[Gulliver]

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. 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. The crossbar was not nylon, based on Figure 5.

[Rama Set]

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. 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. 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?

[jroa]

Wouldn't the uneven heating have to constantly be changing in order for it to cause oscillation? 

[Gulliver]

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.

[Ghost of V]

For those wondering how we know the flag is waving, this is how:



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 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.

[Rama Set]

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?

[Ghost of V]

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.

[Gulliver]

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.

[Ghost of V]

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?

[Rama Set]

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.

[Gulliver]

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.

[Ghost of V]

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.

[Thork]

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

[Rama Set]

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?

[Rama Set]

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?

[Ghost of V]

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.

[Rama Set]

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"?

[Ghost of V]

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.

[Gulliver]

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.

[Gulliver]

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.