The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Gulliver on May 25, 2014, 12:18:30 AM
-
FET relies on conspiracy theories to avoid the RET plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face evidence From denying true space travel (orbital or super-orbital) to explaining longer than FET-predicted travel times in the ND, FET can survive only with this poly.
The first important point: A conspiracy theory can be (and usually is) not falsifiable. See definition at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability .So if NASA is involved in the "Space Travel Conspiracy" and then North Korea manages an orbital flight then the conspiracy rather than treat NK's evidence as nullifying, simply claims NK is now involved, at some level, in the conspiracy. The "fiat" power of the not-formally-qualified conspiracy theory is that it grows to deflect any new result. As such any theory that relies on a conspiracy, is not a scientific theory, that is, that theory does not conform to the Scientific Method. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method .
So any postings above FEG are moot. The FEer can just wave his or her "magic" wand to explain the failing of FET and win the point. So, please, please, please, keep conspiracy theories in FEG. Thank you!
Second, FEers are confused about generalization and its incorrect use. A conspiracy theory start with the generalization. Everyone is fooled by the conspiracy theory, with of course the obvious exceptions of those perpetrating the fraud. So if someone argues that flights which under FET's standard models should take less time than observed are always diverted "to fly around" undetected to arrive at a later, but RET predicted, time, then that's a generalization. The REer need only point to one counter-example, such as the use of FligthAware (See http://flightaware.com/ .) on one flight on one day, not show that all people tracked all flights for weeks and weeks without exception.
An interesting FEer spinning of a tall tale dates back to the early days of the old Forum. In order to explain earlier-than-FET-predicts arrivals within the SD, FEer made up the tale that in the SD there are convenient jet streams that travel in both directions placed and timed to support FET. The controller and pilots are in on the conspiracy so they ignore ground-speed RADAR and keep the secret.
So, I suggest that we just augment this thread and point FEers here every time one of them argues for a conspiracy theory as a solution to any debate point. There's no sense just repeating the same posts, is there?
-
How can a conspiracy theory ever die? It's not like an REer could nullify it, right? Well, one FET conspiracy theory seems to be dead, or at least dying.
For years, Tom Bishop concurred with Rowbotham that the South Pole, as a pole, does not exist. Rowbotham, applying Zetetic principles, determined beyond contradiction that the "SP" was circumferential. It's a circle of the circumference of the knowable Earth, not a point. Tom Bishop for years presented "evidence" of the SP conspiracy. He argued and argued that those in the know, including some in NASA, deliberately defrauded the rest of humanity for decades.
Now, however, Tom Bishop claims that the SP has indeed been discovered. Rowbotham, despite his unerring methodology, was wrong. Tom Bishop now believes the SP exists and acts as reported by NASA and others for decades.
The downside of this is simple: a new conspiracy theory is necessary to explain why no one ever reports reaching the edge of the Earth given the "bi-polar" model that Tom Bishop now advocates. One down. One up. <sigh>
-
Stop whining. This isn't your personal blog.
-
I am concidering moving this to angry ranting. Gulliver, how is this not just you complaining about someone changing their theory: a long time ago, I might add?
-
I am concidering moving this to angry ranting. Gulliver, how is this not just you complaining about someone changing their theory: a long time ago, I might add?
We REers regularly argue that conspiracy theories are not falsifiable. This is not just about someone changing their theory. It's about dealing with CTs in general, dealing with FEers use of special pleading and the fiat of CTs that allows unfair revisions. Surely dealing with CTs in a consistent and deliberate manner and being able to reference a considered argument in FEG fosters better debate. While Tom Bishop's "morphing" solution is an example, it is good to know that some CTs die.
-
Right. Well, I will give you one more opportunity to explain why you are not just simply complaining about some trivial detail before I move this to AR. Your last post really did not do your cause any good. It actually made you sound more like you are Angrily Ranting.
-
The REer need only point to one counter-example, such as the use of FligthAware (See http://flightaware.com/ .) [...]
Why do you start new threads about things you've already been shown to be wrong about? I second jroa's proposal. Please explain the purpose of this thread, other than it being your personal blog.
-
The REer need only point to one counter-example, such as the use of FligthAware (See http://flightaware.com/ .) [...]
Why do you start new threads about things you've already been shown to be wrong about? I second jroa's proposal. Please explain the purpose of this thread, other than it being your personal blog.
Would you kindly point me to where I've "already been shown to be wrong about" please? That would be a great place to join up.
I do appreciate the need to keep the forums organized. I honestly believe that taking the time to explain my concern about the nature of CTs, especially how they can't be debated (in the scientific sense) would help noobs from unfair bashing. I could always point noobs to an AR thread for the same effect, I guess. Thanks.
-
so this means they cant keep saying none of the photos of the earth from outer space are real
-
so this means they cant keep saying none of the photos of the earth from outer space are real
They can "say" anything, but, no, FEers cannot claim both that FE is a science and that a conspiracy hides and fakes evidence. Science uses the Scientific Method to eliminate confirmation bias. FEers allow conspiracy theories to confirm their beliefs.
-
Except that we often provide evidence to back the allegations of fraud.
-
I resent being told what to do, Gulliver. Your egotistical tirades are just offensive. Take it to your LJ.
-
I resent being told what to do, Gulliver. Your egotistical tirades are just offensive. Take it to your LJ.
And just where did I ever tell you what to do, especially in this thread?
-
Except that we often provide evidence to back the allegations of fraud.
Just as you did with the South Pole fraud that you now champion as wrong?
How is your record of providing innuendo even come close to evidence of any fraud?
-
Except that we often provide evidence to back the allegations of fraud.
Just as you did with the South Pole fraud that you now champion as wrong?
How is your record of providing innuendo even come close to evidence of any fraud?
I don't know what you're talking about in regards to the South Pole.
There is plenty of evidence of fraud. Consider the missing Lunar Rover tracks (http://wiki.tfes.org/Apollo_Moonbuggy_Problems), for instance.
The enlightened see it for what it is: evidence of a hoax. The brainwashed call it "the astronauts carried the Lunar Rover around with them on the moon rather than driving it".
-
Except that we often provide evidence to back the allegations of fraud.
Just as you did with the South Pole fraud that you now champion as wrong?
How is your record of providing innuendo even come close to evidence of any fraud?
I don't know what you're talking about in regards to the South Pole.
There is plenty of evidence of fraud. Consider the missing Lunar Rover tracks (http://wiki.tfes.org/Apollo_Moonbuggy_Problems), for instance.
The enlightened see it for what it is: evidence of a hoax. The brainwashed call it "the astronauts carried the Lunar Rover around with them on the moon rather than driving it".
You now content that the South Pole has been discovered after years of claiming fraud covers up the circumferential nature of the SP. You presented evidence of that fraud.
You're also on record that the movie Apollo 18 was a documentary with its moonbuggy. Now you want to argue that the Lunar Landings are a hoax? Really?
Did you have some hope that you could provide definitive evidence of a conspiracy after Dr. Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy destroyed all previous attempts.
If so, document it, research whether Phil Plait or Myth Busters already busted it, and then submit it to both.
-
There is plenty of evidence of fraud. Consider the missing Lunar Rover tracks (http://wiki.tfes.org/Apollo_Moonbuggy_Problems), for instance.
That is not evidence.
You stated that images can't be presented as a proof in this forum.
Please, show only trustable evidence.
-
Except that we often provide evidence to back the allegations of fraud.
Just as you did with the South Pole fraud that you now champion as wrong?
How is your record of providing innuendo even come close to evidence of any fraud?
I don't know what you're talking about in regards to the South Pole.
There is plenty of evidence of fraud. Consider the missing Lunar Rover tracks (http://wiki.tfes.org/Apollo_Moonbuggy_Problems), for instance.
The enlightened see it for what it is: evidence of a hoax. The brainwashed call it "the astronauts carried the Lunar Rover around with them on the moon rather than driving it".
You now content that the South Pole has been discovered after years of claiming fraud covers up the circumferential nature of the SP. You presented evidence of that fraud.
You're also on record that the movie Apollo 18 was a documentary with its moonbuggy. Now you want to argue that the Lunar Landings are a hoax? Really?
Did you have some hope that you could provide definitive evidence of a conspiracy after Dr. Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy destroyed all previous attempts.
If so, document it, research whether Phil Plait or Myth Busters already busted it, and then submit it to both.
I can't find where this subject has been busted by children's book author Phil Plait. Kindly find a source for your nonsense.
There is plenty of evidence of fraud. Consider the missing Lunar Rover tracks (http://wiki.tfes.org/Apollo_Moonbuggy_Problems), for instance.
That is not evidence.
You stated that images can't be presented as a proof in this forum.
Please, show only trustable evidence.
When have I stated that?
-
I can't find where this subject has been busted by children's book author Phil Plait.
Perhaps it was above your reading level.
-
I can't find where this subject has been busted by children's book author Phil Plait. Kindly find a source for your nonsense.
Your post contains so many egregious errors that I'll post my replies over some time.
Let's start with a challenge: Where did I say that this subject has been busted by children's book author Phil Plait?
If you'd just Google "Phil Plait Bad Astronomy" you would get About 121,000 results (0.54 seconds).
Dr. Plait has not authored any children books to the best of my knowledge, and such really isn't relevant anyway.
I think perhaps you were trying to assail Issac Asimov, one of the world's most prolific, and esteemed, science authors, regarding his definitive book here: http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/earthpix.pdf (http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/earthpix.pdf)
-
I don't see where the subject has been busted. Are you saying that this children's author may have busted it?
Real strong argument there.
-
I don't see where the subject has been busted. Are you saying that this children's author may have busted it?
Real strong argument there.
No, I am not saying, and have not said, that "this children's author" may have busted it. Are you saying that a text written at a child's level cannot show that you're wrong about some fact? Are you saying that if I refer to such an author that everything he (or she) has written is not a real strong argument? Do I need to remind you of the "ad hominem" fallacy yet again?
-
I don't see where the subject has been busted. Are you saying that this children's author may have busted it?
Real strong argument there.
No, I am not saying, and have not said, that "this children's author" may have busted it. Are you saying that a text written at a child's level cannot show that you're wrong about some fact? Are you saying that if I refer to such an author that everything he (or she) has written is not a real strong argument? Do I need to remind you of the "ad hominem" fallacy yet again?
Well, then if this subject has not been busted it looks like you have some work to do.
-
I don't see where the subject has been busted. Are you saying that this children's author may have busted it?
Real strong argument there.
No, I am not saying, and have not said, that "this children's author" may have busted it. Are you saying that a text written at a child's level cannot show that you're wrong about some fact? Are you saying that if I refer to such an author that everything he (or she) has written is not a real strong argument? Do I need to remind you of the "ad hominem" fallacy yet again?
Well, then if this subject has not been busted it looks like you have some work to do.
That is not what he said Tom. You should address what is actually written.
Technically I think Tom is committing the genetic fallacy by saying that information that comes from a "children's author" is not strong, but regardless, it is a fruitless comment to engage in since it is mostly content free.
-
In response to the subject of missing tracks it was stated that the children's author Phil Plat has destroyed all moon landing hoax allegations. It is implied "Phil Plat busted all of this already".
If so, then it should be easy to look at his work which addresses the subject of missing tracks.
If not, and his analysis was incomplete, the burden is on Gulliver and others to bust it.
-
I don't see where the subject has been busted. Are you saying that this children's author may have busted it?
Real strong argument there.
No, I am not saying, and have not said, that "this children's author" may have busted it. Are you saying that a text written at a child's level cannot show that you're wrong about some fact? Are you saying that if I refer to such an author that everything he (or she) has written is not a real strong argument? Do I need to remind you of the "ad hominem" fallacy yet again?
Well, then if this subject has not been busted it looks like you have some work to do.
When did I say that this subject has not been busted? If all you have to offer is more generalization errors, please stop posting. You fail miserably.
-
If you brought up his work in response you believe that this subject has, or may have, been busted.
Did you have some hope that you could provide definitive evidence of a conspiracy after Dr. Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy destroyed all previous attempts.
If so, document it, research whether Phil Plait or Myth Busters already busted it, and then submit it to both.
I looked, and didn't find where it was busted.
I can't find where this subject has been busted by children's book author Phil Plait. Kindly find a source for your nonsense.
No sources were given to my query. So it seems the burden to bust it is on you.
-
In response to the subject of missing tracks it was stated that the children's author Phil Plat has destroyed all moon landing hoax allegations. It is implied "Phil Plat busted all of this already".
If so, then it should be easy to look at his work which addresses the subject of missing tracks.
If not, and his analysis was incomplete, the burden is on Gulliver and others to bust it.
I can agree to that, but you keep mentioning "children's author" pejoratively, which is pretty weak.
-
The 'missing tracks' argument is absurd. In every photo you can see other rover tracks around the location of the rover. And, we know from video evidence that NASA built a mobile, functioning rover. So apparently NASA built both a mobile and immobile rover, drove the mobile rover around, then lifted it up and removed it to set the immobile rover down at or around the original location of the mobile rover; or, they drove the mobile rover just a few feet from where they wanted to park it, got out, lifted the rover with a crane, and then set the rover down just a few feet from where it had been parked.
That completely defies logic. It just doesn't make any sense.
(http://i.imgur.com/8p9ICPn.jpg)
Notice how the dark rover tracks merge with the darker soil where the astronauts have been walking all around the rover, as if the soil was disturbed by boots and rover tracks. Notice that there are partial tread marks in the soil leading up to the rover, as if the soil was disturbed by boots. Notice that you can clearly see a cable that has been partially buried (bottom-left, and center-right) in the soil, as if the soil was disturbed by boots.
-
Except that when I zoom into the photo I can see soft foot prints in the dirt around the back of the rover, but no tire tracks leaving behind it. At no point in any of the Apollo recordings do they lift up the rover. The astronauts were only actually walking on the moon for a short time, and it is all well documented.
-
I don't see where the subject has been busted. Are you saying that this children's author may have busted it?
Real strong argument there.
No, I am not saying, and have not said, that "this children's author" may have busted it. Are you saying that a text written at a child's level cannot show that you're wrong about some fact? Are you saying that if I refer to such an author that everything he (or she) has written is not a real strong argument? Do I need to remind you of the "ad hominem" fallacy yet again?
Well, then if this subject has not been busted it looks like you have some work to do.
That is not what he said Tom. You should address what is actually written.
Technically I think Tom is committing the genetic fallacy by saying that information that comes from a "children's author" is not strong, but regardless, it is a fruitless comment to engage in since it is mostly content free.
Tom is a genetic fallacyIn response to the subject of missing tracks it was stated that the children's author Phil Plat has destroyed all moon landing hoax allegations. It is implied "Phil Plat busted all of this already".
If so, then it should be easy to look at his work which addresses the subject of missing tracks.
If not, and his analysis was incomplete, the burden is on Gulliver and others to bust it.
I can agree to that, but you keep mentioning "children's author" pejoratively, which is pretty weak.
Agreed, and it is the genetic fallacy. It's like prefacing every mention of Richard Feynman with "bongo player" or "safe cracker" or "sketch artist".
-
The 'missing tracks' argument is absurd. In every photo you can see other rover tracks around the location of the rover. And, we know from video evidence that NASA built a mobile, functioning rover. So apparently NASA built both a mobile and immobile rover, drove the mobile rover around, then lifted it up and removed it to set the immobile rover down at or around the original location of the mobile rover; or, they drove the mobile rover just a few feet from where they wanted to park it, got out, lifted the rover with a crane, and then set the rover down just a few feet from where it had been parked.
That completely defies logic. It just doesn't make any sense.
(http://i.imgur.com/8p9ICPn.jpg)
Notice how the dark rover tracks merge with the darker soil where the astronauts have been walking all around the rover, as if the soil was disturbed by boots and rover tracks. Notice that there are partial tread marks in the soil leading up to the rover, as if the soil was disturbed by boots. Notice that you can clearly see a cable that has been partially buried (bottom-left, and center-right) in the soil, as if the soil was disturbed by boots.
How come the rover doesn't float off into space? I know the moon has "gravity", but isn't it just a tad bit convenient that your moon has just enough "gravity" to hold a rover on the moon, yet an astronaut who jumps high enough floats away? How do you explain this discrepancy?
-
The escape velocity from the Moon is approximately 2.4km/s which translates to 8640 km/h which is much faster than a rover can travel.
-
Vauxhall, are you saying there were astronauts that jumped off the Moon? ???
-
If you brought up his work in response you believe that this subject has, or may have, been busted.
Did you have some hope that you could provide definitive evidence of a conspiracy after Dr. Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy destroyed all previous attempts.
If so, document it, research whether Phil Plait or Myth Busters already busted it, and then submit it to both.
I looked, and didn't find where it was busted.
I can't find where this subject has been busted by children's book author Phil Plait. Kindly find a source for your nonsense.
No sources were given to my query. So it seems the burden to bust it is on you.
The blog Bad Astronomy does a great job of debunking the Moon Landing Hoax. I can't help you if you can't even figure out the that Dr. Plait is not a children's book author. I encourage you to present one good piece of evidence supporting your hoax theory that has not be reviewed and debunked by either source.
-
Except that when I zoom into the photo I can see soft foot prints in the dirt around the back of the rover, but no tire tracks leaving behind it. At no point in any of the Apollo recordings do they lift up the rover. The astronauts were only actually walking on the moon for a short time, and it is all well documented.
Tom, did you ever consider that maybe after the astronauts parked the rover, they got out and did stuff near the rover that kicked up some dust and obscured some of the tracks?
-
Except that when I zoom into the photo I can see soft foot prints in the dirt around the back of the rover, but no tire tracks leaving behind it. At no point in any of the Apollo recordings do they lift up the rover. The astronauts were only actually walking on the moon for a short time, and it is all well documented.
What you're suggesting is asinine regardless of the authenticity of the Apollo missions. It would mean that NASA drove its rover through the dirt, stopped, and lifted the rover into place mere feet from its destination. It doesn't make sense. You can believe that the moon landings were fake and also believe that the fake astronauts drove their rover to that spot and then walked all around it pretending to do astronaut things, disturbing the rover tracks in the process. It's much simpler and more logical.
The astronauts of Apollo 17 spent over 21 total hours on EVA. There were several experiments around the LM that they checked and maintained each day at the end of the EVA. There was plenty of time and opportunity to walk around the rover and LM. Even if for some reason that seems unreasonable to you, it's still more reasonable than your suggestion, even if Apollo was a hoax.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_17/surface_opp/
e: Also, I forgot to mention that I circled in red a partial tread mark behind the rover. Bottom left corner. It's difficult to imagine how such a tread would be left if they lifted the rover into place.
-
With one of those heartbeat detectors and monitoring eye movement... It would be possible to discern if an individual is lying... It makes the ability to discern conspiracies all the more... Possible...
No more guesstimations, rigmarole, or namby pamby data management and preponderance... ;D
-
Watch out for, well.... Mind Control... There would be no way to perform a brain-wave analysis in cognito... Of course, be just aware, I have never performed any of the before mentioned operations... I just mention them...
-
(http://i.imgur.com/8p9ICPn.jpg)
Why does the small thing on top of the camera, cast such a large shadow? Its is a though its very close to the studio light. But of course there aren't any studio lights on the moon. Certainly not powerful enough to illuminate an entire lunarscape. And its the only source of light. Otherwise that shadow would be lighter if a sun was shining on the ground to show the contours of the moon and the boot marks etc. I don't understand the light source here at all.
-
Adding to Thork's point... Why is the flag waving? Different pictures show different creases in the fabric suggesting some sort of fan blowing off-camera.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/8p9ICPn.jpg)
Why does the small thing on top of the camera, cast such a large shadow? Its is a though its very close to the studio light. But of course there aren't any studio lights on the moon. Certainly not powerful enough to illuminate an entire lunarscape. And its the only source of light. Otherwise that shadow would be lighter if a sun was shining on the ground to show the contours of the moon and the boot marks etc. I don't understand the light source here at all.
That's not a shadow. It's one of the RCS thruster nozzles.
(http://i.imgur.com/H5eq1Ws.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/PyB6nzi.jpg)
-
Adding to Thork's point... Why is the flag waving? Different pictures show different creases in the fabric suggesting some sort of fan blowing off-camera.
Or that there is some sort of momentum imparted to the flag causing it to ripple.
-
Adding to Thork's point... Why is the flag waving? Different pictures show different creases in the fabric suggesting some sort of fan blowing off-camera.
Or that there is some sort of momentum imparted to the flag causing it to ripple.
And that force didn't dissipate for 2+ hours?
-
Adding to Thork's point... Why is the flag waving? Different pictures show different creases in the fabric suggesting some sort of fan blowing off-camera.
Or that there is some sort of momentum imparted to the flag causing it to ripple.
And that force didn't dissipate for 2+ hours?
Where are you getting the 2+ hours from?
Because there is no atmosphere the rippling would lay longer on Earth, not sure how much longer.
Who is to say it was not jostled again?
-
Sorry, I got confused. That picture is from Apollo 17 expedition. I was thinking Apollo 11, which would be incorrect. Still, that flag had been up there for a long time. It shouldn't be shown to wave in different pictures. It should be static, there is no wind on the Moon. Are you trying to say that the flag was moved by aliens?
-
A good read to provoke further discussion or quiet doubts:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#flame
-
Sorry, I got confused. That picture is from Apollo 17 expedition. I was thinking Apollo 11, which would be incorrect. Still, that flag had been up there for a long time. It shouldn't be shown to wave in different pictures. It should be static, there is no wind on the Moon. Are you trying to say that the flag was moved by aliens?
How are you getting that it's waving from a single still image? When I look at the other images of the flag from the same reel of photos on the NASA archives, the flag looks the same in every image I can see.
-
Adding to Thork's point... Why is the flag waving? Different pictures show different creases in the fabric suggesting some sort of fan blowing off-camera.
Or that there is some sort of momentum imparted to the flag causing it to ripple.
And that force didn't dissipate for 2+ hours?
Where are you getting the 2+ hours from?
Because there is no atmosphere the rippling would lay longer on Earth, not sure how much longer.
Who is to say it was not jostled again?
What? The atmosphere has nothing to do with flags waving for hours. The pole itself would create losses. If you bend something repeatedly it gets warmer as internal friction of the materials change the energy into heat. Unless NASA have created a perpetual motion machine and plonked it on the moon in 1969.
-
Adding to Thork's point... Why is the flag waving? Different pictures show different creases in the fabric suggesting some sort of fan blowing off-camera.
Or that there is some sort of momentum imparted to the flag causing it to ripple.
And that force didn't dissipate for 2+ hours?
Where are you getting the 2+ hours from?
Because there is no atmosphere the rippling would lay longer on Earth, not sure how much longer.
Who is to say it was not jostled again?
What? The atmosphere has nothing to do with flags waving for hours. The pole itself would create losses. If you bend something repeatedly it gets warmer as internal friction of the materials change the energy into heat. Unless NASA have created a perpetual motion machine and plonked it on the moon in 1969.
The atmosphere would obviously have something to do with it, since air resistance is a thing. It would not ripple infinitely, but it would ripple much longer than on Earth as mentioned in the link I posted afterwards.
-
Adding to Thork's point... Why is the flag waving? Different pictures show different creases in the fabric suggesting some sort of fan blowing off-camera.
Or that there is some sort of momentum imparted to the flag causing it to ripple.
And that force didn't dissipate for 2+ hours?
Where are you getting the 2+ hours from?
Because there is no atmosphere the rippling would lay longer on Earth, not sure how much longer.
Who is to say it was not jostled again?
What? The atmosphere has nothing to do with flags waving for hours. The pole itself would create losses. If you bend something repeatedly it gets warmer as internal friction of the materials change the energy into heat. Unless NASA have created a perpetual motion machine and plonked it on the moon in 1969.
The atmosphere would obviously have something to do with it, since air resistance is a thing. It would not ripple infinitely, but it would ripple much longer than on Earth as mentioned in the link I posted afterwards.
Air resistance is negligible compared to the stiffness of a solid material. You know that right? You are just lonely and trying to bait a conversation. You nearly got me. ;)
-
I still don't understand how any of you have determined that the flag is moving from a single still image.
-
I still don't understand how any of you have determined that the flag is moving from a single still image.
No, there is footage. This is a very common objection from moon deniers. I suspect there was some assumption that everyone would know about this as it comes up a lot with the moon hoax.
http://listverse.com/2012/12/28/10-reasons-the-moon-landings-could-be-a-hoax/
-
Adding to Thork's point... Why is the flag waving? Different pictures show different creases in the fabric suggesting some sort of fan blowing off-camera.
Or that there is some sort of momentum imparted to the flag causing it to ripple.
And that force didn't dissipate for 2+ hours?
Where are you getting the 2+ hours from?
Because there is no atmosphere the rippling would lay longer on Earth, not sure how much longer.
Who is to say it was not jostled again?
What? The atmosphere has nothing to do with flags waving for hours. The pole itself would create losses. If you bend something repeatedly it gets warmer as internal friction of the materials change the energy into heat. Unless NASA have created a perpetual motion machine and plonked it on the moon in 1969.
The atmosphere would obviously have something to do with it, since air resistance is a thing. It would not ripple infinitely, but it would ripple much longer than on Earth as mentioned in the link I posted afterwards.
Air resistance is negligible compared to the stiffness of a solid material. You know that right? You are just lonely and trying to bait a conversation. You nearly got me. ;)
I was decidedly agnostic as to how much of a difference it would make so I am not sure how my statement is exclusive to yours. Who is baiting who?
-
I still don't understand how any of you have determined that the flag is moving from a single still image.
No, there is footage. This is a very common objection from moon deniers. I suspect there was some assumption that everyone would know about this as it comes up a lot with the moon hoax.
http://listverse.com/2012/12/28/10-reasons-the-moon-landings-could-be-a-hoax/
Did you want to provide a link to the footage or....
This list includes classic blunders by other Apollo conspiracy enthusiasts so I am getting my grains of salt ready.
-
Jeez. Google it you lazy so-in-so. Its very very mainstream.
-
Jeez. Google it you lazy so-in-so. Its very very mainstream.
Do you mean this video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMBCfuKs9i8
-
Jeez. Google it you lazy so-in-so. Its very very mainstream.
I have my own business to attend to. Speaking of lazy, why did you post a link to footage that contained no footage? Anyway, all of these Apollo objections have been debunked 1000s of times. It is pretty tired really.
-
What? The atmosphere has nothing to do with flags waving for hours. The pole itself would create losses. If you bend something repeatedly it gets warmer as internal friction of the materials change the energy into heat. Unless NASA have created a perpetual motion machine and plonked it on the moon in 1969.
[/quote]Oh my, you don't understand what a perpetual motion machine would be. First, please learn the definition of "perpetual". Then tell us how long you observed the flag wave, without interruption. Now tell us that you've misused the term.
Next, please study thermodynamics. Since the flag is not a closed system, you can't argue that it must stop waving based on your limited understanding of TD and perpetual motion. Surely uneven heating by the Sun on the flag, for example, could keep the flag waving throughout the photography period of each mission.
-
What? The atmosphere has nothing to do with flags waving for hours. The pole itself would create losses. If you bend something repeatedly it gets warmer as internal friction of the materials change the energy into heat. Unless NASA have created a perpetual motion machine and plonked it on the moon in 1969.
Oh my, you don't understand what a perpetual motion machine would be. First, please learn the definition of "perpetual". Then tell us how long you observed the flag wave, without interruption. Now tell us that you've misused the term.
Next, please study thermodynamics. Since the flag is not a closed system, you can't argue that it must stop waving based on your limited understanding of TD and perpetual motion. Surely uneven heating by the Sun on the flag, for example, could keep the flag waving throughout the photography period of each mission.
??? How would uneven heating cause a nylon flag to wave in a vacuum? You might just as well say that the solar wind could be why the flag keeps waving.
-
What? The atmosphere has nothing to do with flags waving for hours. The pole itself would create losses. If you bend something repeatedly it gets warmer as internal friction of the materials change the energy into heat. Unless NASA have created a perpetual motion machine and plonked it on the moon in 1969.
Oh my, you don't understand what a perpetual motion machine would be. First, please learn the definition of "perpetual". Then tell us how long you observed the flag wave, without interruption. Now tell us that you've misused the term.
Next, please study thermodynamics. Since the flag is not a closed system, you can't argue that it must stop waving based on your limited understanding of TD and perpetual motion. Surely uneven heating by the Sun on the flag, for example, could keep the flag waving throughout the photography period of each mission.
I refer you to http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/flag/flag.htm (http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/flag/flag.htm). The crossbar was not nylon based on Figure 5.
??? How would uneven heating cause a nylon flag to wave in a vacuum? You might just as well say that the solar wind could be why the flag keeps waving.
I refer you to http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/flag/flag.htm (http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/flag/flag.htm). The crossbar was not nylon, based on Figure 5.
-
What? The atmosphere has nothing to do with flags waving for hours. The pole itself would create losses. If you bend something repeatedly it gets warmer as internal friction of the materials change the energy into heat. Unless NASA have created a perpetual motion machine and plonked it on the moon in 1969.
Oh my, you don't understand what a perpetual motion machine would be. First, please learn the definition of "perpetual". Then tell us how long you observed the flag wave, without interruption. Now tell us that you've misused the term.
Next, please study thermodynamics. Since the flag is not a closed system, you can't argue that it must stop waving based on your limited understanding of TD and perpetual motion. Surely uneven heating by the Sun on the flag, for example, could keep the flag waving throughout the photography period of each mission.
I refer you to http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/flag/flag.htm (http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/flag/flag.htm). The crossbar was not nylon based on Figure 5.
??? How would uneven heating cause a nylon flag to wave in a vacuum? You might just as well say that the solar wind could be why the flag keeps waving.
I refer you to http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/flag/flag.htm (http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/flag/flag.htm). The crossbar was not nylon, based on Figure 5.
I am not sure how this makes your position better. Uneven heating caused the crossbar to impart ripples in to the flags?
-
Wouldn't the uneven heating have to constantly be changing in order for it to cause oscillation?
-
Wouldn't the uneven heating have to constantly be changing in order for it to cause oscillation?
No. Press and hold a piano's middle C. Even though you changed the string's condition once (as you pressed the key), the oscillation occurs, and lasts for a measurable time.
Please remember that I'm not saying that the flag even waves. I challenge Thork's position that it does and cannot. I leave the burden to Thork to support his outlandish claim, especially considering perpetual motion.
-
For those wondering how we know the flag is waving, this is how:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxEV6H7Shpc
This is footage of the flag being planted, and it's obviously flapping in the breeze. This video also gives you a brief glimpse of the wires used to simulate low gravity, combined with the fact that the video is slowed down from the original capture, we see how easy it is to fake low-gravity with very little in the way of props/special effects.
For more information on the wires, please refer to this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE)video.
If you honestly have to ask "How do you know the flag is moving?" then you obviously have not done much research on the Moon landing. The first video is a very common one, and it's surprising that some people arguing for the validity of the moon landing don't know of its existence (or maybe conveniently forgot about it?). Weird.
-
No one said it did not move, but I took exception to your apparent claim that the flag waved for 2+ hours:
And that force didn't dissipate for 2+ hours?
As shown in the mythbusters video posted by Markjo, the flag continues to wave in the absence of air, for a couple of seconds after the finish moving it. This is exactly what is seen in the video you posted. Where is the problem?
-
As shown in the mythbusters video posted by Markjo, the flag continues to wave in the absence of air, for a couple of seconds after the finish moving it. This is exactly what is seen in the video you posted. Where is the problem?
Mythbusters is a television show, and half of their "busted" myths have been proven inaccurate time and time again. I wouldn't take what they say as proof of anything, you shouldn't either. There is evidence that their show is funded by the conspiracy anyways.
-
As shown in the mythbusters video posted by Markjo, the flag continues to wave in the absence of air, for a couple of seconds after the finish moving it. This is exactly what is seen in the video you posted. Where is the problem?
Mythbusters is a television show, and half of their "busted" myths have been proven inaccurate time and time again. I wouldn't take what they say as proof of anything, you shouldn't either. There is evidence that their show is funded by the conspiracy anyways.
Please avoid ad hominem fallacies. You need to accept the evidence provided. If you're convinced that in a vacuum the flag would behave differently, then do an experiment and document the result.
Also please provide your source for your outlandish claim that half of their busted myths have been proven inaccurate time and time again.
-
As shown in the mythbusters video posted by Markjo, the flag continues to wave in the absence of air, for a couple of seconds after the finish moving it. This is exactly what is seen in the video you posted. Where is the problem?
Mythbusters is a television show, and half of their "busted" myths have been proven inaccurate time and time again. I wouldn't take what they say as proof of anything, you shouldn't either. There is evidence that their show is funded by the conspiracy anyways.
Please avoid ad hominem fallacies. You need to accept the evidence provided. If you're convinced that in a vacuum the flag would behave differently, then do an experiment and document the result.
Also please provide your source for your outlandish claim that half of their busted myths have been proven inaccurate time and time again.
Please review the definition of an ad hominem fallacy.
You seem like an idiot.
^ That's an ad hominem. Normally, an ad hominem subverts the point at hand by insulting or calling into question the motives of the person making the claim. Which did not happen.
Claiming that Mythbusters is backed by the conspiracy is not an ad hominem fallacy. I appreciate the effort though.
Also, what evidence?
-
Can you please address your claim of 2+ hours of footage of the flag waving?
As shown in the mythbusters video posted by Markjo, the flag continues to wave in the absence of air, for a couple of seconds after the finish moving it. This is exactly what is seen in the video you posted. Where is the problem?
Mythbusters is a television show, and half of their "busted" myths have been proven inaccurate time and time again.
Citation required.
I wouldn't take what they say as proof of anything, you shouldn't either. There is evidence that their show is funded by the conspiracy anyways.
Citation required.
-
As shown in the mythbusters video posted by Markjo, the flag continues to wave in the absence of air, for a couple of seconds after the finish moving it. This is exactly what is seen in the video you posted. Where is the problem?
Mythbusters is a television show, and half of their "busted" myths have been proven inaccurate time and time again. I wouldn't take what they say as proof of anything, you shouldn't either. There is evidence that their show is funded by the conspiracy anyways.
Please avoid ad hominem fallacies. You need to accept the evidence provided. If you're convinced that in a vacuum the flag would behave differently, then do an experiment and document the result.
Also please provide your source for your outlandish claim that half of their busted myths have been proven inaccurate time and time again.
Please review the definition of an ad hominem fallacy.
You seem like an idiot.
^ That's an ad hominem. Normally, an ad hominem subverts the point at hand by insulting or calling into question the motives of the person making the claim. Which did not happen.
Claiming that Mythbusters is backed by the conspiracy is not an ad hominem fallacy. I appreciate the effort though.
Also, what evidence?
Specific ad hominem attack in red font above.
Definition I'm using:
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument
Also evidence reference is in blue font above.
-
You're grasping at straws here, Gully. I'm aware of that definition, but you're still using the term incorrectly. Unless you consider "Television Show" an ad hominem attack, you have no case. I'm sorry if the words "Television Show" offend you. I'm also sorry that you're so adverse to people advertising their personal opinions on the internet (even when they are backed by evidence). My entire post was directed toward Rama Set, who is the author of his post and his own personal view, and in no way did I personally attack him or his credibility.
Evidence that Mythbusters is backed by the conspiracy exists, so trying to play that point off as an "ad hominem" is a desperate move, not to mention a low-blow with no basis in logic.
-
As shown in the mythbusters video posted by Markjo
If mythbusters happen on a topic that is controversial, they bend over every time. If advertisers can make them shut up, how well do you think they would fair against the US government?
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Mythbusters-Banned-From-Hacking-RFID-Chips-138687024.html
-
You're grasping at straws here, Gully. I'm aware of that definition, but you're still using the term incorrectly. Unless you consider "Television Show" an ad hominem attack, you have no case. I'm sorry if the words "Television Show" offend you. I'm also sorry that you're so adverse to people advertising their personal opinions on the internet (even when they are backed by evidence). My entire post was directed toward Rama Set, who is the author of his post and his own personal view, and in no way did I personally attack him or his credibility.
Evidence that Mythbusters is backed by the conspiracy exists, so trying to play that point off as an "ad hominem" is a desperate move, not to mention a low-blow with no basis in logic.
Where is the evidence? Also, why did you mention that the flag must be waving for 2+ hours?
-
As shown in the mythbusters video posted by Markjo
If mythbusters happen on a topic that is controversial, they bend over every time. If advertisers can make them shut up, how well do you think they would fair against the US government?
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Mythbusters-Banned-From-Hacking-RFID-Chips-138687024.html
So what does any of that have to do with continuation of motion of a flag inside an evacuated chamber after the flag is no longer being jostled?
Surely you are not saying that the link you posted is definitive proof of tampering in the moon landing hoax episode?
-
You're grasping at straws here, Gully. I'm aware of that definition, but you're still using the term incorrectly. Unless you consider "Television Show" an ad hominem attack, you have no case. I'm sorry if the words "Television Show" offend you. I'm also sorry that you're so adverse to people advertising their personal opinions on the internet (even when they are backed by evidence). My entire post was directed toward Rama Set, who is the author of his post and his own personal view, and in no way did I personally attack him or his credibility.
Evidence that Mythbusters is backed by the conspiracy exists, so trying to play that point off as an "ad hominem" is a desperate move, not to mention a low-blow with no basis in logic.
Where is the evidence? Also, why did you mention that the flag must be waving for 2+ hours?
The moon walk lasted a little over 2 hours, there are photos documenting this time.
-
You're grasping at straws here, Gully. I'm aware of that definition, but you're still using the term incorrectly. Unless you consider "Television Show" an ad hominem attack, you have no case. I'm sorry if the words "Television Show" offend you. I'm also sorry that you're so adverse to people advertising their personal opinions on the internet (even when they are backed by evidence). My entire post was directed toward Rama Set, who is the author of his post and his own personal view, and in no way did I personally attack him or his credibility.
Evidence that Mythbusters is backed by the conspiracy exists, so trying to play that point off as an "ad hominem" is a desperate move, not to mention a low-blow with no basis in logic.
Where is the evidence? Also, why did you mention that the flag must be waving for 2+ hours?
The moon walk lasted a little over 2 hours, there are photos documenting this time.
You appear to be the one requiring the flag to be moving the entire time. Can you make the leap from there was a 2 hour space walk to "the flag must have been moving the entire time"?
-
You're grasping at straws here, Gully. I'm aware of that definition, but you're still using the term incorrectly. Unless you consider "Television Show" an ad hominem attack, you have no case. I'm sorry if the words "Television Show" offend you. I'm also sorry that you're so adverse to people advertising their personal opinions on the internet (even when they are backed by evidence). My entire post was directed toward Rama Set, who is the author of his post and his own personal view, and in no way did I personally attack him or his credibility.
Evidence that Mythbusters is backed by the conspiracy exists, so trying to play that point off as an "ad hominem" is a desperate move, not to mention a low-blow with no basis in logic.
Where is the evidence? Also, why did you mention that the flag must be waving for 2+ hours?
The moon walk lasted a little over 2 hours, there are photos documenting this time.
You appear to be the one requiring the flag to be moving the entire time. Can you make the leap from there was a 2 hour space walk to "the flag must have been moving the entire time"?
Different photos taken at different times show different creases in the fabric. I'm not sure what else to tell you.
-
You're grasping at straws here, Gully. I'm aware of that definition, but you're still using the term incorrectly. Unless you consider "Television Show" an ad hominem attack, you have no case. I'm sorry if the words "Television Show" offend you. I'm also sorry that you're so adverse to people advertising their personal opinions on the internet (even when they are backed by evidence). My entire post was directed toward Rama Set, who is the author of his post and his own personal view, and in no way did I personally attack him or his credibility.
Evidence that Mythbusters is backed by the conspiracy exists, so trying to play that point off as an "ad hominem" is a desperate move, not to mention a low-blow with no basis in logic.
You're confused.
You've declared that you won't believe anything they say. The only reasons you list are irrelevant to the evidence: 1) TV Show and 2) Complicit with liars. So your post meets the definition of the fallacy.
The validity of your personal attack (Here: does the Conspiracy back the MBers?) is irrelevant in determining your failure in using the fallacy. You really should learn to debate the words not the person, with exception. For example of an exception, EnaG clearly shows that Rowbotham cannot argue using simple physics. His background fails him, and I dismiss him as unqualified and wrong.
That evidence exists for your outlandish claim is insufficient. In addition to providing citations for your outlandish claims, you need to show that the preponderance of the evidence supports your outlandish claim.
-
Different photos taken at different times show different creases in the fabric. I'm not sure what else to tell you.
Since you're not sure let me assist. Such photos do not tell you for how long the flag waved. Creases are artifacts not just of location, but also of position and intensity of the light sources and location of the camera/observer.
So... I guess you can't provide evidence to back up your outlandish claim that the flag waved for an incorrect length of time. I thought as much.
-
You're grasping at straws here, Gully. I'm aware of that definition, but you're still using the term incorrectly. Unless you consider "Television Show" an ad hominem attack, you have no case. I'm sorry if the words "Television Show" offend you. I'm also sorry that you're so adverse to people advertising their personal opinions on the internet (even when they are backed by evidence). My entire post was directed toward Rama Set, who is the author of his post and his own personal view, and in no way did I personally attack him or his credibility.
Evidence that Mythbusters is backed by the conspiracy exists, so trying to play that point off as an "ad hominem" is a desperate move, not to mention a low-blow with no basis in logic.
You're confused.
You've declared that you won't believe anything they say. The only reasons you list are irrelevant to the evidence: 1) TV Show and 2) Complicit with liars. So your post meets the definition of the fallacy.
The validity of your personal attack (Here: does the Conspiracy back the MBers?) is irrelevant in determining your failure in using the fallacy. You really should learn to debate the words not the person, with exception. For example of an exception, EnaG clearly shows that Rowbotham cannot argue using simple physics. His background fails him, and I dismiss him as unqualified and wrong.
That evidence exists for your outlandish claim is insufficient. In addition to providing citations for your outlandish claims, you need to show that the preponderance of the evidence supports your outlandish claim.
You're making some assumptions here, and they're all wrong. Next time, just pick the right fallacy. Just because you don't accept the evidence for my claims doesn't mean I'm making things up or using an ad hominem fallacy. You are stretching the definition of the phrase considerably to meet your argument, and it's obvious. Stop it. Just because you use big words doesn't mean you're a grown up.
^ You can call that an ad hominem and I won't argue.
It's also interesting how whenever I get into a conversation with you you start arguing semantics. Are you over compensating for your lack of knowledge on the subject? Wikipedia is just a few clicks away from where you are now.
-
You're making some assumptions here, and they're all wrong. Next time, just pick the right fallacy
Challenge: List, quoting where I made the assumption and explain how I was wrong each and every time. You'll welcome to limit yourself to this thread.
Oh, and while you'll busy practicing how to document your position, please do provide those citations I've been prompting you for in this thread. Thanks.
-
Challenge: List, quoting where I made the assumption and explain how I was wrong each and every time. You'll welcome to limit yourself to this thread.
Please avoid ad hominem fallacies. You need to accept the evidence provided. If you're convinced that in a vacuum the flag would behave differently, then do an experiment and document the result.
Also please provide your source for your outlandish claim that half of their busted myths have been proven inaccurate time and time again.
I thought we already covered this. Mixed in with you telling me what to do and sounding like a pompous ass, you're making an assumption (falsely) that I am making an ad hominem fallacy when in actuality you have clearly displayed to us that you have no idea what an ad hominem is, having to go as far to quote something out of context from wikipedia to defend your position.
Your assumption is obvious, but I forgive you since you clearly misunderstood what I was saying.
The fact that you are trying to slander my argument by calling it an "ad hominem attack" is an ad hominem fallacy to begin with. You're the guilty one here.
-
You're grasping at straws here, Gully. I'm aware of that definition, but you're still using the term incorrectly. Unless you consider "Television Show" an ad hominem attack, you have no case. I'm sorry if the words "Television Show" offend you. I'm also sorry that you're so adverse to people advertising their personal opinions on the internet (even when they are backed by evidence). My entire post was directed toward Rama Set, who is the author of his post and his own personal view, and in no way did I personally attack him or his credibility.
Evidence that Mythbusters is backed by the conspiracy exists, so trying to play that point off as an "ad hominem" is a desperate move, not to mention a low-blow with no basis in logic.
Where is the evidence? Also, why did you mention that the flag must be waving for 2+ hours?
The moon walk lasted a little over 2 hours, there are photos documenting this time.
You appear to be the one requiring the flag to be moving the entire time. Can you make the leap from there was a 2 hour space walk to "the flag must have been moving the entire time"?
Different photos taken at different times show different creases in the fabric. I'm not sure what else to tell you.
Perhaps how you know it was wind or a stagehand that moved it?
-
Challenge: List, quoting where I made the assumption and explain how I was wrong each and every time. You'll welcome to limit yourself to this thread.
Please avoid ad hominem fallacies. You need to accept the evidence provided. If you're convinced that in a vacuum the flag would behave differently, then do an experiment and document the result.
Also please provide your source for your outlandish claim that half of their busted myths have been proven inaccurate time and time again.
I thought we already covered this. Mixed in with you telling me what to do and sounding like a pompous ass, you're making an assumption (falsely) that I am making an ad hominem fallacy when in actuality you have clearly displayed to us that you have no idea what an ad hominem is, having to go as far to quote something out of context from wikipedia to defend your position.
Your assumption is obvious, but I forgive you since you clearly misunderstood what I was saying.
The fact that you are trying to slander my argument by calling it an "ad hominem attack" is an ad hominem fallacy to being with. You're the guilty one here.
Are you actually trying to claim that you did not attack MBers?
As shown in the mythbusters video posted by Markjo, the flag continues to wave in the absence of air, for a couple of seconds after the finish moving it. This is exactly what is seen in the video you posted. Where is the problem?
Mythbusters is a television show, and half of their "busted" myths have been proven inaccurate time and time again. I wouldn't take what they say as proof of anything, you shouldn't either. There is evidence that their show is funded by the conspiracy anyways.
-
My personal opinion about Mythbusters is irrelevant. You're getting pretty off topic here.
Do you have anything else to say about the flag on the moon and the 2 hours of photographic documentation showing that it was indeed waving?
-
My personal opinion about Mythbusters is irrelevant. You're getting pretty off topic here.
Do you have anything else to say about the flag on the moon and the 2 hours of photographic documentation showing that it was indeed waving?
The photographs do not document that it was either wind or a stagehand moving a flag so I am not sure how you can support your position in that regard. It also seems you have not done the homework to claim that the flag was continually moving rather than undergoing a few different changes in position.
You really have not gotten any closer to showing anything untoward or suspicious.
-
My personal opinion about Mythbusters is irrelevant. You're getting pretty off topic here.
Do you have anything else to say about the flag on the moon and the 2 hours of photographic documentation showing that it was indeed waving?
The photographs do not document that it was either wind or a stagehand moving a flag so I am not sure how you can support your position in that regard. It also seems you have not done the homework to claim that the flag was continually moving rather than undergoing a few different changes in position.
You really have not gotten any closer to showing anything untoward or suspicious.
So, you're saying either a) it was waving or b) it was being moved by other causes.
It looks like neither of us have any supporting evidence for both claims, so you're not anywhere close to disproving my theory either.
-
My personal opinion about Mythbusters is irrelevant. You're getting pretty off topic here.
Do you have anything else to say about the flag on the moon and the 2 hours of photographic documentation showing that it was indeed waving?
The photographs do not document that it was either wind or a stagehand moving a flag so I am not sure how you can support your position in that regard. It also seems you have not done the homework to claim that the flag was continually moving rather than undergoing a few different changes in position.
You really have not gotten any closer to showing anything untoward or suspicious.
So, you're saying either a) it was waving or b) it was being moved by other causes.
It looks like neither of us have any support evidence for both claims, so you're not anywhere close to disproving my theory either.
I will go with a) and refer you back to all the evidence provided in this thread to say it is likely that all movement can be attributed to astronauts. Just so I can be thorough, would you happen to know an easy to browse gallery of the photos you mentioned? I want to see how many times the flag changed position.
-
My personal opinion about Mythbusters is irrelevant. You're getting pretty off topic here.
Do you have anything else to say about the flag on the moon and the 2 hours of photographic documentation showing that it was indeed waving?
The photographs do not document that it was either wind or a stagehand moving a flag so I am not sure how you can support your position in that regard. It also seems you have not done the homework to claim that the flag was continually moving rather than undergoing a few different changes in position.
You really have not gotten any closer to showing anything untoward or suspicious.
So, you're saying either a) it was waving or b) it was being moved by other causes.
It looks like neither of us have any support evidence for both claims, so you're not anywhere close to disproving my theory either.
I will go with a) and refer you back to all the evidence provided in this thread to say it is likely that all movement can be attributed to astronauts. Just so I can be thorough, would you happen to know an easy to browse gallery of the photos you mentioned? I want to see how many times the flag changed position.
Here's (http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/apollo.html) a collection of several images taken during the Apollo 11 expedition. Keep in mind, this is from NASA's website so results may vary.
-
So you don't trust these photos?
-
So you don't trust these photos?
I believe the moon landing was a hoax. Is that what you are asking?
-
So you don't trust these photos?
I believe the moon landing was a hoax. Is that what you are asking?
I meant what I asked. Do you trust the photos as a reliable source?
-
Do you trust the photos as a reliable source?
This is actually a very complex question. I trust that the photos are a reliable source for something, yeah.
-
Do you trust the photos as a reliable source?
This is actually a very complex question. I trust that the photos are a reliable source for something, yeah.
What something would that be?
-
Do you trust the photos as a reliable source?
This is actually a very complex question. I trust that the photos are a reliable source for something, yeah.
What something would that be?
They are a reliable source for studying NASA's huge disinformation campaign that has been rolling Sonic style since the 60s.
-
My personal opinion about Mythbusters is irrelevant. You're getting pretty off topic here.
Do you have anything else to say about the flag on the moon and the 2 hours of photographic documentation showing that it was indeed waving?
When you express your personal opinion to discredit another it is relevant--as a ad hominem fallacy
You're confused about the burden of evidence. I've made no claims and have no burden. You, on the otherhand
-
So.. about this "waving" flag. Has anyone ever observed a flag to wave like this on earth?
-
test