Moon Dehoax: Apollo 15's waving flag.

[davecyco]

@oleostrut You're right, of course.

[Crapcarp555]

@oleostrut

Where did you see that?

[esraretin]

yes its clearly waving

[Crapcarp555]

@esraretin

not by itself though

[stevehislop]

Due to the constant sun wind the surface of the Moon has a very high electrostatical potential and the only other electrical potential is the Astronaut. Its only electrostatic "magnetism" of the nylon flag ,wich is not dampened by an atmosphere and therefore even in affect over the distance that the Moonwalker had towards the flag.To all HB`s:Bill Clinton couldnt even keep that blowjob with Lewinsky a secret and you honestly believe that anybody could keep a secret with 400.000 ppl involved...??

[jcgmed]

@stevehislop Quite interesting comment, let's just try to keep the focus on the moon, ok ? Cheers.

[Laurelindo]

@jcgmed stevebishop kept focus on the moon as well, (s)he just made a comparison.

[1MtnBoy]

@jcgmed look and you will see the flag fist moves TOWARD the passing astronaut, not AWAY from him as a breeze would do. this appears to be static, if it was a breeze the flag would swing AWAY from not TOWARDS the passing object.

[xismxist]

@stevehislop Bullshit comment (what to expect from a TROLL?) 400,000 is a bogus nr. Saturn V was already build, and so was the CSM and the LM... so was the mission control center and all required radio telescopes, the real nr of how many that was involded with the hoax from Apollo 11 1969 was only a few 100's. And only a handful of this tiny number really knew whats was going on.

[stevehislop]

@xismxist "400,000 is a bogus nr..."finally some scientific evidence.Why dont you just scream FAKE?

But answer me this:Why built all the equipment and then decide to fake it?

[xismxist]

@stevehislop Perhaps they decided to fake it only months before launch? no one of the so called "400,000" people had a clue since everything was already built. If everything worked as it should like the Saturn V, why didnt they use one of its stage to launch the space shuttle?

[stevehislop]

@xismxist I´ve wasted my first question, but allow me to ask one more:How many books did you read about the Apollo program?None? Please do yourself a favor-there are so many interesting books available about this topic-read at least one or take a look here at yt at "moon machines". Using a Saturn 4 the space shuttle? I dont know-never said I know everything. Why didnt the go on with the Constellation program?

[xismxist]

@stevehislop Me reading books or not(i can tell u; not) has nothing to do with the fact that NASA had the great opportunity to launch the shuttle with Saturn V (only second stage of it necessary, not whole rocket) it would been much cheapier to use the already existed hardware instead of starting all over again which was exacly what they did, the question is WHY?

[stevehislop]

@xismxist Congress stopped the Apollo-programm by 1975. Then Skylab was using the remaining Saturn rockets.Then they decided that they need a Shuttle with a reusable propulsion system to save on costs. Is the Saturn reusable=NO. Is your question answered?What do YOU know about the costs of a Staurn V start?

[xismxist]

@stevehislop Cut the crap! they could have used the hardware to launch the shuttle but they didnt thats the fact, im not talking about one single launch like the skylab here. They could have reused the first stage since it drops in the ocean, and the second stage would remain in low earth orbit. But if it didnt perform as it was told, it wasnt a reailable rocket and therefore they developed a new one from scratch To launch with saturn would cost MUCH LESS since the rocket were already developed.

[stevehislop]

@xismxist "Cut the crap"...I see.Ok lets cut the crap then: Why o why didn´t NASA ask you Mr. rocket scientist?

My last comment here-enjoy.

[xismxist]

@stevehislop I wasnt born back then, so now because you cant prove we went to the moon you decide to run and hide?

[holtg007]

this vid is fake

[jcgmed]

@holtg007 why ?

[holtg007]

because there was a whole bunch of footage that people faked then tried to use it as their prove that is never happend,,,, and the moon landings really did happen!

if u look at the vid there is color film not like wat they had on the moon

[jcgmed]

@holtg007 first of all, I'm not a hoax believer.

Apollo missions are supported by two different sources motion images: TV downlinks and 16 mm films.

In this case, this clip belongs to the Apollo 15 video gallery, right now available at the Apollo 15 lunar surface journal website, which belongs to the official Nasa website.

[3190423]

@jcgmed Most of the the 16 mm films were stolen/lost/destroyed(?) of the apollo 15 footage. What a shame...

[jcgmed]

@3190423 Now we know why hoax accusations are changing from " we never went to the moon " to " we went but not only to bring some rocks and dust to Earth ", thats why some hoaxers have been looking for connections between manned ufos and the Apollo 9 mission...one more example of hoax desperate logics.

[norjop]

O bien ¿sería lógico arriesgarse a realizarla, a pesar del tremendo desprestigio que hubiera supuesto que, por ejemplo, la URSS o la comunidad científica lo descubriesen?

[norjop]

¿Podría haberse realizado una falsificación tan grande que resistiera, no sólo al análisis de la sociedad de 1969 en adelante y a la Unión Soviética, sino a una generación entera de científicos familiarizados con el estudio geológico de los cuerpos celestes?

[norjop]

Las presuntas 'anomalías' en las fotografías no son tales al ser analizadas con rigor: la teoría del montaje no resiste al realizar sobre ella un análisis crítico y razonado.

[norjop]

Las misiones Apolo 11, 14 y 15 instalaron en la Luna distintos conjuntos de retroflectores, complejos espejos utilizados para rebotar rayos lásers desde tierra los cuales sirven para infinidad de experimentos. Dada la complejidad en la calibración e instalación de éstos espejos su colocación era imposible para robots de la época, por lo que habilidad y pericia humana eran necesarias.

[norjop]

¿Existe alguna evidencia tangible de la llegada?

Sí, absolutamente.

[MicaelaAlmodovar]

Bueno, nunca estaremos de acuerdo en estos puntos, digamos, fotográficos, pero aún así, dime porqué TODAS las misiones espaciales tripuladas ( salvo las del Apollo, claro) no llegaron ni siquiera a los 1000 km de la superficie terrestre: skylab, estación espacial internacional, todos los viajes de los transbordadores etc Se dice que no se puede volver a la Luna hoy en día por motivos presupuestarios: ok, entonces hagan algo muy simple: lleven a alguien a solo 1000 km si es tan fácil

[jcgmed]

En realidad si lo han hecho, pero es la obsesion de los apolo escepticos en creer que las unicas orbitas posibles son circulares, tomando para su conveniencia la mas baja altura de las orbitas elipticas, y decir que nunca se ha pasado de ahi.

[MicaelaAlmodovar]

@jcgmed Mira tu dices que el astronauta toca la bandera a mi me parece que no, y no soy la única. Hay otros que dicen que lo que mueve la bandera es la carga electros- tática del astronauta, y se pueden idear otras cosas más ingeniosas aún: lo que puedo decir con seguridad es que la mentira tiene patas cortas y ya esta mentira duró demasiado: tus esfuerzos por defender la versión oficial de la NASA tiene algo de noble: es la defensa de una causa perdida.

[jcgmed]

Pues simplemente di que no quieres creerlo, nada ni nadie te obliga.

[MicaelaAlmodovar]

@jcgmed No es que no quiera creelo, de hecho yo no dudaba. Lo que me llevo a dudar y a estar convencida del engaño es la gran cantidad de datos fidedignos que hay en la red acerca del tema: incluso viendo las fotos del sitio oficial de la nasa, que creo que más no se puede pedir, se nota que las fotos fueron realizadas en algún estudio con luces de relleno, sin ir más lejos la foto en la que Aldrin baja por la escalerilla tiene sombras hacia arriba de las arrugas del traje espacial!!!

[jcgmed]

Te recomiendo analizarla mas aun, ya que en pleno detalle se ven diminutos puntitos azules, son granos de la emulsion fotografica quemados por radiacion ultravioleta, ademas de otros igualmente diminutos puntitos blancos, solo posibles bajo condiciones de extrema reflectividad sin gases de por medio que dispersen la luz.

[jcgmed]

Ah, y decompila la foto que quieras, veras el encabezado del aplicativo usado para escanerlas, ( adobe photoshop 3.0, en 1998 ) la unica forma de lograr tal fidelidad con una version tan arcaica de photoshop era escaneando directamente el negativo.

[MicaelaAlmodovar]

@jcgmed De acuerdo tu puedes decir lo mismo de nosotros los apoloscepticos, pero dime has visto las fotos del sitio nasascam? me refiero a las que muestra diferentes misiones con el mismo fondo a pesar de que se trata de lugares bien distantes entre si. Y fíjate que son fotos oficiales de la nasa: que explicación me podrías dar al respecto? Por si no lo conoces el sitio es nasascam

[jcgmed]

Si, claro que lo he visto, sobretodo como juegan con el chroma keyer para hacer creer que fue un montaje, o como borran sombras para esconder el desplazamiento del sol en el firmamento lunar, que es de .15 grados por hora.

Te recomiendo a greenmagoos, que recorta pedazos del cuadro, con contraste y brillo al 120 % o mas, para hacerle creer a la gente que las piedras son de carton, entre otras cosas.

[MicaelaAlmodovar]

Although it's common knowledge throughout the world that the Apollo Moon missions were faked by NASA back in the 60's, many gullible people still accept NASA's claim of sending men to the Moon, without bothering to carry out any research, or investigation, to see if NASA are indeed telling the truth. There are some who will never accept the Moon missions were faked, regardless of how much factual evidence of a fake is put before them.

source: nasascam

[jcgmed]

Well, we can say exactly the same about hoaxscam.

[marcbrillant]

@MicaelaAlmodovar - Only 5% are moon hoaxers. 9 out of 10 Americans believe in the Apollo moon missions. It is you who has to do more research to realize that these missions were true and real. Just think: why haven't the Soviets unearthed ANY shred of evidence to prove them to be a hoax for the past 40 years? It's because they couldn't find ANY evidence of fabrication. Do more reading in Science and History. All credible and prestigious materials point to this historic fact.

[MicaelaAlmodovar]

@marcbrillant

Do me, and everyone else a favor PAN's. When you go to bed tonight, repeat to yourself over and over again, "Deadly radiation 500 miles from Earth, Moon 250,000 miles from Earth", or as the woman in the NASA video quotes "280,000 miles from Earth". Seems even NASA don't know how far away the Moon is, so much for the so called laser reflectors supposedly left on the Moon by astroNOTS.

[marcbrillant]

@MicaelaAlmodovar- Do yourself and the rest of you unbelievers a HUGE favor: learn this new mantra - "Deadly Radiation 500 miles from earth NOT so deadly after all - as proven by all Apollo moon missions". (Even the author of these radiation belt said so himself.) Repeat 100x until you fall asleep fitfully. Then, repeat these true words in your dream (or is it your worst nightmare?!) till it finally penetrates your 6 ft lead skull . Repeat this truth exercise nightly. Pleasant dreams girl!

[tzonisg]

@marcbrillant 9 out of 10 Americans also can't point Vietnam on a World map

[marcbrillant]

@tzonisg - Yup tzonisg, what a pity! News today - 75% of American youths fail in Geography. But still - the U.S. landed on the moon. And - majority these students believe that as historic and factual :-)

[Tanaka666666]

@tzonisg Can't even point Nebraska!!! bwahahahahah AMERICA FUCK DUMBS YEAH!!!

[jmovlogs]

@marcbrillant 9 out of 10 is 10% not 5%.

[marcbrillant]

@jmovlogs - Sir, kindly read the statement carefully once more. The first sentence deals with the percentage of moon hoaxers. Second sentence states the estimate of how many Americans believe in the Apollo moon missions - which is 90%. This means not all non-believers are hoaxers. Thanks anyway for your comment.

[jmovlogs]

@marcbrillant So then what arte the other 5% of people? 

[marcbrillant]

@jmovlogs - These may be people who do not care, some are possibly clueless, some maybe believers but keep mum, others probably are non-believers who say nothing... But the sentences above which I wrote and which you cite are two different matters - the stats of which are not mine but are of readily available sources at your fingertips -

[Crapcarp555]

@marcbrillant

How about China or Japan or Korea or Britian or Germany or any other country that would have the means to try and find evidence?

[marcbrillant]

@Crapcarp555 - Have any of them published contrary evidence supported by the global scientific community? If so, do us a favor so we can study them. So far, we haven't heard from these countries. As I've said in other sites: If the Russians knew of any hoax, they would have said so years ago! (There was even a joint US-Soviet project in 1975 with a link-up of Apollo-Soyuz.) Now, with China on the rise - let's patiently wait and see...

[Crapcarp555]

@marcbrillant

Dude, I'm agreeing with you. I'm just adding to your example. No other country hasn't put up any contrary evidence, even though they could. I don't think NASA could pay them ALL off.

[marcbrillant]

@Crapcarp555 - Oh, ok dude - I misunderstood your statement! :-)

[babybel9]

why does it move there is no air in space pls awnser

[jcgmed]

Have you seen the entire video ?

[Crapcarp555]

@babybel9

Arms have a lovely way of moving flags.

[VinterVandring]

I don't see how you got the suns position out of the flag... Explain?

[jcgmed]

Shadows angle.

[badsign1980]

you would see little sparks the temps inside would go up, x rays would basicly x raid the ship gama rays wouldmake the ship light up like a candle... maybe even turn into a gloomy coulor... psi believed the usa was on the moon,but it was done ina very cleaver way so believe like anyother jews that mr.bart sitrel is another jew fat nosy egocentric selfishmoney snake coward all caractheristics of the jewish race, backstabbing ppl call me racist and kiss rothschilds asses slaves...

[jcgmed]

Please stay in the scientifical facts or I'll be forced to block you.

[Crapcarp555]

@badsign1980

What. The. Fuck.

[badsign1980]

sparks come out(by microwave food causes cancer cause it rubs molecules against m destroying fundamental organic dna so as eating a animal who was sick with cancer or some mutant rice cause its damaged molecules that the body was trouble getting them into the aminoacids chains,here in the middle of a cancer epidemy and nobody thinks its weird?) but going on further,sparks come out, passing van belt what would happend to the ship?

[jcgmed]

It is a belt, not a sphere.

[Crapcarp555]

@badsign1980

Jesus Christ you're a fucking moron! I have not read a dumber comment.

[jcgmed]

flares.

It was risky but...no pain, no gain.

[jcgmed]

Not so.

I see that you are trying to assume such information as a suicidal-last-will from Nasa or something.

I told you about the regolith ejections due to radiactivity bombardment, it means, shooting stars, and plasma deyections from the ground, a dangerous spray of particles, if you want.

As I told you before, such radioactivity depends a lot more of the incoming radiations from outside that any other thing, as your post says: ....is badly exposed to cosmic rays and solar...

[jcgmed]

It is radioactive, of course, but depending a lot more of sun's higly radioactivity episodes than surface itself.

In fact, by cheking some footages, can be clearly appreciated that sun's incoming radioactivity is pretty random, sometimes it was almost nothing and sometimes it could last 20 minutes or so.

So Houston requested them to leave immediately the zone in which they were working during some specially intense radioactivity episodes, cuz it was a very high risk to take.

[jcgmed]

his scalp, even washing it several times a day.

Regards.

[jcgmed]

Such greenish and lila glows, seen during almost the very first moment in which Dave Scott set his feet out of the ladder, are some of the more usual manifestations of radioactivity.

Even while deploying the Tv Camera can be clearly appreciated how around Scott's spacesuit, the magnetc shield deflects a lot of betha particles, which became tiny sparks all around him.

[jcgmed]

Being there is a risk, but not a deadly bussiness in terms of radioactivity, there are another life support aspects a lot more critic and hard to deal with.

In fact, radioactivity is not an accumulative phenomenon, you gotta be constantly exposed during a period of time until the bombardment is barely enuff to induct some irreversible damages.

The most radioactive environment in which any human being has been over the Moon was Hadley Rille, on Rima Hadley, during the Apollo 15 mission.

[jcgmed]

By using magnetic deflection shields and radiation absorption materials on the spacesuit itself.

Gamma particles are a lot powerfull than the rest, so its levels had to be constantly monitored, even visually, when shooting stars and plasma eyections from the ground were too much to work safely on the surface.

It was risky but not as a nuclear disaster, like Chernobyl and similar, which footages are a clear reference for radiactivity's visual manifestations on the Moon.

[GoneToPlaid]

There was no contact with the flag, nor was it ground vibration that caused the flag to move. Instead it was the buildup of static charge on the astronaut which makes the flag move as the astronaut gallops past the flag. Kicking around all that moon dust in the moisture free and airless environment of the lunar surface builds up a considerable static charge on the astronaut.

[jcgmed]

Yup. you got it, that's why the flag almost stops flapping when Irwin passes, even on Earth that cant happen...well, maybe under a huge static and subatomic particle bombardment while wearing some magnetic radiation shieldings.

That's why the flag seems to be pulled later on the low right corner, when Scott passes running.

I've seen some vaporized eyections from regolith surrounding the scene, I think there's enuff evidence of a moderate to high radioactive environment.

Best regards.

[GoneToPlaid]

He he. More like evidence for a lot of fused silica in the lunar dust. Fused silica basically is small glass particles. Just like rubbing a glass rod on wool causes a strong static charge to build up on the glass rod, kicking around all that lunar dust builds up a strong static charge on an astronaut's space suit. The suit consisted of various layers of nylon. Nylon, being a synthetic material, easily accumulates a static charge just like polyester fabric does.

[jcgmed]

Yup, that's why just under the lasts layers of dust it conglomerates, creating some proto-stones, or peebles, likes hoaxies say: peebles.

[brucelee6790]

what evidence is the evidence of a moderate to high radioactive environment?

[jcgmed]

No atmosphere, reactive and ionized surface, abnormal fluorescences due to unfiltered ultraviolet light, magnetized rocks and dust...Moon's surface.

[jcgmed]

Dave Scott is not a dwarf, in fact, he was the tallest.

Have you seen a wave speading thru the flag, or at least, from bottom-right to bottom-left corners ?

Thats why I say that every bar, every star, are trembling at the same rate.

[Aurinkohirvi]

It would also be a good idea, if you showed the clip from an earlier point. One could see what size the astronauts are, when they move around the flag.

To me it appears that the astronaut running past the flag in the end, isn't close enough to touch it, he appears so big in size (near the camera).

One can make his opinion of this watchng the whole scene, for example this YouTube clip:

v=n1UEv2PIzl4

[Aurinkohirvi]

Well, congratulations. I think you are the first one to claim there is a contact between the astronaut and the flag. Haven't seen others make so bold claims the astronaut would be so close to the flag.

The mass and the velocity of the astronaut are far too insignificant to shake the Moon's ground. If you would be right of the bouncing being the reason (but you aren't), then there are several jumps, not only one, causing new swings on the pole.

[jcgmed]

Yep, I agree about the mass and velocity thing, I'm not claiming the flag's motion by ground vibration, I'm claiming a contact.

Tks for watching.

[Aurinkohirvi]

There is a problem with the contact theory: the flag moves before the astronaut moves past it.

Watch Whitejarrah's Moonfaker: The Flags Are Alive. The part 3 shows this movement.

[jcgmed]

Wrong.

It happens before, and it doesnt matter how fast or slow the astronauts passes beside the flag.

Have you seen when Irwin does the same thing, but slowly, in the opposite direction ?

[Aurinkohirvi]

They zoom into the flag in the video, and it moves. I rather believe my eyes than you saying "wrong". Yes I've seen the scene since setting up the flag.

[jcgmed]

That's why I say wrong.

It doesnt matter speed and direction.

Got it ?

[brobertsumc]

However, in a perfect vacuum (which the moon, for all practical purposes, is), it doesn't take much ground vibration to start a pendulum (which the flag, in a vaccum, essentially is) moving. I think he could have cause enough vibration to move the flag (think about it, if someone standing next to you drops a heavy box on the floor within a few feet of you, you can feel a slight jolt through your feet even if the box never touches you).

[Strikr333]

in a vacuum or a non atmospheric environment it would not move two ways... that defies the law that says something in motion stays in motion it would have been moved one direction until stopped by something it would not go the other way.... look back to the simple sciences and laws... by the way not trying to insult you just placing my scientific opinion

[jcgmed]

You forgot gravity and the flagpoles.

[brobertsumc]

So you're saying a pendulum wouldn't work in a vacuum?

[jcgmed]

What's your game ?

[davecyco]

A pendulum would work FOREVER in a vacuum.

[jcgmed]

Whatever you answer, brobertsumc will try to make a mess with it.

Btw, it should work forever if there were no friction.

Regards

[Tanaka666666]

@davecyco lol... no. Do some quick research.

[Tanaka666666]

@davecyco lol... no. Do some quick research.

[davecyco]

@Tanaka666666 He's right: a pendulum loses energy to friction, and I did not consider that before I posted. Then I admitted I was wrong. So what's the problem?

[TremorHellborn]

Fuckin' awesome!

[dopje31857]

LOL

1/6 G

Five stars again JCG!