Moonwalkin'

[Turtle]

...

Please say what caused the flag to move if it wasn't a gust of air caused by the passing of the astronaut. ...

 

simple harmonic oscillation

[modest]

simple harmonic oscillation

 

I agree that it is harmonic oscillation - in fact when they first put the flag up it oscillates visibly for at least 10 or 15 seconds. But, I think the thing bugging the conspiracy theorists is the imputes of the second movement. It definitely has time to become still, or at least shows no perceptible motion in the youtube video before the astronaut passes by. Immediately after passing there is significant motion.

 

If you are pointing out that the flag isn't 'waving' like you would expect on earth but that harmonic oscillation makes it appear to wave then I apologize and agree completely. But, the question of what causes the motion after 2 minutes into the video - I believe it's moon dust the astronaut is kicking up.

 

2 other possibilities came to mind but I find less likely:

 

The astronaut is closer to the flag than he appears and touches it.

 

The vibration caused by his bouncing is transfered up the flag pole.

 

peace,

- modest

[Turtle]

I agree that it is harmonic oscillation - in fact when they first put the flag up it oscillates visibly for at least 10 or 15 seconds. But, I think the thing bugging the conspiracy theorists is the imputes of the second movement. It definitely has time to become still, or at least shows no perceptible motion in the youtube video before the astronaut passes by. Immediately after passing there is significant motion.

 

If you are pointing out that the flag isn't 'waving' like you would expect on earth but that harmonic oscillation makes it appear to wave then I apologize and agree completely. But, the question of what causes the motion after 2 minutes into the video - I believe it's moon dust the astronaut is kicking up.

 

2 other possibilities came to mind but I find less likely:

 

The astronaut is closer to the flag than he appears and touches it.

 

The vibration caused by his bouncing is transfered up the flag pole.

 

peace,

- modest

 

I was just trying to append my original reply to say not just simple harmonic oscillation, but also dampded and driven harmonic oscillations, when a tornado struck nearby & I lost internet. :) :hihi: I'm saying it now. :)

 

Harmonic oscillator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[cosmored]

Could debris kicked up from the ground reach the flag?

Obviously, the moon has 1/6th earth’s gravity.

 

Could we expect the flag to move after the astronaut bounces by it?

Yes - the combination of low gravity, no air resistance, and fine dust on the ground shows exactly what we would expect to see.

If that were the case, the horizontal rod that supports the flag would be moving too. I see no movement of the rod.

[cosmored]

Space radiation is a possible reason for their not going. The official version of space radiation is that it's safe to travel through it for short periods of time. The only people who know the truth are people who work for governments that have sent probes into space who have high security clearances.

 

This is patently false, and we've had a discussion of this topic right here at Hypography among people who don't have security clearances. I have personal friends at Cal Tech who deal in space science, and unless they're all in on the conspiracy too, then I have first hand testimony that while its dangerous out there, its not that big of a problem given how and when the moon landings were performed.

How do you know the data you had were the real data? Do you just have the word of the government? Did the people you know have access to the same data that people with high security clearances have?

 

(Copy and paste this)

hey_223.tripod.com/bulldoglebeautaketooooo/id82.html

(excerpt)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To prove his thesis, Rene tries to get certain solar data from NATIONAL

OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, (NOAA) using clever techniques

to

disguise his true intentions, [i.e. to get true data on solar flares.] NOAA,

unfortunately, proved to be as cagey as Rene in dodging the giving out of any

really good DETAILS on this matter, [you know, where the devil resides.]

 

Rene, seeing games being played, deduced that there must be two sets of data,

one which is sent to scientists on the preferred list, and one sent to the

likes of Rene as casual strangers. (p.125)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[cosmored]

I don't have any way of confirming that what this article says is true, but if it is, it's something to think about.

 

APOLLO TRUTH

(excerpt)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is an old saying that "A liar needs a good memory". Nowhere is this more true than in the Apollo program. NASA tell lies to cover up previous lies, and other discrepancies uncovered by people investigating the Moon landings. Altering previous data, removing photographs, and retracting statements made, only re-enforces the evidence that NASA are on the run, and being forced into a corner to which they cannot escape. The actions of those under investigation makes the investigator more aware they are bluffing. The longer that person, or persons, who make the extravagant claims continue, the more lies they have to tell in order to counteract it, until it reaches the point where it becomes ridiculous. That point was passed in July 1999, when NASA officials were questioned about the Moon landings on television. They dodged the all important questions like a drifter dodges the heat.

 

 

Many Apollo astronauts have long since died, as to have many of the original NASA officials involved in the scam, consequently current officials, who know that Apollo was a fake, have not quite got it right when talking openly in public. Perhaps the biggest slip of the tongue was made by NASA Chief Dan Goldin when interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994. He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He must have forgot that they supposedly sent 27 astronauts 250,000 miles outside Earth orbit 36 years earlier.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Here's some more stuff about space radiation that I found.

 

YouTube - Shuttle at the van Allen Belts http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vENebR5hsRs

YouTube - Van Allen radiation belt (Part1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ65d30kYME

Deadly Radiation At and Past the Van Allen Shields

Apollo details

NASA Warped our View of Space - The Education Forum

 

I don't know how we can know whether the data the government makes available to the public is the real data or bogus data.

[modest]

How do you know the data you had were the real data? Do you just have the word of the government?

 

The ugly nature of a conspiracy theory:

 

You didn’t see the ‘real’ data - you saw what they wanted you to see. And if you DID see the ‘real’ data then you are lying about what you really saw and you must be in on the conspiracy.

 

Do you see how you can never be satisfied? With the above reasoning there is no amount of evidence that will prove the truth to you. This is the very definition of a self-supporting delusion.

 

For what it's worth - you can watch SOHO's images live online. When solar flares cause high radiation the SOHO coronagraph CCD shows it as 'static'. The levels of different types of radiation in space can be found out by anyone with a bit of curiosity. And no, the scientists at LASP who deal with this data:

 

image credit

 

are not all in on some global conspiracy!

 

-modest

[Buffy]

I don't know how we can know whether the data the government makes available to the public is the real data or bogus data.

Because the Russians didn't have to get their data from the "government".

 

Its extremely simple to do direction finding on radio signals and examine their content. Given that the Soviets were hostile to us at the time and they'd just failed to put a man on the moon (meaning they lost the space race), can you come up with a rational explanation as to why they didn't "blow our cover?" It would have been trivial at the time to show that those radio signals were "faked."

 

What explanation can you come up with as to why the Soviets would want to make Richard Nixon--who was eating their lunch in international relations--look good?

 

Why are the Chinese spending *billions* right now to send some one back there? Are they going to fake it too? Why?

 

I actually expect to hear these explanations because, as modest said, for the conspiracy theorist, no data or logic is ever satisfactory. Its just going to be interesting to see how rational they are!

 

All day long I think of things but nothing seems to satisfy, :doh:

Buffy

[Turtle]

I agree that it is harmonic oscillation - in fact when they first put the flag up it oscillates visibly for at least 10 or 15 seconds. But, I think the thing bugging the conspiracy theorists is the imputes of the second movement. It definitely has time to become still, or at least shows no perceptible motion in the youtube video before the astronaut passes by. Immediately after passing there is significant motion. ...

peace,

- modest

 

Some additional thoughts on the flag motion:

 

1) Besides the other attributes of harmonic oscillators already mentioned, we have them all coupled as well.

 

2) No motion/vibrations smaller than the resolution of the camera will be visible.

 

3) Motions/vibrations directly toward or away from the lens axis will be masked.

 

So, I'm claiming ongoing small vibrations in the 3 main components may over a period of time manifest a large movement by virtue of the coupling. :shrug:

 

Moonwalkin'? Does a cow fart in a field?

[goku]

reading over these posts makes me wonder.

is it easier to believe in evolution or lunar landing?

 

i think they made it to the moon.

the problem now is no one is smart enough to know how to get back.

[REASON]

i think they made it to the moon.

the problem now is no one is smart enough to know how to get back.

 

Obviously, you're unaware of NASA's new Constellation Program.

 

Or maybe this is just their latest made-for-TV movie. :shrug:

[cosmored]

Because the Russians didn't have to get their data from the "government".

 

Its extremely simple to do direction finding on radio signals and examine their content. Given that the Soviets were hostile to us at the time and they'd just failed to put a man on the moon (meaning they lost the space race), can you come up with a rational explanation as to why they didn't "blow our cover?" It would have been trivial at the time to show that those radio signals were "faked."

 

What explanation can you come up with as to why the Soviets would want to make Richard Nixon--who was eating their lunch in international relations--look good?

It sounds like you people take for granted that what we were reading about the relationship between the US and the USSR during the cold war reflected reality.

 

Have you read Chomsky's analysis of the cold war?

Uncle Sam: How the Cold War worked

Deterring Democracy: Chapter 1 [1/20]

 

This is something to think about too.

Nardwuar vs Bill Kaysing

(excerpt)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, why did they keep faking the Apollo flights, I still don't understand. Did the Soviet Union know it was faked? Why did they keep shut up if they knew it was faked? 'Cause a lot of people would think they kept the moon race going to prove the U.S. was better than the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union knew, why did they let the U.S. get away with this?

Well, I'll tell you - at the highest levels there is a coalition between governments. In other words, the Soviets said, if you won't tell on us - and they faked most of their space exploration flights - we won't tell on you. It's as simple as that. See, what Apollo is, is the beginning of the end of the ability of the government to hoodwink and bamboozle and manipulate the people. More and more people are becoming aware in the U.S. that the government is totally and completely public enemy number one.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Why are the Chinese spending *billions* right now to send some one back there? Are they going to fake it too? Why?

There are several possible explanations. Maybe we read they are spending billions to go there and they really aren't.

If they are planning to go there for real, how does that prove that the US went there too?

 

There's a lot of other evidence that they didn't go to the moon.

 

---------------

There's a noticeable difference in the body movements in these two clips.

 

(first six seconds)

YouTube - Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage - InfoDebug.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11v.1101330.rm

 

What I hypothesize is that only slow-motion was used in Apollo 11. Later, they improved thier methods of simulating lunar gravity and started using a combination of slow-motion and support wires. The slow-motion in the later missions might not have been exactly half-speed. It might have been sixty five or seventy percent of natural speed. It looked better but it was inconsistent with Apollo 11 footage. The inconsistency is apparent.

 

At around the 21 minute mark of this video the above footage from Apollo 11 can be seen played at double speed.

Man didnt land on the moon http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=4135126565081757736

 

It looks just like movement in earth gravity.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------

 

If you look at the acceleration of the object that falls from the astronaut's backpack and the acceleration of the hammer and feather that fall, it's apparent that the there's a difference in the way gravity affects the objects differently.

 

YouTube - Feather & Hammer Drop on Moon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk

YouTube - Moon Hoax - Bag Drop A17 EVA 3 STN 8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK2Fy85VyRg

 

Evidently the slow-motion speed is different.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------

Here are some videos.

 

YouTube - Apollo Moon Hoax? Dr. David Groves Analysis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ

YouTube - Apollo Moon Hoax? Spotlights, Fall-off, Camera Angles http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQj-Mh__fRc&NR=1

YouTube - Apollo Moon Hoax? Sun or Spotlight? http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=sgID31UpYfA

YouTube - Shuttle at the van Allen Belts http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vENebR5hsRs

YouTube - Moon Hoax- The Lies In Your Visors http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rhoWabHSm_g

YouTube - Moon Hoax- Moonsets Are Forever http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0ohDdNRq2Og

YouTube - Moon Hoax- The Lies In Your Visors-Addendum http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1gD2P-Po_Gk

YouTube - Moon Landing Hoax-One Giant Spotlight For Mankind http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EaV7QB_ReTw

Was it only a paper moon? James Collier (Better Quality) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5278489814268946247

 

 

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html

Interview with Bart Sibrel

APOLLO TRUTH

 

 

The astronauts look pretty nervous at the press conference.

YouTube - Clip of Apollo II press conference http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro

 

Their behavior look pretty suspicious here too. It begins in the second half of the video.

Did we really land Men on the Moon? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2265515730495966561

 

The astronauts' behavior is not conclusive proof; it's only circumstantial evidence but it's pretty strong circumstantial evidence.

 

I don't know if this incident below really happened but it's consistent with the astronauts' begavior at the press conference.

 

Was The Apollo Moon Landing Fake?

(excerpt)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Several years after NASA claimed its first Moon landing, Buzz Aldrin "the second man on the Moon" was asked at a banquet what it felt like to step on to the lunar surface. Aldrin staggered to his feet and left the room crying uncontrollably. It would not be the last time he did this. "It strikes me he's suffering from trying to live out a very big lie," says Rene. Aldrin may also fear for his life.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Buffy]

Well, I'll tell you - at the highest levels there is a coalition between governments. In other words, the Soviets said, if you won't tell on us - and they faked most of their space exploration flights - we won't tell on you.

:(

 

Your response is yet another accusation with *no evidence* of yet another conspiracy!

 

"Why is this totally illogical conspiracy true?"

"Because it was another conspiracy!"

 

Do you understand why its hard to take any of this seriously? Do you see why people who espouse these theories might have their sanity or ability to think clearly questioned?

 

The Chomsky quotes you link are *well known* and non-contradictory examples of "Realpolitik" and of course there's really not a thing in them to support collusion--again on a *massive* scale, never before seen in world history--like this between the two super powers who hated each other so much they even cheated at the Olympics!

 

The massive weight of first-person accounts of the workings of the cold war show no collusion at all, and while "alignment of goals" did happen in this unbelievably tense period of history, it *never* happened when there was significant advantage to be gained or lost!

 

Saying the Soviets were motivated to "cover up their own fakes" makes absolutely no sense: they didn't have anything to cover up! They never went to the moon! And the US had no qualms about publicizing the Soviets failures and deaths of cosmonauts! If you read the quote above carefully, you'll note to make any sense of it you have to believe that no one has ever gone into space! Do you believe that too?

 

Several years after NASA claimed its first Moon landing, Buzz Aldrin "the second man on the Moon" was asked at a banquet what it felt like to step on to the lunar surface. Aldrin staggered to his feet and left the room crying uncontrollably. It would not be the last time he did this. "It strikes me he's suffering from trying to live out a very big lie," says Rene. Aldrin may also fear for his life.

:eek:

 

Of *all* the things that could happen to someone to cause them to react this way, you're saying the *only logical conclusion* is that he's suffering from "living out a very big lie"?

 

And again this is only a *guess*! Not a shred of evidence to support it!

 

Moreover, as I said in an earlier post, this is standing up and screaming "liar!" at some of the most courageous and forthright people we've ever had the luck of having lead some of the greatest and riskiest explorations in history. People who publish this tripe should be ashamed of themselves.

 

The American Patriot Friends Network are neither "patriots" nor "friends" of America.

 

As pointed out several times in this thread, there's no logic or evidence involved in the arguments for faking the moon landings. In fact, its not even about the moon landings. Its about raving lunatics who are more concerned about being the only ones that are in on the "fact" that "they" are out to "get" us all.

 

Let me ask you this: if you have so little trust in 99% of your fellow humans, why do you take the rantings of Bill Kaysing and the American Patriot Friends Network completely unquestioningly?

 

The essence of conspiracy theories is that they depend on faith that every piece of evidence has been "covered up" so there's no proof. You've done nothing here but show data that to all rational observers supports the generally accepted conclusion, and demanded that the most strained and bizarre conclusion is the only acceptable one.

 

Take my previous advice and go back to the forums that specialize in this stuff. You're not going to embarrass yourself any less here.

 

Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable, :eek2:

Buffy

[REASON]

Hey cosmo,

 

When are you going to realize that your reluctance to believe we actually sent men to the Moon and brought them back has nothing to do with all these video clips, flags, radiation belts, or Soviet conspiracies?

 

I suspect that you have a general distrust of our government (which is justified), and an obvious distrust in NASA (not so justified). But I gather that the primary reason you continue with your belief in the Moon hoax is that you are completely invested in it at this point. You were hooked by the idea that you had contrary information that seemed to make sense, and that you knew something most people didn't even realize. This made you feel unique, and you have argued your points for so long, and have commited yourself to it so much, to divest yourself at this stage would be too much of a blow to your pride. You could present anomaly after anomaly, each of which an informed person could provide a simple and rational explanation, and it would not divert you from your position. Your ego won't allow it.

 

At some point, you may find yourself realizing that you have been wrong all along. Are you prepared to deal with that? Are you even able to admit such a thing? Scientists are faced with this realization all the time. Consider the lifetime of research and work that a scientist devotes to prove some theory, just to have it completely rejected by his peers upon review. How devastating would that be? But a good scientist is more interested in getting at the facts than protecting their pride, and is willing to concede in order to do so. Confronted with enough evidence, would you be willing to concede? So far, it doesn't appear that you would.

 

Refusing to accept overwhelming evidence in favor of a preferred belief system, is a rejection of one's rationality in favor of emotional stability.

[cosmored]

You people are ignoring the video evidence.

 

I'd believed they went to the moon until the arrival of the internet when I was able to see the evidence that they hadn't gone. I didn't have any problem modifying my opinion.

 

Most people who ignore the evidence can't admit to themselves that they've been fooled.

 

Cognitive Dissonance and learning

(excerpt)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation. It therefore occurs when there is a need to accommodate new ideas, and it may be necessary for it to develop so that we become "open" to them. Neighbour (1992) makes the generation of appropriate dissonance into a major feature of tutorial (and other) teaching: he shows how to drive this kind of intellectual wedge between learners' current beliefs and "reality".

 

 

Beyond this benign if uncomfortable aspect, however, dissonance can go "over the top", leading to two interesting side-effects for learning:

 

if someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know — particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge — they are likely to resist the new learning. Even Carl Rogers recognised this. Accommodation is more difficult than Assimilation, in Piaget's terms.

and—counter-intuitively, perhaps—if learning something has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating enough, people are less likely to concede that the content of what has been learned is useless, pointless or valueless. To do so would be to admit that one has been "had", or "conned".

On cognitive dissonance and sour grapes

 

A more formal account

 

Cognitive dissonance was first investigated by Leon Festinger and associates, arising out of a participant observation study of a cult which believed that the earth was going to be destroyed by a flood, and what happened to its members — particularly the really committed ones who had given up their homes and jobs to work for the cult — when the flood did not happen. While fringe members were more inclined to recognise that they had made fools of themselves and to "put it down to experience", committed members were more likely to re-interpret the evidence to show that they were right all along (the earth was not destroyed because of the faithfulness of the cult members).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

If someone shows me some conclusive proof that they went to the moon, I'll be happy about it; I think it would be great to go to the moon. The evidence shows otherwise though.

Why don't you explain why the above evidence doesn't show they were in a studio instead of the moon?

[modest]

You people are ignoring the video evidence.

 

Most people who ignore the evidence can't admit to themselves that they've been fooled.

 

You have important information that changes everything. You were able to see the truth even when everyone was trying to fool you. How very extraordinary you are.

 

- modest

 

"You're a superstar, that is what you are" :)

[Buffy]

Most people who ignore the evidence can't admit to themselves that they've been fooled.

 

I could not have said it better myself.

 

Smile and grin at the change all around me, :)

Buffy