Another interesting observation; notice how the flag moves at exactly the same moment as the astronaut contacts the ground after jumping. This could further hint at the possibility that it was caused by the tiny vibrations of the lunar surface as the astronaut was hopping. The flag could have amplified the vibrations and that is why we see that movement.

just my $ 0.02

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

-- Mitch Hedberg

My 2¢ is on the moon walker brushing the flag with his elbow, or with something from his moon suit.

The more I look at the right edge of the flag (just the sliver of the right edge) and how and when it moves, the more I'm convinced it can't be from motion from the cantilevered arm.

I don't see the arm of the flag support moving first; I see the bottom right corner of the flag moving first, then I see some motion (sometimes) of the cantilevered arm. The motion of the flag starts from the bottom of the flag, not the top.

I also see the motion of the flag away from the astronaut begin just at or slightly before the astronaut lands from his previous step: The astronaut lands and the space suit compresses down just as the right corner of the flag begins to move away from the astronaut.

The way I would bet my 2¢ is the astronaut just ticks the flag on the bottom edge or extended crease of the flag as he's landing from a previous step with his suit.

But this would have to mean the astronaut is traveling in a line almost parallel to the fall line of the flag.

I do not see that in the video: I see the astronaut crossing closer to 90 degrees to the fall of the flag.

Is the astronaut moving towards the camera or across the field of view?

I see your 2 cents and I raise you 2 more cents.
I've watched this thing over and over til I think I'm going to be dizzy.

I do not "believe" that I can see the astronaut brush against the flag. It is possible but hard to determine.

I can plainly see how a static charge could have repulsed the flag. If anything, this smacks as evidence in favor of the lunar landings- not against.

In an atmosphere, either brushing agianst the flag or even a static repulsion would have caused the flag to react differently.

I experimented with this using:
1.)The hall bathroom which has no windows and seals very tightly. No moving air.
2.)The cat.
3.)One helium balloon.
4.)One 3x5 inch nylon flag on a wooden stick. Planted sideways with the flag dangling freely over the counter.
5.)One four year old boy to assist in rubbing the balloon on the cats back.

Moving the balloon back and forth by the flag had TWO outcomes. I cannot explain why both occured- although I did some reading on static electricity I still feel dumb.
1.)The balloon pulled the flag toward it and as I continued moving the balloon past- the flag snapped backward by gravity and rocked until still. Air resistance cut the motion short. Also to note that in spite of very still air in the room it was very hard to hold the thing still.

In the footage- The flag is perfectly still except at this very moment. If there was air to push the flag as the astronaut passed, they would have had a very hard time keeping other factors from causing the flag to move or jostle.

2.)The balloon repelled the flag. As it passed by the flag it pushed it away a tiny amount. Gravity then caused the flag to snap back and rock a bit before settling. Miniscule amount though.

A 3x5 inch nylon flag has more density for it's surface area thatn the one on the moon. If I could get this mini-flag to move, it would probably be even easier to get a large one to move.
And if I could get rid of all air resistance in my room, I think I could duplicate what we see in the video. With a Moon Cat.

*No animals were harmed during the production of this experiment. Said cat was slightly annoyed. Due compensation was given to cat as cat used claws to exact revenge on annoying balloon. Cat was still not happy. The bang scared cat out of the room and under bed.

I'll concede that you may have gone through this and seen something.
But; Given the display medium, there are still some possibilities that the movement is an artifact and not actual movement.
Other movement in the frame may cause nearby elements to be compressed differently frame to frame causing the appearance of movement.
Higher contrast items are much more prone to variations due to compression than lower contrast. The flag is much higher contrast than the surrounding clues.

And, keep in mind, I only said I'm not convinced from the video, I'm not saying you are wrong or that it isn't there.

Besides, Even if there were movement, there are some very good simple explainations throughout this thread that I do accept.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

I disagree. The flag moved. I watched that thing too datburned many times to accept for one moment that the flag did not move.

No I'm a strong supporter of the static theory at this point. Not only is it plausible, but it also supports an airless envirnoment. 1 for Apollo, 0 for HB. ETA: As usual

It seems to me that supporting a hypothesis because it agrees with your preconceived idea is a tactic best left to the HB.

I am still not sure which explanation to accept, but when I do accept one I hope it will be based on the weight of evidence not on the result I desire.

__________________
Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space.

The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy
Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

I'm not sure I see where in Neverfly's statement there was a preconception. Sounds more like a plausibility statement to me.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

In choosing the static hypothesis because it supports an airless environment. How is this different from an HB choosing the air movement hypothesis because it supports a terrestrial origin?

__________________
Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space.

The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy
Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

I think that was a misinterpretation Waspie, and I agree with what I think NEO was saying. I think Neverfly was saying that he thinks the motion was caused by static charge, and that the theory fits in an airless environ, NOT that he thinks its static because it fits the scenario.

edit: I used the word "think" alot, so correct me NEO and Neverfly if I too misinterpreted your respective posts. Internet communication is great, but oft subject to much ambiguity.

__________________
I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.

Theory of Zombie Relativity:
1) Everyone Else is a Zombie relative to You
2) Whether or not it matters is related to the inverse square of the distance between their teeth and your brain
(Quoted from Demigrog)

Agreed.
I actually thought of that after I posted it- But left it as it was.
It does look bad.

What I had meant though was that the static theory fits all the evidence...
and the airless environment was an added perk that demonstrates that this video is better suited to support that this took place in an airless environment (say... on the Moon , for example) than in an air filled room at area 51 or somesuch.

My utter lack of clarity there deserved your response

ETA: I got lazy because I had outlined this whole "experiment" and assumed that would sefl-sustain my post in spite of my poor wording.
ETA number 2....: The above ETA was intended for my post right below this one, but I'm gonna be all lazy again and just leave it here...

Nahhh. I had it commin'. Especially considering I, myself, had even noticed it too, but got lazy and ignored it.

Waspie_Dwarf did this thread and my posts justice by pointing it out- resulting in some needed clarification.

All good scientific approach .... as far as it goes ..... BUT:

1) Where is the evidence for Mooncats?
2) Are there MANY four year old boys on the moon?
3) I don't recall the astronauts using a bathroom while they were there. Maybe it was out of sight in one of the craters?!





Seriously (??!), you seems to have done a fairly good example of an experiment, but one that is still actually impossible to recreate the same conditons as on the moon due to atmosphere (or lack of!)

__________________
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but rather, 'hmm.... that's funny...'
- Isaac Asimov

Are we alone in the Universe? Are we the only intelligent life? Who knows? But the universe is so BIG, it somehow seems such a waste of space if we are ....

Forwarded to Richard Hoagland.
If I was on the moon I would act like a four year old boy for a while until I get a grip.
They are more advanced than I (or more daring) and can go right in their suits.


I was mostly trying to determine IF a static charge could repel the nylon flag, albeit surrounded by an ocean of air.

I put in a request for Hanger 13 at Area 51 to perform the experiment there, but their anti-grav machine was down and their 1 square mile vacuum chamber had sprung a leak.

They said they had three men on the anti-grav device (probably literally sitting on it while they ate their lunch) and were all chewing Bazooka Joe to plug the leak with but I suffered a burst of impatience and decided that a little air wasn't going to kill me.

Wow; my mind must have corrected the mistake, because it took me a long time to see the issue. "Supports" vs "Supported by".

Do I get a cookie for reading your mind?

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

Ah-HA! Finally we've backed NASA into the wall, and they will soon PINNED by the LIES the SYSTEM will fail.

How could SUPER NASA be chewing bubble gum and EAT THEIR LuNCHES at same TIME? UNless they TOOLS OF THE SYSTEM!

BUY MY BOOK!!!

...sorry couldn't resist. I'll be good.

__________________
I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.

Theory of Zombie Relativity:
1) Everyone Else is a Zombie relative to You
2) Whether or not it matters is related to the inverse square of the distance between their teeth and your brain
(Quoted from Demigrog)

Cookie may not approve of being devoured, but you can have a Dr. Pepper


Fazor, only the three guys sitting on the anti-grav device were eating lunch (Arby's Roast beef sandwiches) the rest of the personell were jawing large wads of gum.
Debunked.

...well, just because it's debunked doesn't mean you shouldn't still buy my books. I have kids I have to put through fake colleges so they can claim they have bogus degrees and carry on the family business.

...okay I lied, I don't have kids.

__________________
I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.

Theory of Zombie Relativity:
1) Everyone Else is a Zombie relative to You
2) Whether or not it matters is related to the inverse square of the distance between their teeth and your brain
(Quoted from Demigrog)