Mars a giant step, but 'doable'

[Jack White]

I don't admit it, it begins to move when the view is obstructed. How can you claim it wasn't touched? Did you calculate the distance to the astronaut and to the flag to show it was out of reach?

I repeat: I HAVE NOT SEEN THE VIDEO, so cannot say what it shows. I was commenting

on Greer's alleged "experiment" only. I CLAIM NOTHING, so don't say that I do. Read

more carefully.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

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.

[Evan Burton]

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".

[Evan Burton]

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."

[Guest David Guyatt]

I hesitate to intrude on this discussion because my knowledge of the subject matter is slimmer than a starved racing snake. But, my curiosity was aroused about it by a throw away comment made by former CIA and DIA operative, Chip Tatum.

Over a period of many moons I was in contact with Chip on a daily basis via email with his wife, Nancy, who would speak to him in prison on the phone and relay my questions to him. Later, after his release, we communicated directly. Chip arranged to send me many interesting papers and documents in his support of his past “activity”. The hard copy file I have roughly runs to a couple of thousand pages.

Anyway, to the point.

Chip mentioned a number of times the “morgue file” (I believe that is what he called it anyway) he had stashed with various people and which would be released in the event of his unexpected death. One day, in answer to a question (I can’t remember what now and am too lazy to search through all the hard copy to find the exact details), Chip said he had a photograph of the Astronauts on the moon and this formed part of his morgue file. The oddity about this photo was that to one side of it, where it had not been fully excised, could clearly be seen a studio light.

I didn’t follow up on this, as it didn’t really form part of my focus of the story I was working on with him. But it stuck in my mind never-the-less. Chip had an amazing array of knowledge and contacts and I could well see him getting hold of something like this and seeing its future value – because of the line of work he was in. He was a very smart guy.

However, I didn’t see the photo and we didn’t speak about it again, so who knows? But it always made me think that maybe some of the NASA photographs were taken in a studio setting because, I suppose, taking pictures on the moon may not have the same sharp resolution or impact that NASA probably needed for its media blitz.

I always liked Chip. He was forthright in his answers never ducked a hard question - although sometimes he would just say he was restricted from answering.

David

[Dave Greer]

Chip mentioned a number of times the “morgue file” (I believe that is what he called it anyway) he had stashed with various people and which would be released in the event of his unexpected death. One day, in answer to a question (I can’t remember what now and am too lazy to search through all the hard copy to find the exact details), Chip said he had a photograph of the Astronauts on the moon and this formed part of his morgue file. The oddity about this photo was that to one side of it, where it had not been fully excised, could clearly be seen a studio light.

I didn’t follow up on this, as it didn’t really form part of my focus of the story I was working on with him. But it stuck in my mind never-the-less. Chip had an amazing array of knowledge and contacts and I could well see him getting hold of something like this and seeing its future value – because of the line of work he was in. He was a very smart guy.

However, I didn’t see the photo and we didn’t speak about it again, so who knows? But it always made me think that maybe some of the NASA photographs were taken in a studio setting because, I suppose, taking pictures on the moon may not have the same sharp resolution or impact that NASA probably needed for its media blitz.

I always liked Chip. He was forthright in his answers never ducked a hard question - although sometimes he would just say he was restricted from answering.

David

An interesting story David, which is difficult to pursue without knowing which photo Chip referred to.

Many NASA photos were of course taken in a "studio" setting, namely the training photos, so my initial thought is it could be one of those. Some CTs have made the claim that NASA says they were taken on the moon, when clearly they are photos taken in training. IIRC, the video made by Jim Collier contained one such photo which showed studio lights on the ceiling. This was part of a series of phots of Apollo 11 training that are available on this site:-

www.apolloarchive.com

Here's a screenie taken from "Was It Really a Paper Moon" (you can see it on video.google.com) Collier claims that NASA say this was taken on the moon. I don't know where he gets the claim from, but it's clear to me it was taken during training.

And a similar photo taken during training for Apollo 11.

Do you think it may be possible that Chip has a similar photo to the one Collier used in his film, that was actually taken during training? Collier's appears to be cropped/darkened to remove many of the features that would make it obvious that it was taken inside a facility during training. Don't suppose we'll know until Chip kicks the bucket and goes to the great CIA safehouse in the sky.

[Guest David Guyatt]

Dave,

I honestly don't know, but Chip was nobody's mug and my guess would be that - for it to be in his morgue file - he was talking of (I guess) a well known moon picture. I don't see him having a training picture, personally.

Chip disappeared some tim later and I lost contact with him, then he re-appeared in prison during which time I was briefly in touch with him about a political assassination he knew something about and nada since then (I promised I'd leave him be). As I understand it, the purpose of a morgue file is that if one is died in suspicious circumstances, then the material is released. If one dies naturally it isn't. The file is designed to keep the ol' ticker pumping regularly unti it decides to stop of its own accord.

Like the pics Dave. Giot any dirty ones?

David

[Dave Greer]

Like the pics Dave. Giot any dirty ones?

David

Plenty, but nothing suitable for an education forum like this one I'm afraid!

[Duane Daman]

"But it always made me think that maybe some of the NASA photographs were taken in a studio setting because, I suppose, taking pictures on the moon may not have the same sharp resolution or impact that NASA probably needed for its media blitz."

Well, that's one explaination for why nasa faked the Apollo photography .

I am going to wait to rebutt your reples until greenmagoos can get the Apollo 15 fluttering flag video clip back up on YouTube .... It seems that the owner of SpaceCraft Films wasn't too happy about his DVD collection being used to bust out nasa's scam ..

And Jarrah White must have really scared the piss out of him , and nasa too , because as you know Dave , not only was his new video taken down , but his entire account was suspended !! ... I guess Jarrah needs to stick to nasa's PUBLIC DOMAIN material , instead of using the same exact material , now apparently OWNED by someone else !?!! .. LOL

Speaking of Jarrah White scaring the piss out of the Apollo apologists , look what I found today ... It seems like the art of insults and character assassinations is alive and well on some of the hoax forums .

http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...0099&page=3

Edited July 27, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Evan Burton]

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.

[Evan Burton]

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.

[Dave Greer]

"But it always made me think that maybe some of the NASA photographs were taken in a studio setting because, I suppose, taking pictures on the moon may not have the same sharp resolution or impact that NASA probably needed for its media blitz."

Well, that's one explaination for why nasa faked the Apollo photography .

I am going to wait to rebutt your reples until greenmagoos can get the Apollo 15 fluttering flag video clip back up on YouTube .... It seems that the owner of SpaceCraft Films wasn't too happy about his DVD collection being used to bust out nasa's scam ..

And Jarrah White must have really scared the piss out of him , and nasa too , because as you know Dave , not only was his new video taken down , but his entire account was suspended !! ... I guess Jarrah needs to stick to nasa's PUBLIC DOMAIN material , instead of using the same exact material , now apparently OWNED by someone else !?!! .. LOL

Speaking of Jarrah White scaring the piss out of the Apollo apologists , look what I found today ... It seems like the art of insults and character assassinations is alive and well on some of the hoax forums .

http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...0099&page=3

I'm no expert on copyright laws, but admit I was slightly surprised when the Apollo footage on Youtube was blocked by Youtube staff due to possible copyright infringement. I was under the impression all the Apollo footage and photographs were public domain. I guess they're genuinely concerned about possible copyright infringement and lawsuits. Does seem a little like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut though.

I think a lot of statements of copyright are worded to try and plug any potential loopholes before they arise. For example, I imagine all the contributors to the Apollo debate on this forum must have used quotes from the ALSJ at some point - I know I have. Checking the copyright information it seems as if strictly speaking we're in breach of their copyright, since:-

No portion of the Journal may be reproduced or copied onto any medium (except as required by browsing software) without express permission from the author.

Source

I can't imagine Eric Jones is remotely bothered by people quoting portions of the ALSJ in discussions about Apollo, or by posting photographs. My guess is he's be a little disgruntled if people were reproducing the whole ALSJ and flogging it on DVD.

[Dave Greer]

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

Jack, please.

Duane and his friend Greenmagoos have (or at least had) a video on Youtube claiming that the behaviour of the flag in a portion of the Apollo 15 footage proves it was NOT taken in a vacuum - in other words, it was fimed in an atmopsphere. I've tried to recreate the motion of the flag in an atmosphere to see if their conclusion is remotely plausible. My own tests indicate that the Apollo flag ceremony could not have been filmed in an atmosphere, since the damping effect on the large surface area of the lightweight flag is far too great. On top of that, many hoax proponents claim that the Apollo footage was slowed down by a factor of at least 2 to replicate motion in lunar gravity. Apply that to the Apollo 15 footage, and the flag motion would have to be at least doubled. The natural conclusion I come to is that the Apollo 15 footage must have been shot in a vacuum in order for the flag to behave as it did, even if the film is shot at normal speed. Increasing the film speed makes the motion of the flag even less likely in an atmosphere.

No, I didn't use a genuine Apollo flag (I don't know any Apollo 'folks'), but since they just used regular common or garden nylon flags (5' x 3'), for the purposes of demonstrating the principle I think the two flags I've used are more than adequate. One of my flags is 5' x 3', made from polyester, which has very similar properties to nylon including density.

Don't take my word for it, this has got to be one of the easiest "rule of thumb" experiments to do. I've asked Duane to try this as well, I don't know if he's been able to do this yet. If I get time I might sort a video on Youtube.

PS in answer to your question, I don't know for certain that the astronaut touched the flag, although I suspect he did. There are other explanations that I personally don't think as likely, such as static, kicked up dust. The explanation requiring an atmosphere simply doesn't work as I don't believe the motion of the flag is possible in an atmosphere.

[Duane Daman]

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.

That's all fine in theory Evan ... but svector ( who is pro Apollo ) has used the same exact SpaceCraft Films material , yet NOTHING is ever done to stop him ...

Mark Gray of SpaceCraft Films even posted a comment on Jarrah's chanel , thanking Jarrah for letting him know that svector also infringed on his copyright and he would look into it .... but svectors LL series ( usings Grey's copyrighted material ) is still right there on YouTube ... and no one suspended his account for breaking the rules .

So I'm afraid the reason of " copyright infringement " was just the excuse used by Mark Grey to try to stop Jarrah from making a fool out of both him and nasa .

But not to worry ... Jarrah has opened up another account on YouTube and is downloading all of his videos again ... and will now use nasa's "public domain " material to bust out their Apollo scam .

greenamgoos also has put the Apollo 15 flag swinging in the breeze video back up again , so if you all don't mind , I will start a new topic here on this subject and get this off of Lamson's original unrelated topic .

Then you can all play your condescending , patronizing " show us the math Duane " games there , instead of on this thread ...and if you would like to copy your posts on this thread, to move the the new one , that would be fine .

Edited July 28, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Duane Daman]

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

Edited July 28, 2007 by Duane Daman