realpaladin
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2007
- Messages
- 2,585
dudalb said:
There is a new movie out... Nazi's from the moon... I kid you not!
Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga
- Thread starter Patrick1000
- Start date
- Status
There is a new movie out... Nazi's from the moon... I kid you not!
BazBear
Possible Suspect
realpaladin
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2007
- Messages
- 2,585
That was it! Thanks!
FatFreddy88
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 388
So "Cross spar" is another name for the support rod.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00
(2:00 minute mark)
I’ve looked at it several times and I can’t see any movement of the support rod that causes the flag to stop moving. It looks entirely consistent with atmosphere in both cases. You are really stretching your imagination to see what you want to see and I doubt that you're fooling the real viewers.
Here’s a video that shows the Apollo flag movement is totally consistent with its being in atmosphere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hesLihNFw6A
The flag first moves away from the object passing by it and then moves toward it.
Here’s a video that shows a flag moving for quite some time
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUE7G5LdX_E
(8:35 time mark)
From the angle in this video, we can't see how long the flag keeps moving. We'd have to see it from the same angle as the flag in the preceeding video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y
That's really a moot point though as he clearly didn't touch the flag. Anyway, when I said he wasn't close enough to touch the flag, I was thinking of the direct distance between the astronaut and the flag. I didn't mean the distance between where the route he was taking past the flag and the flag itself.
So far you pro-Apollo people have put forth three different explanations: the "Blooming effect", ground vibration, and the astronaut's having touched the flag. You don't seem very sure of yourselves. Which is it?
If the ground was soft, the vibration from his trotting by wouldn't have made it to the pole; there was dust on the surface that would have dampened any serioius impact. The ground would have to be rock-hard for vibration to carry to the pole and make it move the way you people allege. His trotting by like that wouldn't have caused nearly enough vibration for that.
Also, the the movement of the flag is not consistent with its having been caused by the pole and rod movement. If the pole had moved the way you allege it did, the rod would have moved up and down and the movement of the bottom of the flag wouldn't have been merely back and forth; there would have been some up and down movement too.
The movement of the tip of the flag is perfectly consistent with the atmosphere explanation. If you think that's not so, tell us how it would have moved in atmosphere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00
(2:00 minute mark)
I’ve looked at it several times and I can’t see any movement of the support rod that causes the flag to stop moving. It looks entirely consistent with atmosphere in both cases. You are really stretching your imagination to see what you want to see and I doubt that you're fooling the real viewers.
Here’s a video that shows the Apollo flag movement is totally consistent with its being in atmosphere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hesLihNFw6A
The flag first moves away from the object passing by it and then moves toward it.
Here’s a video that shows a flag moving for quite some time
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUE7G5LdX_E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr76qSQ9ZQQ
(8:35 time mark)
From the angle in this video, we can't see how long the flag keeps moving. We'd have to see it from the same angle as the flag in the preceeding video.
He's not running by it at a forty five degree angle as the astronaut did in the Apollo footage.
I think he was a little further away than Jarrah says.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y
That's really a moot point though as he clearly didn't touch the flag. Anyway, when I said he wasn't close enough to touch the flag, I was thinking of the direct distance between the astronaut and the flag. I didn't mean the distance between where the route he was taking past the flag and the flag itself.
So far you pro-Apollo people have put forth three different explanations: the "Blooming effect", ground vibration, and the astronaut's having touched the flag. You don't seem very sure of yourselves. Which is it?
If the ground was soft, the vibration from his trotting by wouldn't have made it to the pole; there was dust on the surface that would have dampened any serioius impact. The ground would have to be rock-hard for vibration to carry to the pole and make it move the way you people allege. His trotting by like that wouldn't have caused nearly enough vibration for that.
Also, the the movement of the flag is not consistent with its having been caused by the pole and rod movement. If the pole had moved the way you allege it did, the rod would have moved up and down and the movement of the bottom of the flag wouldn't have been merely back and forth; there would have been some up and down movement too.
The movement of the tip of the flag is perfectly consistent with the atmosphere explanation. If you think that's not so, tell us how it would have moved in atmosphere.
sts60
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,107
In case you missed it here, FatFreddy88/DavidC, I am still curious about this:
Why do you think that I (with twenty years working as a space engineer, an undergraduate degree in space physics, and a couple of master's in engineering) think that Apollo actually happened largely as documented, and that you (with no relevant expertise at all*) think it was all somehow faked?
Also, why don't you vote for yourself in the poll? It's at 214 for Apollo, and zero agreeing with you. (Although it's not clear whether DrDave intended to vote for you or not, so you may have a vote pending.) As far as the "viewers", as of right now 177 separate individuals have voted - every one saying you're wrong.
*Please feel free to correct me by citing your relevant credentials.
Why do you think that I (with twenty years working as a space engineer, an undergraduate degree in space physics, and a couple of master's in engineering) think that Apollo actually happened largely as documented, and that you (with no relevant expertise at all*) think it was all somehow faked?
Also, why don't you vote for yourself in the poll? It's at 214 for Apollo, and zero agreeing with you. (Although it's not clear whether DrDave intended to vote for you or not, so you may have a vote pending.) As far as the "viewers", as of right now 177 separate individuals have voted - every one saying you're wrong.
*Please feel free to correct me by citing your relevant credentials.
Last edited:
FatFreddy88
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 388
You know what I think. I have to be careful what I say on this particular forum. My saying the wrong thing may get me banned.
I won't say it directly. I'll just post this link.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222
I hope this doesn't get me banned.
There ya go.
How do you account for the fact that no one here agrees with you? Isn't that of any concern to you?
Not at all...I need not imploy imagination to see the obvious...and just who are these "real" viewers?...are they the ones who have left you "hanging" with absolutely NO SUPPORT?
Read the poll..no one here agrees with you...
Nope....no...nine...how else can I say it?.
You are a credulous Moon hoax believer. Why should anyone looking for the truth, trust the "word" of someone with such an "agenda"?
Jarrah doesn't know crap. Using him as some kind of "authority" only makes it look like you can't think for yourself, and are Jarrah's "parrot".
Stop right there....there are no "pro Apollo people". 'There are those who have examined the evidence, and those who choose to ignore it.
Withdraw this claim IMMEDIATELY...it is just a variation of the old, "you don't believe Apollo was real", and we're not going to tolerate that kind of crap anymore....get it??
What skill sets did you employ to demonstrate this? Or is it just more of "Jarrah says so" ignorant garbage.
...oh, and if you haven't been reminded lately....NO ONE HERE AGREES WITH YOU.
Sorry, but this just won't "do". If you have an argument to make, then make it in your own words.
I'm certainly not going to spend the time addressing that garbage link, only to have you post that "it wasn't my argument".
Listen very carefully....
The Apollo missions are established historical FACT. The onus is on you, NOT US...we don't have to prove anything to you, so stop demanding that we do.
Do you understand?
Erock
Muse
Don't be completely daft! The air wake is moving the flag, it doesn't even start moving until the book gets real close. The flag stops in 2 seconds flat. Fail.
Oooookay, well that doesn't quite make sense but I get your drift - after being passed, the flag still goes away, but now in the opposite direction away
Nobody is denying that actually happens when an air wake is created - however something 6, 4 or even 2 feet away will not push air in front of it.Sheesh, the flag is suspended in one place from the ceiling from what looks like a coat hangar, very unstable. Why didn't he use a firmly supported pole and a cross bar? Apollo 15 flag only had one corner that could move not all four. His flag billowed vigorously when he moved it.
His flag billows - Apollo 15 does not. It has 2-3 major oscillations then comes to almost a complete stop in 4 seconds. Apollo 15 just has progressively lessening oscillations with no billowing.
That works against your argument. There is MORE surface area available to be struck by air as he approaches. It doesn't move until he is level, try again. Explain this please.
What you "think" is irrelevant. Three separate people using basic photogrammetry conclude he was close enough to brush it with his arm, including Jarrah. Show us why you think this, with something more than your obvious need not to be hopelessly wrong.
No, it is not moot. He clearly didn't touch it on approach, but no such argument can be applied as he went past it.
Look, I hate to put words in your mouth. Clarify, did you just say he could have touched it, because his line of approach could have moved it?
That is not an accurate statement. There are two put forward, 1/ blooming effect from the crt camera and elbow contact as he passed by, 2/ ground vibration on approach and elbow contact as he passed by. I favour number 2.
Air will not move something in front of an object any great distance. There was movement at the point he entered the frame and that is some 6 feet away. Explain that please.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ888vXaKNM
You are not qualified, or in a position to make that claim. Seismic experiments show the conductivity of the Moon and that supports the simple premise that ground vibration could easily be the cause of initial movement.
Your blanket refusal to even accept this as a wholly plausible explanation suggests that you will never change your mind on it.
Why would there, the movement is miniscule as it is, so it's perfectly reasonable to suggest the pole alone would have absorbed any vibration.
A vertical rod with a crossbar across, just like any flag, would billow with air, just like Jarrah's flag, and just like the funny bloke with a bear book in your badly thought out videos. The Apollo 15 flag does not billow.
Furthermore, there is no law of physics that I am aware of that suggests an object in motion, in an unrestricted environment will push air in front of it more than a couple of inches. The air is pushed out to the sides forming a wake.
Perhaps you could offer something that supports your claim, because at the moment it has no credence.
A final video, showing a plastic bag and a wide book approaching from above. The bag only moves when the book comes into frame, supporting the opposite to what you claim.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJyv4TYpTKo
Please explain this video.
Last edited:
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
Actually Robert Heinlein used Nazis on the moon as a plot in his 1947 novel "Rocket Ship Galelieo" so this has been a Sci fi staple for years....
I find it hilarious when anybody posts those supposed rules of disinformation as if it proves or means ANYTHING. They are more just characteristics of the average poster on the internet, INCLUDING and ESPECIALLY YOU.
sts60
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,107
No, I don't. That's why I asked the question. We're past your earlier unsupported accusation that I was lying; you conceded the point when you failed to provide any evidence for your claim.
So, in your own words, why do I think Apollo happened, with all my experience in spaceflight, and physics and engineering degrees, and you, with your lack of any relevant expertise, don't? What does that tell you? I'm trying to get you to set aside your cliches and think for a minute.
Why does a person knowledgeable in the subject disagree with you? Because I do.
Southwind17
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 5,154
... or to be more accurate, and ironically, the typical CTist generally. For an excellent example I would recommend checking out Robert Prey in this long-running thread on the JFK assassination. Just check out his last dozen posts or so - you'll see the correlation.
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,293
It's interesting--these seem almost displays of paranoia. I wonder if the posters recognize this in themselves... I suppose they don't, despite all the evidence. Must be a defense mechanism.
threadworm
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Messages
- 1,832
Coward, and still avoids answering the question.
Do you really? Or are you hoping for a ban so you can claim some sort of victory? Your evidence has been debunked, your claim that there is a silent audience agreeing with you discredited. You can either present proper evidence or concede, the mods aren't going to to save you.
realpaladin
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2007
- Messages
- 2,585
Ok, FF88, I sat throught the whole video from the guy with the squeeky voice. Then I tried something out...
Put a pole in the ground, about the same way the lunar flag was. Then jump/run past it, but don't touch it. Film it if you have a problem looking at it without touching.
I saw it move... because even though gravity is less, the mass is not and *jumping* that close to something that is inserted in a ground with the consistency of lunar soil will absolutely make the pole move.
If you do not think that is true, well, then probably your coffeecup isn't shaking when an 80 ton truck roars past...
Edit: What I meant to say by this is: TRY IT OUT!
Put a pole in the ground, about the same way the lunar flag was. Then jump/run past it, but don't touch it. Film it if you have a problem looking at it without touching.
I saw it move... because even though gravity is less, the mass is not and *jumping* that close to something that is inserted in a ground with the consistency of lunar soil will absolutely make the pole move.
If you do not think that is true, well, then probably your coffeecup isn't shaking when an 80 ton truck roars past...
Edit: What I meant to say by this is: TRY IT OUT!
Last edited:
threadworm
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Messages
- 1,832
Are you crazy? Actually verify something for himself? We'll all be killed. Or something.
Apparently the moon is so bad at conducting vibrations there's no way that they could set up seismic experiments that can record impacts many miles away from the recording devices and then send that data back to Earth.
Oh...wait....
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
if a poster can list evidence that another poster is continually lieing about his credentials then such an accusation should not result in a ban
same would apply if the accusation was of any other type
same would apply if the accusation was of any other type
sts60
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,107
I don't recall, since the departure of Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/etc., that anyone has impugned anyone else's credentials. (P1k/fd/DT/etc. continually contradicted his own resume claims, so he was unquestionably lying even before addressing his manifest deficiencies in various areas.)
As far as I can tell, FF88 isn't claiming any particular expertise - I've certainly said he has no relevant expertise, and invited him to correct that characterization. Nor, AFAIK, has he tried to say, for example, I don't have the credentials I claim.
What he has done is try to say that every expert who disagrees with him is lying. I called him on it, and he finally conceded the point by failing to provide any evidence for his claim. So I've moved on, and will ignore any attempts by him to try to resurrect that particular accusation - unless he actually offers some evidence to back it up.
Speaking of which, FatFreddy88, why do you think someone like me, with quite a bit of relevant expertise, disagrees with someone like you, with no relevant expertise? What does that tell you, that I both understand space flight and I believe Apollo really happened? Put aside your reflexive denial for a minute and think.
As far as I can tell, FF88 isn't claiming any particular expertise - I've certainly said he has no relevant expertise, and invited him to correct that characterization. Nor, AFAIK, has he tried to say, for example, I don't have the credentials I claim.
What he has done is try to say that every expert who disagrees with him is lying. I called him on it, and he finally conceded the point by failing to provide any evidence for his claim. So I've moved on, and will ignore any attempts by him to try to resurrect that particular accusation - unless he actually offers some evidence to back it up.
Speaking of which, FatFreddy88, why do you think someone like me, with quite a bit of relevant expertise, disagrees with someone like you, with no relevant expertise? What does that tell you, that I both understand space flight and I believe Apollo really happened? Put aside your reflexive denial for a minute and think.
Erock
Muse
Jim_MDP
Philosopher
Is that the P1k "Appeal to ReasonTM"?
Ha! My current sig has Pat's "appeal to reason".
Edit to include it as I may change it sometime and it must not be forgotten...
"Both cannot be simultaneously true, and so one may conclude neither is true, and if neither is true, then Apollo is fraudulent." -- Patrick1000.
Last edited:
Erock
Muse
Ha! My current sig has Pat's "appeal to reason".
Edit to include it as I may change it sometime and it must not be forgotten...
"Both cannot be simultaneously true, and so one may conclude neither is true, and if neither is true, then Apollo is fraudulent." -- Patrick1000.
Yes, truly a classic. But this was the one I meant, also stundied.....
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7632049&postcount=3833
"Enough with your Apollo is true by virtue of an appeal to reason jive line Jay".
Jim_MDP
Philosopher
Agreed. Like Lays... he's so over the top, it's hard to pick just one.
Ha! My current sig has Pat's "appeal to reason".
Edit to include it as I may change it sometime and it must not be forgotten...
"Both cannot be simultaneously true, and so one may conclude neither is true, and if neither is true, then Apollo is fraudulent." -- Patrick1000.
That made me think of the great Interdimensional Warrior essay on Falsifiability:
If a theory is falsifiable, it by definition IS false, but then I wouldnt expect you to understand this simple logic. If you CAN prove it false, it is, and if you cannot, it MIGHT not be. One thing is for sure, you are ***backwards, boy.
This is why I love the hoax believers. They get so far on the other side of "Wrong" they begin to construct a Looking Glass world with an entirely new set of logical laws.
As far as I can tell, FF88 has not DEMONSTRATED any expertise...
FatFreddy88
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 388
Translation-
It's so obvious that the movement of the flag is consistent with the atmosphere explanation that I'd better just try to sidestep the question.
Come on you people. This is a perfectly legitimate question. Any truth-seeker would just answer the question. If the movement of the flag is not consistent with the vibration explanation and it's obvious that the astronaut didn't touch it and it is consistent with the atmosphere explanation, you should modify your positions.
BazBear
Possible Suspect
Freddy, "truth seekers" have answered your questions. People with real credentials, expertise, and experience in spaceflight engineering and other related fields have answered your questions ad nauseum. Just because you think the flag movement looks like evidence of an atmosphere does not make it so. Whether it was caused by the astronaut brushing against it, or vibration from him running by it, doesn't really matter either. We have a mountain of solid evidence that this video was shot on the moon, and we have no legitimate evidence to the contrary. If anyone should modify their position, it is certainly you.
realpaladin
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2007
- Messages
- 2,585
This means you did the experiment then?
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
FatFreddy88
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 388
You people are tap dancing around my request instead of addressing it. If this were a debating hall, the audience would be roaring with laughter at you right now. Please address the issue I raised.
Your position is that the flag didn't move because of air so tell us how it would move if air made it move. How would it be different?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1
Click on the bottom link.
Your position is that the flag didn't move because of air so tell us how it would move if air made it move. How would it be different?
I posted some strong evidence to the contrary in this post.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1
Click on the bottom link.
Sorry FatFreddy88 you no longer get to claim there is some magic invisible audience on your side, the poll stood at 240-0 the last time I looked, you are utterly alone. The crowd isn't laughing with you, its laughing at you.
You might get some support if you stopped trying to shift the burden of proof, though I wouldn't bet on it.
No you posted some cherry picked video in the hopes that people will ignore the rest that was clearly shot in zero gee/vacuum. You case comes down to demanding others treat your ill-informed opinion as fact and simply ignoring all rebuttals. No one is buying it FatFreddy, you haven't persuaded one other member of this board to support your view.
Last edited:
Laughing?...who is laiughing?....240 - 0, and who is laughing?
Why do you think we have to prove you wrong?....what is it about the burden of proof that you think you can ignore?
Linking to your ignorant posts is not evidence....not even close....you should be ashamed of yourself for trying such an obvious "gag".
threadworm
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Messages
- 1,832
It isn't. The one thing it absolutely isn't consistent with is the effect of an atmosphere.
Bull crap....you don't understand (or choose to ignore) the burden of proof....STOP THAT NOW.
Are you leaving?
More crap....You are not a "truth seeker", you are a Moon hoax proponent...ans you start from the assumption that the landings were faked....therefore your "question" is irrelevant.
You begin with a false premise....why do you think we would "fall" for that.
It's as Jay posted earlier...how stupid do you think we are??
Oh, and that is not what I posted at all....don't put words in my mouth ever again.
Please acknowledge this FACT before posting again, freddy....you seem to get "forgetful" unless constantly reminded.
- Status