We could start with Jay hopping around in a space suit in the desert at night to show how flags wave. ;-)

...and chasing scorpions. And watching the grips get drunk.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I don't know the exact reason for the fluttering flag, but I have my suspicions. The strongest evidence against hoaxers in this video is not what might have caused the flag to move, but rather, how the flag behaves after it begins to move. The pendulum effect can clearly be seen, and is a pretty strong indicator that it was not filmed in an air-filled environment.

When I do get around to making another video in the Lunar Legacy series, this will almost certainly be a featured segment.


.

__________________
Apollo unbelievers go here for immediate salvation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khDI2MsWSYc

"I had a hand in Tom Morrow's kiester."
-JayUtah

"The only physical proof nasa has that they landed men on the moon is 840 lbs. of rocks"
-straydog02

How about a miniature flag inside a vacuum jar?

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

I rarely look at YouTube. Does it allow you to post comments to videos? If so, could not someone post a comment there, maybe with a link to either BAUT, the BA's website, or Clavius?

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

Most videos allow comments. YouTube doesn't allow links. There is also a 500 character limit to YouTube comments. The comment system is also quite chaotic. All in all it's very hard to make a good rebuttal through commenting. However, you can also upload a video and then make it a response to another video, which gives you quite a bit more room.

__________________
I'll be on holiday for most of July. See you when I get back! :)

Spread the Love!

I just tried looking at the video on ALSJ. It's in RealPlayer format which a) sucks and B) has lousy resolution. I may try to get a higher-res version, maybe through SpaceCraftFilms. It looks like the flag moves just before Dave Scott goes by, but the direction is difficult to tell. Given the size of the flag and of Dave, I don't think he physically brushed against it, but I know better than to judge by eye!

__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com

I've watched it on the SC Films DVD and it does in fact begin to move just before he passes in front of it, ruling out direct contact as the cause. It's also interesting to note that as he clears the flag, it's moving *toward* him, not away.

I'd love to see a controlled experiment with an electrostatically charged object passing by a piece of 3x5' nylon in a vacuum chamber. I'm betting the results would be similar to what we're seeing in this A15 footage.

__________________
Apollo unbelievers go here for immediate salvation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khDI2MsWSYc

"I had a hand in Tom Morrow's kiester."
-JayUtah

"The only physical proof nasa has that they landed men on the moon is 840 lbs. of rocks"
-straydog02

I watched the DVD on a 52" screen and (try as I might) I couldn't see any precursor motion.

__________________
"Transport of the mails, transport of the human voice, transport of flickering pictures - in this century, as in others, our highest accomplishments still have the single aim of bringing men together." St. Exupery

Well there's your problem right there. Those pixels must be the size of golf balls on that screen. Try it on a monitor that doesn't have its own zip code.




.

__________________
Apollo unbelievers go here for immediate salvation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khDI2MsWSYc

"I had a hand in Tom Morrow's kiester."
-JayUtah

"The only physical proof nasa has that they landed men on the moon is 840 lbs. of rocks"
-straydog02

The perception of precursor motion is one of the open issues on this point. Some swear they see it; some swear they don't. And the division is not along conspiracist-debunker lines. I'm going to do some serious image analysis Real Soon Now on this, using accepted techniques.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

That's great...looking forward to the results. My perception from viewing Mark's DVD is that the bottom tip of the flag begins to move *outward* ever so slightly as Scott's body begins to obscure the pole, about a second after the camera does a small upward tilt.




.

__________________
Apollo unbelievers go here for immediate salvation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khDI2MsWSYc

"I had a hand in Tom Morrow's kiester."
-JayUtah

"The only physical proof nasa has that they landed men on the moon is 840 lbs. of rocks"
-straydog02

I'm sorry, Mr. JayUtah, but isn't that the same thing that you are doing when you say:

So you are basically doing what the Apollo Hoaxers are doing. Trying to find the circumstances until the desired cause-and-effect emerges, such as saying it is electrostatic or some other force. Have you done any experiment to prove an electrostatic force is a) feasible b) strong enough to cause any movement? Perhaps explain the physics?

Also, isn't electrostatic force (almost) instantaneous? Why then is there a short delay between when the astronaut leaves the frame and flag moving?

I'm (obviously) not saying Apollo missions were fake but that type of reasoning does not convince me as to how the flag moves.

I'm only looking for explanations. I'm not challenging anything.

__________________
P.S. This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated.

-- Mitch Hedberg

Trying to find the circumstances until the desired cause-and-effect emerges...

Yes. That's what the scientific method accomplishes. One must come up with a hypothesis that fits the observations in order to explain anything. But unlike conspiracy theories, a scientific hypothesis must be plausible on its face and must be falsifiable. Then it must be tested directly.

As I said, I believe that electrostatic attraction is the most likely explanation. That is a tentative conclusion. I may have erroneously conveyed a stronger impression.

Have you done any experiment to prove an electrostatic force is a) feasible b) strong enough to cause any movement?

No. And I have said as much, either here or in one of the other places where this is being discussed. I pointed out that the question was still very much open because it is not within our power currently to falsify the electrostatic attraction hypothesis. I don't happen to own a vacuum chamber, which would be necessary to eliminate atmospheric interference.

Perhaps explain the physics?

Electrostic attraction in general is straightforward. It is a noted planning issue for lunar surface operations, so the hypothesis is plausible on its face.

Also, isn't electrostatic force (almost) instantaneous? Why then is there a short delay between when the astronaut leaves the frame and flag moving?

There is arguably a precursor movement of the flag. After movement is initiated, the system will continue to oscillate in collective resonance until it damps out. The system is the flagpole assembly consisting of several components including the flag fabric and the rigid, elastic parts. The combined oscillation will be difficult to predict and is not assumed to be regularly periodic or monotonically decreasing in all possible observations.

Further, the electrostatic attraction (if it exists) will change direction as the astronaut moves, with the system continuously reacting during the meantime. Not all resulting motion may be simply predicted.

It might be possible to falsify the hypothesis via computational structural dynamics simulation, but it would not be as conclusive as an empirical demonstration.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Looking at it closely you can see the flag moves slight away from the astronaut at the momentof him passing by it. Then as you mentioned it springs back and oscillates mildly.

If it was electrostatic what sort of interaction would we expect to let this happen? Can the force needed to cause such a movement be measured?

__________________
P.S. This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated.

-- Mitch Hedberg

Even in a well ventilated room, I can demonstrate the repulsive effect.

It is easy to see a static charge pushing the flag without atmospheric pressure considering how well it pushes when it is IN an atmosphere

Looking at it closely you can see the flag moves slight away from the astronaut at the momentof him passing by it.

That's the precursor motion we're debating. It's not clear it's actually occurring. Others see it; others don't. That's one of the questions that a detailed analysis would have to answer.

Then as you mentioned it springs back and oscillates mildly.

It's not clear (based on the uncertainty above) whether the motion toward the astronaut is the first observed motion or a subsequent.

If it was electrostatic what sort of interaction would we expect to let this happen?

I'm not sure what exactly you're asking.

Can the force needed to cause such a movement be measured?

Yes. A better question is whether I can measure it with the tools at my disposal. Not really. Not with any confidence.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I was bored, so I did a quick analysis on the flag. It does start to move before the astronaut passes it. The video can be found on YouTube here, and a direct link to the file (XviD compressed with maximum quality, 3.55MB) here (right click, "Save As...").

The YouTube link might not work right away. It might be still processing and stuff.

__________________
I'll be on holiday for most of July. See you when I get back! :)

Spread the Love!

Maybe he stepped on a loose sub floor board from the moon set.

That doesn't convince me because it concentrates on the movement relative to the frame of the camera, and does not show it in relation to other objects in the frame.

I saw nothing to indicate it wasn't camera movement instead.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)