Chat or Talk in the INReview Discussion Forum Chat or Talk in the INReview Discussion Forum
 
register chat members links refer search home
INReview INReview > The Scuttlebutt Lounge > Unexplained Phenomena & Conspiracy > Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies > Did We Land On The Moon?
Search this Thread:
Pages (3): « 12 [3]    Print Version | Email Page | Bookmark | Subscribe to Thread
Author
Thread Post New Thread   
Gold Member
Dreamzwalker
Agent

offline
Registered: Feb 2003
Local time: 11:50 AM
Location: Out there Somewhere
Posts: 2428

this is from several .edu and .com places post #61  quote:

An explanation from BadAstronomy.com: "It looks like that because of the way the flag was deployed. The flag hangs from a horizontal rod which telescopes out from the vertical one. In Apollo 11, they couldn't get the rod to go all the way out, so the flag didn't get stretched fully. It has a ripple in it, like a curtain that is not fully closed. In later flights, the astronauts didn't fully deploy it on purpose because they liked the way it looked. In other words, the flag looks like it is waving because the astronauts wanted it to look that way. Ironically, they did their job too well. It appears to have fooled a lot of people into thinking it waved. (If it was a mistake caused by a breeze on the set where they faked this whole thing, don't you think the director would have tried for a second take? With all the money going to the hoax, they could afford the film! Several readers have pointed out that if the flag is blowing in a breeze, why don't we see dust blowing around too?)"
(End of report)







I watched Neil Armstrong go down the ladder ? it looked like he fell, I thought he had caught his spacesuit on the ladder, that it had ripped his suit open, and that was the end of manned space flight and it was all my fault," he said.

The ladder did not fail, the flag did not snag Neil Armstrong's suit and Armstrong did not fall. He just skipped the last step, jumped to the moon's surface, and said those memorable words: "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."

The flag was deployed at 4 days, 14 hours and 9 minutes into the mission and it wasn't easy.

In Edgar M. Cortwright's book, Apollo Expeditions to the Moon, astronaut Buzz Aldrin recalled what happened when he and Neil Armstrong tried to set the flag up.

"It took both of us to set it up and it was nearly a public relations disaster," he wrote, "a small telescoping arm was attached to the flagpole to keep the flag extended and perpendicular. As hard as we tried, the telescope wouldn't fully extend. Thus the flag which should have been flat had its own permanent wave."

The wrong coating had been applied to the telescoping rod, so it wouldn't fully extend, which is why the flag looks like it is waving in the wind. Ironically, that famous picture of Buzz Aldrin posing next to the flag is often cited as evidence by conspiracy theorists as proof the mission to the moon was a hoax.

They claim the rippled flag could not have actually been on the moon since there is no breeze on the moon. The flag's waves, they argue, were created by a breeze in some top secret NASA stage set depicting the moon's surface.




"The problems of flying a flag in the vacuum of space are fairly obvious. Most people know that the U.S. flags planted on the moon were made of cloth or nylon and were rigged with a wire along the top and/or bottom so that they looked like they were "waving." It is rumored that the Apollo 11 flag was actually knocked down by the dust kicked up by the exhaust of the lunar module, and is currently lying in the Lunar dirt.
Josh Fruhlinger, 17 November 1996 "




I recall seeing a film of one of the Apollo Lunar Module lift-offs where the camera was aimed out the window. Upon launch from the lunar surface, you could clearly see the U.S. Flag spin on its staff and was waving briskly in a direction pointing away from the rocket blast. There was no indication that the pole or flag were dislodged by the exhaust. I presume, therefore, that the flags left by the Apollo astronauts were all left standing after the departure of the LM. "Nick Artimovich, 18 November 1996 "

this is from "In 1992, I gave a paper at the NAVA meeting in San Antonio entitled "Where No Flag Has Gone Before: Political and Technical Aspects of Placing a Flag on the Moon ::::Annie Platoff "



THIS IS THE ONE I LIKE...


It's always amusing to hear assertions of motion based on the evidence in a still picture.

It would seem that this question needs no rebuttal. But we should clarify that the apparent waving "motion" in the still photos is the wrinkles remaining from its packing. In earth gravity the weight of the fabric itself is often enough let wrinkles "hang" out. But because the flag was made from a very light nylon [Platoff93, note 10] which is even lighter in lunar gravity, the force of the wrinkles wanting to stay wrinkled overcomes the force of gravity for longer.

we've seen this (here is an example of a flag that appears to wave. It's worth belaboring a trivial point to emphasize that observers will tend to "fill in the gaps" in their perception by applying past experience. The still photo doesn't actually show motion -- no still photo can. But the visible ripples cue our recall of all the other flags we've seen where rippling is caused by wind. And if we are not conscious of this extrapolation, we may strongly convince ourselves that we have indeed "seen" the detail provided by our memories.

This is why great care must be taken in interpreting Apollo photos. We cannot allow our prejudices of the behavior of objects in air and strong gravity to influence our interpretation of behavior on the moon.

The simple answer is inertia. The Apollo flag assembly starts with a telescoping tubular pole shoved vertically into the lunar soil. But the resemblance to terrestrial flag arrangements stops there. On earth we attach flags to the pole at the top and bottom corners. And the same would work on the moon, except that the flag would hang limply without ever being visible for what it was.

And so NASA designed a telescoping horizontal support that would hinge to the top of the pole. The flag itself was a commercially available nylon flag. A hem was sewn into the top edge into which the horizontal crossbar could be slid. The astronaut deployed the flag by driving the steel-tipped aluminum pole into the surface, then raising the crossbar on its hinge until it locked into the horizontal position. He could then extend the telescoping segment of the crossbar to support the entire width of the flag.

The flag was held oustretched by the crossbar through the top hem. The inner bottom corner was fastened to the pole. The outer bottom corner is free to move. The astute reader will have recognized this as a type of pendulum.


The astronauts said it was hard to drive the pole into the lunar surface. [Ibid.] Apollo 11 had no means of hammering it in. In later missions they reinforced the top of the pole so that a geology hammer could be used to drive it. During the process the flag pole was twisted in the fashion of a drill bit to bore it into the denser layers. Twisting the pole would cause the outer tip of the crossbar to describe an arc with a radius of about five feet (1.5 meters). The free corner of the flag, suspended from the tip, could whip back and forth.

In an atmosphere this motion would be impeded ("damped" in engineering terms) by air resistance. But on the moon there is no resistance from air to the pendulum motion of the flimsy fabric.

This process can be duplicated on earth. Slip the buckle of a belt over one end of a yardstick (or meter stick). Hold the other end of the stick and let the rest of the belt hang underneath it. Now move the stick left and right as if the hand holding it were a pole being twisted. Vary the speed. You will notice some complex pendulum motions at the bottom tip of the belt that look uncannily like the movements of the flag in the Apollo video. Why do we use a heavy object like a belt? Because we need something that won't be greatly affected by the air resistance on earth. In a vacuum the nylon fabric will have some of the same properties as the belt.




question: In one video you can see the flag move even though no astronaut is touching it. That could only be caused by wind?

In these instances the astronaut has just let go of the flagpole. The flagpole and its horizontal rod are bouncing, resonating in response to the residual motion from the astronaut's manipulation. If the wind is causing this motion then why are the flagpole and horizontal rod moving (bouncing), but the flag itself doesn't move at all? And why, in any of these cases, is there no secondary indication of wind such as blowing insulation on the lunar module or dust raised by the wind.

The flag is off-balance when the pole is perfectly vertical. It is balanced when tilted back slightly. Frequently the crossbar will rotate slightly just after being released by the astronaut, much as the door of an off-balance refrigerator will find its own equilibrium point.


Queston:: Why didn't the astronauts smooth out the wrinkles in the flag?

They thought it actually looked more familiar to have the flag slightly rumpled. The Apollo 11 astronauts could not get the telescoping crossbar to extend fully. On later missions the astronauts intentionally didn't pull it all the way out.


Old Post 09-02-2003 05:44 PM
Click here to Send Dreamzwalker a Private Message View Dreamzwalker's Journal Find more posts by Dreamzwalker Add Dreamzwalker to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Dreamzwalker REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
Dreamzwalker
Agent

offline
Registered: Feb 2003
Local time: 11:50 AM
Location: Out there Somewhere
Posts: 2428

post #62  quote:

One more thing - If there is a pole ACROSS the top and attached to the vertical pole - it would be "IMMPOSSIBLE" for the entire flag to wave - even in 40mph winds... only the lower corner not attached would wave.
In the still pics - the flag as a "whole" appears to be waving.

Explain why you believe it is waving when it would not be possible with the L shaped attachment...


Old Post 09-02-2003 05:53 PM
Click here to Send Dreamzwalker a Private Message View Dreamzwalker's Journal Find more posts by Dreamzwalker Add Dreamzwalker to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Dreamzwalker REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Staff
Sierradaddy
Days of Future Past...

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 11:50 AM
Location: Somewhere in Time...
Posts: 3901

post #63  quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Blonde
Hey i wasn't wrong I said it had a wire in it!!! and sierradaddy (sounds russian to me) we got there in 69 we did it..its okay comrad we are friends for now.


LOL!!

Sierra means mountain, I believe it's spanish. You have Sierra mountains in the U.S., don't you? The Sierra Nevada?

I'm not russian, but even if I were, that doesn't mean that I have to disbelieve in a moon landing just because it was America that supposedly accomplished it. It's not because I'm Canadian-born either. It's because the evidence provided that is supposed to prove the moon landing was authentic, in and of itself raises questions of legitimacy. I'm just looking at the evidence and questioning why things don't add up the way they should in my estimation.

I'm surprised that you would deem to make this an issue of country-against-country, though. While that may have been an issue back then during the cold war, it isn't now, is it?


Old Post 09-03-2003 12:04 AM
Click here to Send Sierradaddy a Private Message Find more posts by Sierradaddy Add Sierradaddy to your buddy list Sierradaddy's MSN ID is smoothline98@hotmail.com Reply w/Quote

Staff
Sierradaddy
Days of Future Past...

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 11:50 AM
Location: Somewhere in Time...
Posts: 3901

post #64  quote:

Oh, and it WOULD be possible for the flag to wave even in the L shape. The L only stops the sides of the flag attached to it from waving violently, but the fabric would still wave enough. It would still appear to be moving in the same manner that it appears to be moving in the picture. The outer bottom corner of the flag is curled upwards and in on itself, which is very similar to how a flag attached to an L-shaped pole would react to wind.

I'm bothered by that explanation a little bit, though it's better than most I've read in the past. It talks about the pole still reacting from residual motion caused by the astronaut's hand. That motion made the pole vibrate... Then it goes and says that when the pole was rocking back and forth, the flag didn't show any movement... That contradicts the earlier statement, but maybe I read it incorrectly or didn't fully understand it...??


Old Post 09-03-2003 12:22 AM
Click here to Send Sierradaddy a Private Message Find more posts by Sierradaddy Add Sierradaddy to your buddy list Sierradaddy's MSN ID is smoothline98@hotmail.com Reply w/Quote

Mr.Blonde
Crackerjack

offline
Registered: Jul 2003
Local time: 12:50 PM
Location: United States
Posts: 239

post #65  quote:

Hey Comrad I didn't have anything against Canadians until now...was the canadians even in the race WHO THE **** CARES WE MADE IT!!!!!!

Old Post 09-04-2003 07:10 AM
Click here to Send Mr.Blonde a Private Message Find more posts by Mr.Blonde Add Mr.Blonde to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Mr.Blonde REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Staff
Sierradaddy
Days of Future Past...

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 11:50 AM
Location: Somewhere in Time...
Posts: 3901

post #66  quote:

Ok, Blonde...

Feel free to believe that. No the canadians weren't in the race. Am I bitter about that? No. I don't care, I wasn't even born at that time. All I'm interested in is the truth, and if the TRUTH is that astronauts really DID land on the moon in the 60's, then I'm fine with that. But it will take a bit of prooving in order for me to freely believe in that possibility. I refuse to just accept the information given to me when it comes to something like this. I take the historical situation into perspective, and I weigh the events and evidence in a manner that I believe is fair and respectful.

If in the end my opinion is wrong, so be it. Thanks to those who helped clear the issue up for me. but so far, no one has put together a totally coherent reason for why the pictures appear the way they do, and why the scenery in those pictures appear the way they do. If I ever do, then maybe I'll be at peace with this issue. UNTIL that happens (if it ever does in my lifetime...) I'll believe what I feel is more likely based on the technology available at the time, political pressures, etc...

By the way, are you saying that by our disagreements, you've decided that you have a problem with ALL canadians, or just this one?


Old Post 09-06-2003 01:28 AM
Click here to Send Sierradaddy a Private Message Find more posts by Sierradaddy Add Sierradaddy to your buddy list Sierradaddy's MSN ID is smoothline98@hotmail.com Reply w/Quote
Time: 05:50 PM Post New Thread   
Pages (3): « 12 [3]    Print Version | Email Page | Bookmark | Subscribe to Thread
INReview INReview > The Scuttlebutt Lounge > Unexplained Phenomena & Conspiracy > Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies > Did We Land On The Moon?
Search this Thread:
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
Forum Policies Explained
 
Rate This Thread:

< >

Copyright ?2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Page generated in 0.05993509 seconds (59.96% PHP - 40.04% MySQL) with 40 queries.

ADS

© 2018, INReview.com.   Popular Forums  All Forums   Web Hosting by Psyphire.
INReview.com: Back to Home