Evan Burton

Thank you for quoting the fun part of my post ... You do realize it was a joke on Dave's silly experiment , I hope ?

I will start a new topic thread on this in a few days and then you all can play more games with this very damaging evidence against the authenticity of the Apollo 15 video footage .... Hopefully I will be able to provide all the evidence you require to prove that the Apollo 15 flag video was filmed in an atmosphere ... and that the reason it swung ( 20 ocilations ) was because of air currents produced by the astronot as he bounced past it in slow motion on the moonset .

No, I thought you were being serious. Doing such an experiment is one of the ways to ascertain what was correct and what was not. To use a comparison, do you think the JFK researchers would accept a simple statement with regard to a testable proposition, or would they conduct the experiment themselves?

Craig ... Wow ... Sorry to hear about your health problems ... That could very well explain why you're such a hateful , miserable and vindictive person on these discussion forums .... You can post all the "pesky shadow Apollo problem" nonsence you please here , but I doubt that Jack will even bother to play your game and David Percy couldn't be bothered wasting his time reading , much less replying to your character assassinations and hate campaigne against him and his evidence which exposes the Apollo photographic hoax .... What acclaimed role did you play in the making of the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal again ? ... Advisor , was it ? .. LOL

I understand perfectly why Mark Grey orderd a take down of Jarrah White's video , exposing the EDITED Apollo photography , and so does everyone else who has no doubt that the Apollo photography was faked ... and it had NOTHING to do with copyright infringement .

Dave ... Where is your sense of humor ? ...I see that you didn't even bother to quote the fun part of my post , but just the part which hurt your feelings .... Sorry , but your flag "experiment" was ridiculous , even by your standards .

How desperate the defenders of the Apollo debacle have become ... The way you all conduct yourselves on the Apllohaoax forum is quite disgraceful ... It's one thing to attempt to refute someone's evidence , but very childish to attack and insult them personally , like the way you have Jarrah White ... It doesn't feel good does it ?

Duane - attack the idea, not the person, otherwise we will have a free-for-all. You insult people and then berate others for insulting behaviour, all in the same post. Seeing who can best insult one another is not providing evidence for our respective views.

I've provided comments and corrections to the ALSJ as well, so any insinuations you are making about Craig apply to me as well. And to a number of other people. If we appreciate the work that has gone into it, do something to help the ALSJ, and then have our own efforts acknowledged in return... well, what is wrong with that? What does it imply?

You yourself have been mentioned on the Aulis webpages; what should we draw from that? Would it be fair to imply that you are a paid agent for Aulis, Percy, etc? You certainly sing their praises. Or is it possible you appreciate their work, and have been recognised by them for the work you have done? People in glass houses, etc.

Did you examine the differences in attribution between the various videos? That may have played a part. Also, as Craig says, if Mark wants to hit these guys for breaking the law then he can do so. If he doesn't want prosecute someone else, then he can do so. It's his material, he can do as he pleases, and doesn't need to be even-handed. No-one ever said life was fair.

So let's have a look at this great cover-up, shall we?

Is any of the "incriminating" footage been withdrawn from public view? No. The open source footage is available to Jarrah, greenmagoos (one in the same?), or anyone else who wants to use it.

Is anyone preventing people from examining the same footage from the DVDs, or from the open source material, and supporting whatever claims are being made? No. People can make the same claims, and can show the same footage - as long as it is the open source material. They can examine the DVDs all they want. If they want to use it publicly, then they should approach the copyright owner for permission (I wouldn't give it myself, but Mark may do so; who knows).

Is there anything preventing people from taking the open source material and improving the resolution themselves? No. If they want to put the effort into improving the quality, then they can do so.

So the sum result of all these claims of people being silenced is balderdash; they have been simply told to use their own work.

Dave ... I took my good ole' boys Confederate "rebel " flag , scotched taped it ( nasa's favorite method of displaying flags ) to a curtain rod across the top of it , then taped it the other way to my fishing pole and then drilled a hole in my floor to plant it in my living room !!

Then I bounced past it in slow motion to see if it would swing with the air currents , like it did in the faked Apollo 15 video clip ... and guess what ?? .. It moved with wake of air currents that were kicked up as I bounced past it in slow motion !!! .... but guess what ??? .. I forgot to count the number of times that it ocilated before it DAMPENED !!

So I waited for it to stop swinging and then bounced past it again in slow motion and counted the ocilations this time , and guess what ??? .. It was only TEN instead of TWENTY !?!?

Then I remembered that I hadn't FILMED it SLOW MOTION , so I needed to DOUBLE the number of ocilations and guess what ??? ...That equals TWENTY TIMES THAT MY REBEL FLAG OCILATED !!!

Do you have any idea how much of a ridiculous geek you really are ? LOL

Excellent - so what was the maximum distance away from the flag someone could be before their movement did not produce any movement in the flag?

Can you give a rough estimate of what speed you used for the person walking past? Very difficult to do unless you filmed it, calculated it, etc, but even an estimate helps give an idea of what speed you chose.

I thought I might just add a few aviation snippets from here in Oz. They'll be mostly - if not all - military aviation:

- The Royal Australian Navy's 723 SQN has taken delivery of 3 x Agusta A109E POWER helicopters, under a leasing agreement with Agusta and Raytheon Australia. Raytheon will provide a 'wet lease' arrangement, providing all maintenance for the aircraft. 723 SQN crews will fly the aircraft in a variety of roles, but under contractual restrictions they will not conduct any deck landings to RAN vessels. 723 SQN is the primary aircrew training squadron within the RAN. Pilots and Observers come from their basics courses, conducted by the RAAF, and pass through 723 SQN for their rotary wing conversion before going to either Seahawk, Seasprite, or Sea King helicopters. The A109s will be used as a transition from the AS350BA Squirrel helicopter for those crews awaiting posting to one of the front-line squadrons. Primary duties will be advanced training and transport.

- The Federal Government has decided to continue on with the SH-2G(A) Super Seasprite project, against the recommendations of the Defence Department. The Super Seasprite uses refurbished airframes fitted out with state-of-the-art avionics and tactical systems, but the systems integration of all the new electronics has been causing problems. The main concern has been the Integrated Tactical Avionics System (ITAS), which has not performed satisfactorily. Flight testing has resumed in the US, but the airframes at Nowra are not expected to commence squadron flying until 2010; even then, they are expected to be in the Interim Training Helicopter (ITH) configuration rather than the Full Capability Helicopter (FCH).

- The Shark 02 Board of Inquiry has released its findings into the loss of Sea King 02 during disaster relief operations at Nias in 2005. The primary cause of the accident was an improperly fitted bolt within the main rotor flight control system, which came loose causing a loss of control. The BOI was critical of pressures placed upon maintenance personnel. A number of ADF personnel face disciplinary action or discharge. About 80% of the BOI's recommendations will have been put in place by the end of the year.

- The investigation into the loss of a Black Hawk helicopter from HMAS KANIMBLA is continuing. The aircraft crashed onto the deck during special ops training exercises off Fiji. Immediately after the crash, the aircraft rolled overboard and sunk. Two personnel were killed in the accident. Various theories for the loss have been raised in light of the witness testimony but at this time the most likely explanation is that the aircraft was flown too fast during the landing, leading to a condition knows as a vortex ring state.

- After some 20 years, the famous Qantas "flying kangaroo" logo is changing - but it's not like you'd notice. The logo has been slightly altered so that on the new Airbus airframes the 'legs' of the kangaroo pass forward of the tailplane rather than pass through it, as was the case with the previous iteration.

Another news article claimed that the incidents were actually a US passenger aboard a Soyuz, and another (same?) passenger in the back of a T-38.

We'll have to wait to see what really did happen.

It would also seem from the forum that Duane linked to that Jarrah was also breaking copyright laws with Penn & Teller material as well. naughty, naughty. Just use the public material.

Still, Duane, you haven't provided any evidence to support your views. You are still, in essence, saying to people "trust me...".

Why don't you show some working whereby you show that you are right and I am wrong?

I've given people an experiment to try. I can't do this for myself and claim it as proof because there are a few variables which people would just have to accept from me. Besides, I am sure there are people who would claim I faked the results if those results supported my views. Therefore, I leave it to others to determine for themselves what the maximum distance is if the flag is to be affected by a person passing by. BTW, if some of the lurkers have done this, I would appreciate them posting the results of their trials.

I can show some calculations regarding distances involved in the images, and give people workings so they can confirm those distances for themselves - but I am not going to do that yet. I want to allow Duane (et al) to present their case first, show their evidence, allow the lurkers to examine their evidence, before presenting my own data for comparison. We can then compare the distances with the results of peoples trials.

If anyone thinks i might "skew" the data to fit others calculations, then don't publicly post your results. Send them via PM to John Simpkin or Andy Walker, and ask them to 'safeguard' individual results until both Duane and myself have published our findings. We can then compare our findings to others results.

No, Duane, you are misrepresenting things here. Let me explain:

The tape data is used / recorded as required, then the tapes are re-used. This is normal practice. Being Apollo tapes, they were kept in storage (archives) after the data had been used / recorded.

The fact that the whereabouts of the tapes are currently unknown is of great concern, but that data itself - for the most part - is recorded elsewhere (technical reports, post-mission reports, etc). If no-one requested / required the data, then it was probably discarded.

The comment about being able to play the tapes is kinda correct. The tapes used a couple of special machines to record the data. The machines were state-of-the-art in 1969, but are museum pieces now. The machines required to read and interpret that data are now gone (although there might be one somewhere). The slow scan TV machine, however, was still at NASA and due to be sold thrown away - but the revelation about the Apollo 11 slow scan TV footage stopped that. NASA has put the decommissioning of the facility on hold until it can be certain of the fate of the slow scan TV tapes (which are Apollo 11 only).

It might be like saying that the telemetry tapes from the first atomic explosions and subsequent tests can no longer be found. That doesn't indicate that atomic explosions were 'faked' in some way, or that the missing original data sources are indicative of some conspiracy.

Well, if you infringe copyright laws, then that's what you have to expect. No reason Jarrah cannot use the footage that is in the public domain. If he wants better resolution, he can work to clean up the video exactly like Spacecraft Films did.

I'm waiting to see the full results of that, and I will be pretty disgusted with NASA management if this has been allowed to happen during the Shuttle programme.

We actually operate with a 'Zero Blood Alcohol' level and 'no aftereffects of drinking', so not only must you be zero BAC but also not suffering a hangover.

I would have thought that was pretty standard throughout aerospace these days.

If you get the time, have a look at the first episode of From the Earth To the Moon; it is about Alan Shepard's Mercury flight. Tremendous stuff.

I have to keep on correcting a number of people about this;

Alan Shepard was the first American in space.

John Glenn was the first American in orbit.

Both earned their place in American history.

Duane, all you have done is drawn a yellow line on an image.

About what distance is between the LRV TV camera and the flag?

At about what distance does the astronaut pass in front of the TV camera?

About how wide is the astronaut?

There are clues available to you so that you could give a scientific estimate of whether it was possible of not; so far, however, you just ask people to believe you without any evidence.

I'll start the ball rolling a little for my opinion: We know the dimensions of the flag, and that is was a plain nylon flag (albeit with a top bar). If we assume that the film is faked, and that the apparent "low gravity" is caused by the film being slowed down, then the astronaut actually passed by the flag / camera faster than we saw. How much faster? 6 x faster? 2 x faster? The normal "film being slowed down" figure is about 2.5 times, so lets assume he went by 2.5 times faster than shown on the film.

Watch the video, speed it up by 2.5 times, and make your own estimate of how fast the astronaut passed by the flag.

Now, with a nylon flag of the same size, a person as "bulky" as an astronaut in an EMU, and using the speed you calculated, recreate the scene and see how close you have to be to get the same apparent movement in the flag (don't forget the flag movement has to be sped up 2.5 times as well). How close to get the same movement of the two (astronaut / flag)? One metre? 50cm? 25cm? 10cm? 5 cm?

Once you have done this, you will then be able to say:

"If this was filmed in an atmosphere at 1G (Earth normal), and the film we see is actually slowed down by 2.5 times (or whatever figure you feel is correct), then the person has to be no further than this distance in order to make the flag move."

Oh, and I should mention that the pole was a simple construction (no space age metals), and the flag was a bog-standard American flag (again nothing special). This is mentioned in "Where No Flag has Gone Before".

Your experiment is worthless, like comparing a peach to a plum. If you did not perform the experiment in a vacuum, it means nothing. I doubt that you used a genuine Apollo flag and flagpole unless your NASA folks loaned you one.

If the flag fluttered in a vacuum, that is what you must test...not the unknown conditions in a photo studio. We do not know the conditions in the studio; maybe somebody turned on a fan. Your test amounts to a non-sequitur.

I have not seen the clip in question. Do you admit that the flag moves without being touched?

Jack

The above quote would be funny if it weren't typical of your stubborn, blinkered attitude. That experiment is EXACTLY what we should be looking at and is VERY relevant.

We have been shown a segment of film. As the astronaut walks past the camera, we see the flag behind him move.

The implication is that it was moved by the air currents created by the passing astronaut, thus showing it was not filmed on the Moon as claimed.

If we return to what we have seen, there are four basic environmental conditions we should examine the astronaut / flag scenario in:

1 - No atmosphere, 1/6th G

2 - No atmosphere, 1G

3 - Atmosphere, 1/6th G

4 - Atmosphere, 1G

Scenario 1 is what is being claimed by NASA, and we can't recreate it without going to the Moon.

Scenario 2 is possible to recreate here on Earth, but we'd need to have access to a massive vacuum chamber. Impractical for us to test at this time given limited resources.

Scenario 3 is difficult - if not impossible - to recreate here because we can't simulate more than a few seconds of 1/6th G, and the film shows a greater time than that. In any case, it is not the scenario being claimed by NASA so would still be indicating that the film was not filmed on the Moon as claimed.

Scenario 4 can easily be recreated here. If the results of Scenario 4 do not match what was seen in the film, Scenario 4 can be eliminated as a possible contender for the condition in which the film was shot.

Dave has done his tests, and concludes that Scenario 4 does not fit the observed facts.

I'll try and have a look at the YouTube vid when bandwidth allows, but is this the Apollo 11 tapes stuff again?

To recap, some of the tapes which contained Apollo 11 telemetry data and slow-scan TV has been lost. The slow-scan TV does not give any new footage, it just shows it in better resolution than we have previously had.

It was my understanding (and I am will to correct myself, and will check my facts) that the telemetry data was for the most part already recorded elsewhere.

If we are talking about those same tapes, it is only the Apollo 11 telemetry data tapes which are affected. Other missions data (A12 onwards) are still there (to the best of my knowledge, and I will check on that).

Evan ... Speaking of using other people work , why is it okay for you to do that but not me ? ....Your 'rebuttal' of the flag , swinging by the breeze of the astro-actor trotting past it on the A15 moonset , was taken right from some pro Apollo forum .

Quite true that I took my rebuttal from the ALSJ. Point taken, and I'll do my own analysis - but I'll only present it after you have done yours. Why? In fairness, if you have a look at my rebuttals to Jack's AULIS website you'll see numerous examples of my demonstrating - in clear detail - why Jack's claims are wrong. All my own work. Lots of it.

Just in case you have forgotten, the material can be found here.

So to answer your question , I have no way of measuring the distance between the astronot and the moving flag , but looking at the video clip it is obvious that he was several feet away from it and therefore couldn't possibly have bumped into it as he bounced past it in slow motion .

See? This is what I mean. You say you can't measure it but you know it isn't possible. How can other people be so sure - are you saying "Trust me"? The ALSJ gave the possible reasons for the movement, the likelihood of each. It then showed the circumstances surrounding it's most likely reason, and even admitted that it was not conclusive.

You say: "Trust me - I'm right" but don't give people the knowledge to understand WHY you should be considered right or wrong.

What is that saying? "The problem is that fools are so certain of themselves, whilst the wiser are unsure'? Something like that.

If you are certain, PROVE you are certain. And before you repeat your erroneous statement about not being able to measure the distance, there are a number of things available to you that will allow you to make a reliable estimate. I won't tell you what they are, but they are there. use them. Do the sums. See if they support your conclusion.

Actually, they are ardent supporters of the space programme. Both Howard and Hanks had a fascination with the US manned space programme, and are now in a position to pay tribute to it.

I'm hoping they will do a series covering Mercury / Gemini like they did for Apollo with "From the Earth to the Moon".

Even so, I'm guessing that Duane's reply will consist of something like "Oh no they didn't!" or "No you are wrong" but without any supporting evidence.

He could always surprise us and give a detailed reply, but I wouldn't count on it.

David, I would ask you - in my role as a regular forum member, not as a moderator - to not associate Craig's views with the KKK, Nazis, etc, unless you have specific evidence of such an association.

At the very least you 'Godwin' the thread.

I don't necessarily agree with all of what Craig has said, but I think that if people disagree with it they can knock his points down using logic, not dark associations.

IMO you are an excellent poster, David - even though I don't agree with you on all matters - but I think you are capable of dismissing an opponents arguments in a far more logical fashion rather than resorting to Godwinisms.

Oh, I looked for an appropriate thread to remind people of the Apollo 11 anniversary. In the past 3 or 4 pages I thought this was the most suitable, due to Apollo 11 being mentioned in the title.

Have you considered my challenge? You present your "best" evidence in a thread, just you & me. I get constrained by the normal rules, have no moderation powers, will not ask for any moderation, whilst you get open season on me personally, and can say what you want - as long as it does not threaten the Board as a whole (e.g. make a statement that open the Board to libel, etc).

That way the deck is stacked in your favour.

Sorry Evan , but that astronot never got anywhere near that flag ... What you posted is just the best lame excuse that the pro Apollo camp can come up with to try to explain away the fact that enough breeze was kicked up by the astro-actor zipping past the flag to cause it to move .

And speaking of aniversaries , since you were silly enough to drag up this old thread and bring up the moon landing myth again , here is a part of a little speech given by the original moonfaker himself , Neil Armstrong , as he tries to hold back tears of regret for his deceprtion ,now 38 years ago.

Neil Armstrong on 25th Anniversary of Lunar "Landing"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w-SDs_Skb0...ted&search=

Sad isn't it ?

If the excuse is that "lame", you should have no problems disproving it. The ALSJ gave a good explanation about how it worked out distances involved and how it came to it's conclusion - and said it is not conclusive.

Why not be original, and work out WHY you say it cannot be, giving diagrammes that people can see, working that people can check for themselves, saying what assumptions are made, etc. You strengthen your point that way. People can follow what you have said, and why you have said it.

As I have said far too many times in the past (I thought you would understand by now), saying "no it isn't" just doesn't cut it. You have to show WHY it isn't in order for people to be able to confidently say "Duane is right".

I'm happy to further expand on the ALSJ details - AFTER you show some support for your opinion in the way of scientific reasoning.

Hmm - how many projects actually come in under budget?

If this one did I think it would be a first! But it's got to be a decent starting point, especially if a lot of existing technology can be utilised to do the lifting into earth orbit.

I would expect any project to run over-budget anyway, so it helps if the estimates are low to begin with.

It's funny. For government work at least, it would seem that a quote is given and everyone knows that it will be over budget. Why not simply give your best estimate of costs, allowing for over-runs? I'm sure that there is a formula used somewhere (e.g. quoted price +10%, etc).

Still, I agree - it should be done. I think it is one of these stages which are needed to advance the technology. Get real experience in long-duration spaceflight (not just LEO microgravity, although that was a step on the way). Learn to survive away from our Earth for really extended periods. Learn to leave the nest, not just fly above it for a while.

Thanks for that Michael - it is meant to be a tremendous film. It has all of us "Apollogists" aflutter.

I don't think it has an Australian release date as yet.

Hmm - how many projects actually come in under budget?

I presume that the "discovery" is that the flag moves when he brushes past it, after the salute photos?

How startling.

The ALSJ noted this long ago:

[Note the slight motion of the lower righthand corner of the flag after Dave passes. Journal Contributors have suggested a number of possible causes: (1) Dave could have brushed against the flag with his left arm as he went by; (2) he could have kicked some dirt with his boot that hit the bottom of the flag; (3) he could have pushed a mound of soil sideways with his boot that pushed against the flagstaff ; (4) the impact of his boots on the ground as he ran past could have shaken the flagstaff; (5) he might have been carrying a static charge which attracted the flag material; (6) the flag could have been disturbed by emissions from the backpack.]

[in thinking about these possibilities, numbers 5 and 6 are very unlikely, since there is no evidence of similar flag motions during the Apollo 14, 16, and 17 deployments for which we have good video or - in the case of Apollo 14 - film coverage. With regard to foot impacts, we can certainly see the ground move when flagstaffs and cores are hammered into the ground, but the motions extend only a few centimeters outward and, because the Apollo 14 flag points at the LRV TV camera, Dave problably doesn't get close enough to the flagstaff for his footfalls to have any noticeable effect. Similarly, it doesn't seem likely that he got close enough to the flagstaff to have moved it with a displaced mound of dirt.]

[The possibility that Dave kicked some dirt high enough to hit the bottom of the flag is not out of the realm of possibility, although in the many cases were we have goot TV coverage of sprays of dirt flying out ahead of running astronauts, most of the particles have relatively flat trajectories and land after traveling a meter or so. Indeed, Buzz Aldrin did some purposeful test kicks to see what happened and how the sprays looked under various lighting conditions. This is discussed after 110:18:31. Buzz comments, "Houston, it's very interesting to note that when I kick my foot (garbled) material, with no atmosphere here, and this gravity (garbled) they seem to leave, and most of them have about the same angle of departure and velocity. From where I stand, a large portion of them will impact at a certain distance out. Several (garbled) percentage is, of course, that will impact (garbled) different regions out (garbled) it's highly dependent upon (garbled) the initial trajectory upwards (garbled) determine where the majority of the particles come down, (garbled) terrain."]

[My impression is that few, if any, particles go above knee height.]

[A likely explanation is that Dave brushed the flag with his arm as he went running past. As can be seen in the TV, he is carrying the Hasselblad camera that he just got from Jim and it looks as though, if he brushed the flag at all, he did so with his left elbow. To check this possibility, I have compared three views of the scene: (1) Jim's fourth tourist picture of Dave, AS15-92-12451; (2) the TV view of Dave while Jim was taking that picture; and (3) the TV view of Dave as he went past the flag after the picture taking was complete. The results are summarized in a labeled detail from 12451.]

[because the TV camera is not visible in 12451, I have estimated its location from Dave's fourth photo of Jim, AS15-92-12447. Using that estimated camera location, the four green lines show the relative vertical locations of the top of the flag where is is tied to the flagstaff, the top of the main body of Dave's PLSS, the bottom of the flag where it is attached to the flagstaff, and the bottom of Dave's PLSS. Relative vertical locations can be measured as the intersections of the lines with any vertical plane such as the left edge of the image.]

[Although Fendell moves his aim to the right and then up by small amounts between the time Jim takes 12451 and the time Dave crosses between the camera and the flag, the relative locations and spacing of the top and bottom of the flag do not change and, conseuqently, these can be used to place the top and bottom of Dave's PLSS as seen in the TV image onto 12451. Because DAve stood with his PLSS erect while Jim was then taking his picture but then assumed a more normal posture by leaning forward about 10 degrees while he was running, I have adjusted the apparent locations of the top and bottom of the PLSS (red lines) so show where the PLSS would have been had it been perfectly vertical.]

Finally, I placed the PLSS (red rectangle) where it would have been in 12451 had Jim taken the picture at the moment Dave was running past the flag. There are two ways the PLSS can be placed. In the first, I measured the apparent height of Dave's PLSS as seen in 12451 and found the place the top and bottom red lines are that far apart. This marked the location of the side of the PLSS nearest to the TV camera. The rest of the PLSS outline was then drawn to scale. Alternatively, we note that, in the TV record, the apparent long dimension of Dave's PLSS - measured along a line titled 10 degrees to vertical - when he ran past the flag was 2.4 times the apparent long dimension of his PLSS when JIm was taking 12451. This means that the near face of the PLSS at the former time is 2.4 times as far from the TV as it was at the latter time. This would put the PLSS a bit closer to the TV camera than I have placed it in the labeled detail.]

[The result is not clear-cut. The estimated PLSS locations makes it possible that Dave's elbow could have touched the flag; but just barely, if at all. This may be consistent with the low amplitude of the observed motion, in that the low amplitude suggests only a slight perturbation, as might have happen if Dave barely brushed the flag with his elbow.]

Good morning Duane.

Still trotting out the same old arguments, and still using other people's work I see.