2 years ago
*Applause*
Kickass, dude. :)
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Nicely done!
See? You don't always need the fancy stuff. Just a bit of thought.
shanedk 2 years ago
Good stuff, Dave.
Shanedk showed this idea recently with software 3D model based on geometry and physical size of the astronaut and the flag. Same conclusion: it was very likely Dave Scott brushed against the flag as he was walking near it.
The way the flag behaves later i.e. oscillations lasting over 30 seconds, proves it took place in vacuum environment, but hoax advocates are blind to those facts.
BlisterHiker 2 years ago
Yes, the hoax advocates certainly are blind to the logical consequences of their own claims. If "air on the sound stage" caused the flag to move when Scott passed it, then where is that same air all the other times that he and Irwin pass closely by the flag and it doesn't budge? And why does the flag keep swinging for so long?
It would seem that the air was pumped in and out of the studio quite rapidly, yet never so quickly as to disturb the flag. :-)
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago