Moon Landings: Did They Happen or Not?

[Cosmos]

With Stellarium you can go to the moon at the exact location and point in time when they were there. What you see is the following. Note that I used a Mars landscape, since you can see better where what is located in the sky, do to surface features. Stellarium has prefixed landscapes that do not correspond with the actual landscape at that area.

The following picture shows the sun from the moon surface at 20:17:40 UTC on 1969-07-20 when they landed. Note that the sun is pretty low in the sky (in the rising phase), consistent with the very elongated shadows from the craft and other objects.



Here is how the earth looked at the exact same time from the same location on the moon, zoomed out quite a bit:



And here is a close up on how the earth looked from the moon at this time. Note that the earth is about half alight (in darkening phase):



The following picture shows the sun from the moon surface at 17:54 UTC on 1969-07-21 (almost a day later) at the moment they lifted of from the surface to go back to earth. Note that the sun has only slightly risen on the horizon in one day and is still pretty low in the sky (in the rising phase), still very consistent with the very elongated shadows from the craft and other objects:



Here is how the earth looked at the exact same time from the same location on the moon, zoomed out quite a bit. Note that there is also not much change there except that the earth has revolved around its own axis quite a bit since the landing:



And here is a close up on how the earth looked from the moon at this time. Note that the earth is still about half alight (in the darkening phase):

 

[Cosmos]

Stellarium by the way is a fantastic tool to better understand sky mechanics and how things move and look like from different locations both here on the planet and on other planets. In case of standing on the moon, the sunrise till sunset takes about two weeks while standing on earth it takes between approximately 11 and 14 hours.

 

[Cosmos]

This is what bugs me. People will argue until the cows come home that something is evidence of something else when they have NO CLUE what they are talking about, but have no clue they have no clue. It's a basic lack of ability/inclination towards self-questioning at work. They'll look at a shadow cast by a light source and because of their assumptions and lack of knowledge, they conclude something 'isn't right' and then run with it and build a castle in the air (and the live in it in some cases). They are full of skepticism about 'official stories' but lack any about their own assertions and beliefs.

Since one of the most popular 'memes' that argue for the fake moon landings is the 'wrong shadows' in NASA images of the event, and since it is easily proven (as Pashalis has shown) that those memes are complete BS, any rational person should then question everything they think they know about the 'fake moon landings' and take it as a lesson to always engage in the same questioning when considering other similar claims. Will people do it? Maybe, maybe not.

People have a strong and personal attachment to their ideas, theories, beliefs because they provide a certain amount of stability and certainty in the face of a complex and nuanced world where the truth is often not simple and not finite. Faced with this complexity and the unknown, most people adopt certain world views and then hold on to them like their sanity depended on it, and in a sense it may well do. So it's not surprising that some people are very identified with beliefs as we're seeing here. Such strong attachment to beliefs IS a problem though in the scenario where those beliefs are suddenly and unequivocally exposed as entirely false.

So training yourself to be open to doubting your own theories and beliefs and to be able to change them when new data comes in, and to always keep in mind that you undoubtedly don't have the whole story, is a very good way to not only increase your own thinking abilities and knowledge, but to hedge your bets against having your sacred cows unceremoniously thrown to the ground, which can be quite traumatic, depending on the circumstances.

If you boil it down, there seem to be basically two types of thinking cascades/behaviors/patterns that separate people.

Group one:

1. Idea pops into head either from own volition (guided by a lack of knowledge) or because someone else proposed it or for another reason
2. Own thinking about the idea (and pretty much anything else) is essentially not questioned. People in this group trust their own thinking. Even the possibility of being wrong doesn't really register for them, especially about their own thinking. Their own thinking is always king.
3. Based on their own thinking those people then strongly engage in conformation bias to strengthen their thinking rather than questioning it, because anything else would be too painful
4. The spiral continuous until people in this group are so possessed by their own idea/thinking that nothing else even registers anymore

Group two:

1: This group is less likely to even be attracted to obviously outlandish/strange ideas in the first place, because they have some first-hand experience/knowledge earned by painful experiences. Sometimes they even feel repelled by some ideas.
2: Idea pops into head either from own volition (guided by a lack of knowledge) or because someone else proposed it or for another reason
3: People in this group know that they lack knowledge and can't trust their own thinking from painful experiences, so they stand critical against the idea from the get go. They essentially don't trust their own thinking.
4: They take a skeptical stands against their own thinking/idea. Even more so when they know full well that they have no clue whatsoever about a topic
5: They seek out more knowledge either from books and/or people who know more than them, to get a better idea of the subject because they KNOW that they likely lack quite a lot of data.
6: Sometimes they then go a step further and don't take for granted what is written and said to them but seek out to find it out themselves, either by deep research and/or by experiments and most importantly by networking. They essentially don't trust authoritative statements and want to know it themselves deeply. "Just because someone says so doesn't make it necessarily true" is something important for them.
7: People in this group know that others are human beings too who are as screwed up as they themselves. They are as likely as them to be completely wrong about something and emotional creatures with thinking errors, even if they have big degrees in this or that profession. If a doctor says something for example, doesn't make it much more likely for them, just because he is a doctor.
8: They recognize and appriciate track records. If somebody has a good track record, they are more likely to take what that person says with more weight than a person who has a bad track record.
9: This group is open to pretty much every outcome from the get go, no matter if it accords with their thinking or not
10: They are far less likely to engage in conformation bias compared with the first group
11: After having done their research and networked with others about it, they come to a preliminary conclusion about their originals idea/thinking pattern
12: Sometimes people in this group know from the get go that the time-energy investment into certain topics doesn't pay off and that it would be wiser to pursue other more fruitful stuff instead from the get go

The moon hoax example is such a time-energy investment not paying off scenario for a lot of people and rightly so.

 

[hlat]

6) Creationism

Do you know that life and people were created? You may want to check out the Behe and darwinism thread.

Darwin's Black Box - Michael J. Behe and Intelligent Design

I just finished this book today and want to bring it to the attention of forum members as very important! After all the evolutionary biology and genetics studies I've read over the past year or so, this brought everything home in a serious way; Behe goes into the details. The copy I have is...

cassiopaea.org

It seems you are missing one of the basic points of the forum. Each of us will be wrong and unable to see that we're wrong. The rest of the forum will point out why we are wrong. Then we have the free will to listen and change, or hold onto the wrong ideas.

 

[Hi_Henry]

Do you know that life and people were created?

I don't believe Life appeared 6 or 7 thousand years ago. Go check on Wiki what Creationism refers to.

It seems you are missing one of the basic points of the forum. Each of us will be wrong and unable to see that we're wrong. The rest of the forum will point out why we are wrong. Then we have the free will to listen and change, or hold onto the wrong ideas.

Here I though I would not need to respond here again on this subject but it seems Moon's pull is simply too strong.

Most of what you say makes sense to me except that last part, "hold onto the wrong ideas.".
You're not entertaining the idea that the majority may be wrong. You are coming at it that "we know what is right" and you are wrong. "We" could be wrong is also an option. If I do not see anything offered that convinces me that I should change my mind then I don't. Nearly none of the responses to me were addressing what was in my posts but instead coming at me "You are not thinking right." For me that's a comical stance.

Go look at how the super meme flat-earth discussion was managed on Cassiopaea. 31 pages of just discussion of WHAT a given person presented for discussion.

So as to not waist the opportunity here's some additional information for the forum to consider. Solar wind on the Moon.

The following is a video discussing the video footage just prior to supposed lift off from the Lunar surface. Astronauts are in the craft and there is no one on the lunar surface.

Filmmaker Jet Wintzer updates his groundbreaking film with a new segment featuring high resolution footage from Apollo 14 that shows the flag moving multiple times while the astronauts are in the LM after the close of EVA 2.

Moon Hoax Now: Supplement | AULIS Online – Different Thinking

www.aulis.com

For your information,

1 torr = 0.0193368 psi
1/10,000,000 of a torr = 0.0000000019 psi

 

[Turgon]

Most of what you say makes sense to me except that last part, "hold onto the wrong ideas.".
You're not entertaining the idea that the majority may be wrong. You are coming at it that "we know what is right" and you are wrong. "We" could be wrong is also an option. If I do not see anything offered that convinces me that I should change my mind then I don't. Nearly none of the responses to me were addressing what was in my posts but instead coming at me "You are not thinking right." For me that's a comical stance.

Who's "we"? What makes you think that most people that participate on the forum haven't come to their own conclusions and thoughts based on the evidence and information provided? What if the 'majority' consists of a number of individuals, who simply don't agree based on the information that has been provided and not because of some 'group-think' consensus. Like you just said, if I don't see anything offered that convinces me that I should change my mind, then I won't. The same holds true for just about everyone on the forum. But so far, you haven't provided much at all in terms of convincing me that your theories are correct.

In fact, I used to be convinced that the moon landings were faked but after revisiting the material again and going over what was posted here, realized a lot of arguments trying to debunk the first moon landing are really grasping at straws. I'd say there's more to the subsequent ones being faked or made to look fake, purposely to deflect attention. Regardless, I'd be more interested to know why this smoke-screen was created in the first place that has been going back and forth for the last 50 years and what it was meant to distract peoples attention from.

Finding out what's behind that curtain, that would be very interesting!

 

[Woodsman]

I don't believe Life appeared 6 or 7 thousand years ago. Go check on Wiki what Creationism refers to.


Here I though I would not need to respond here again on this subject but it seems Moon's pull is simply too strong.

Most of what you say makes sense to me except that last part, "hold onto the wrong ideas.".
You're not entertaining the idea that the majority may be wrong. You are coming at it that "we know what is right" and you are wrong. "We" could be wrong is also an option. If I do not see anything offered that convinces me that I should change my mind then I don't. Nearly none of the responses to me were addressing what was in my posts but instead coming at me "You are not thinking right." For me that's a comical stance.

Go look at how the super meme flat-earth discussion was managed on Cassiopaea. 31 pages of just discussion of WHAT a given person presented for discussion.

So as to not waist the opportunity here's some additional information for the forum to consider. Solar wind on the Moon.

The following is a video discussing the video footage just prior to supposed lift off from the Lunar surface. Astronauts are in the craft and there is no one on the lunar surface.

Moon Hoax Now: Supplement | AULIS Online – Different Thinking

www.aulis.com

For your information,

1 torr = 0.0193368 psi
1/10,000,000 of a torr = 0.0000000019 psi

I'd never seen the flag move video before.

My first thought was, "That IS interesting!"

My second thought was, "He says it's 'flapping' in the breeze and is being very dramatic about it. That's hyperbolic to say the least, but it clearly did swivel a bit, like a little sail picking up some amount of energy."

My third thought was, "I wonder what could cause that?"

My fourth thought was, "Was there was any out-gassing from the LEM while the astronauts were inside"?

Turns out that there indeed was. It was even recorded spiking at very moment of the flag motion when a valve was opened on the LEM.

Case closed? Of course not! The videographer's whole reason for existing appears to be very much wrapped up in the Moon landing being a Hoax. He's got too much emotionally invested to allow objectivity into his thought pattern. That's a hard place to be. I call it the "James Randi Effect". (That's the stage magician who offered a $1,000,000 to anybody who could prove to him that psychic phenomenon were real. A self-important stage-addicted ego and a career predicated on his being correct in his materialist skepticism provided ample bias to make the challenge a spurious endeavor at best. Poor James Randi).

So.., despite a recorded gas expulsion near the flag happening when it was observed to move, he instead chose to get squirelly with the math, saying that it was impossible for that amount of gas to move a flag, quoting the readings available from the atmosphere measurement device in the vicinity. He doesn't indicate how far away the gas pressure reading device was from the LEM, which seems like it should figure into the equation, but such oversights are to be expected when you've got an axe to grind.

 

[stellar]

Regardless, I'd be more interested to know why this smoke-screen was created in the first place that has been going back and forth for the last 50 years and what it was meant to distract peoples attention from.

Finding out what's behind that curtain, that would be very interesting!

Pretty much!
We can keep going back and forth with this way until the topic dies out; for now. Or we can put it on the sidelines until and if it becomes crucial for our development and I don't see it as that. It has, IMO, brought to light that some are not in control of their emotions as they could be and identify with with something unproven either way.

The whole filming could have been created with the best technology they had at the time to believably relay to people that they made it to the moon. At the time everyone seemed to have believed it. Many still do. It is only with today's knowledge of cinematography that we are able to nitpick over details and probably expectedly so. I mean, remember the special effects of b&w back in the day? Not impressive today, are they? Maybe the PTB don't want us to know how they got there because then they would have to open the biggest can of worms which has been denied/hidden forever.

My point is that there is so much hidden from us that it is easy to find ways to end up in each others' faces over something that we j u s t d o n' t k n o w. That too seems to serve someone's agenda of divide and conquer. Maybe we could just stick to a list of fact, fiction and the unknown. Theory being in the list of unknown. It may be enough, for now, that we just know that we don't know for certain.

 

[Woodsman]

I'd never seen the flag move video before.

My first thought was, "That IS interesting!"

My second thought was, "He says it's 'flapping' in the breeze and is being very dramatic about it. That's hyperbolic to say the least, but it clearly did swivel a bit, like a little sail picking up some amount of energy."

My third thought was, "I wonder what could cause that?"

My fourth thought was, "Was there was any out-gassing from the LEM while the astronauts were inside"?

Turns out that there indeed was. It was even recorded spiking at very moment of the flag motion when a valve was opened on the LEM.

Case closed? Of course not! The videographer's whole reason for existing appears to be very much wrapped up in the Moon landing being a Hoax. He's got too much emotionally invested to allow objectivity into his thought pattern. That's a hard place to be. I call it the "James Randi Effect". (That's the stage magician who offered a $1,000,000 to anybody who could prove to him that psychic phenomenon were real. A self-important stage-addicted ego and a career predicated on his being correct in his materialist skepticism provided ample bias to make the challenge a spurious endeavor at best. Poor James Randi).

So.., despite a recorded gas expulsion near the flag happening when it was observed to move, he instead chose to get squirelly with the math, saying that it was impossible for that amount of gas to move a flag, quoting the readings available from the atmosphere measurement device in the vicinity. He doesn't indicate how far away the gas pressure reading device was from the LEM, which seems like it should figure into the equation, but such oversights are to be expected when you've got an axe to grind.

Follow up:

If his ultimate argument is that the Moon landing was staged on Earth, (where flag-waving breezes are possible), then he would also have to contend that the atmospheric pressure measuring device and all its data were by necessity also fake.

And yet.., he refers to it as though it were a genuine lunar experiment, pulling on its data as recorded in the hefty science report provided by NASA to support his contention that not enough LEM gas was expelled to move the flag...

"See! This lunar atmosphere experiment which took place on the Moon says that there was hardly any gas expelled! (Well.., there was some, but if we pretend that the measurement took place next to the flag, which it didn't, but if it WAS, then there wasn't enough! Ha! Therefore there was no Moon landing and it all took place on Earth!"

All of which makes me squint as I try to follow his logic. I'm sure there's a latin word to describe it.

Basically, hysteria makes you stupid. Which is a shame, because he seems otherwise like a rather smart guy. Does believing in lies cause brain damage? Mind damage for sure, and maybe if you do it long enough, actual physical degradation as well.

Anyway, I'm sensing a winding down vibe at this point. Have we covered all the pertinent questions? Is it time to move on and let this rest until the 60th anniversary and a new crop of conspiracy hunters comes along looking for dragons to slay?

 

[luc]

You're not entertaining the idea that the majority may be wrong. You are coming at it that "we know what is right" and you are wrong. "We" could be wrong is also an option. If I do not see anything offered that convinces me that I should change my mind then I don't. Nearly none of the responses to me were addressing what was in my posts but instead coming at me "You are not thinking right." For me that's a comical stance.

It's the time-honored mindset of turning the valid point that we shouldn't always follow authority into an arrogant worship of the self and playing god. It leads to downfall, destruction, blindness, extremely sloppy thinking, and worse. But if your choice is to raise your fist against the sky in stubborn defiance, then so be it.

 

[Brewer]

We're clearly in Mercury Retrograde. I ran into a lot of problems trying to upload a video clip in my previous post (in an effort to correct a false solution in the post before that); after multiple false attempts with a couple of video hosting sites and online .gif makers and such, I finally managed it, but only at the worst resolution.

This has been a rather sloppy bit of problem solving; first, I encountered my own biases again, (which I know I have at this point, but do they ever getcha!) Then it took hours after the fact to upload a correction. Better messy and late than not at all, I suppose, but dang!

So here I am trying again with a different hosting service...

https://flic.kr/p/2gEnE4U

This is the original image which you can see here up close:
(You'll notice that several of the images in that series share the same quality of double-exposed elements.)

https://flic.kr/p/yKAdTc

Been a bit late in posting, I'm an emergency services worker and we have been getting smashed lately. If these craters, circled in red are evidence of double exposure then shouldn't the artifacts circled in blue also have ghostly duplicates? The horizon, window frames and the thrusters in other images in the don't appear to have duplicates either. What sort of double exposure is it? Can't be one where the film partially advances otherwise the fiducial markers would be out of alignment. So is it one where the film doesn't advance and another image is exposed directly on top of it? Wouldn't every crater, rock window frame and shadow have a ghostly twin? These double LM shadows occur in all missions except 17 and 13 and only appear when taken through the LM window and only on the LM shadows and in a crater to the left holy LM in mission 12. Which I'll be coming back to in another post.

 

[Woodsman]

Been a bit late in posting, I'm an emergency services worker and we have been getting smashed lately. If these craters, circled in red are evidence of double exposure then shouldn't the artifacts circled in blue also have ghostly duplicates? The horizon, window frames and the thrusters in other images in the don't appear to have duplicates either. What sort of double exposure is it? Can't be one where the film partially advances otherwise the fiducial markers would be out of alignment. So is it one where the film doesn't advance and another image is exposed directly on top of it? Wouldn't every crater, rock window frame and shadow have a ghostly twin? These double LM shadows occur in all missions except 17 and 13 and only appear when taken through the LM window and only on the LM shadows and in a crater to the left holy LM in mission 12. Which I'll be coming back to in another post.
View attachment 30916

Good questions. I'm sure we all look forward to your analysis. This is your baby. I only dug into it because you didn't seem inclined to do so. I hope you figure it out. I'll of course let it simmer in mind and if anything occurs to me in a moment of 2 in the morning insight, I'll be sure to post it, but I'm off on other projects now. Good luck!

 

[Hi_Henry]

I'd never seen the flag move video before.

My first thought was, "That IS interesting!"

My second thought was, "He says it's 'flapping' in the breeze and is being very dramatic about it. That's hyperbolic to say the least, but it clearly did swivel a bit, like a little sail picking up some amount of energy."

My third thought was, "I wonder what could cause that?"

My fourth thought was, "Was there was any out-gassing from the LEM while the astronauts were inside"?

Turns out that there indeed was. It was even recorded spiking at very moment of the flag motion when a valve was opened on the LEM.

Case closed? Of course not! The videographer's whole reason for existing appears to be very much wrapped

I concur with the first 3 steps but would not stop there. Why ? Because taking this position one is open to the argument “You assume it was the depressurization activity that caused the movement?”. In a debate the opposing side would say “Prove it is due to depressurization.”

What is needed is numbers. Without numbers it is like going to a gunfight with no gun. To get numbers takes knowledge, work and time.

Seeing the flag moving tells me THERE IS SOME KIND of FORCE on it but by just looking at the video I can not identify its source. I can guess but then that is all it is, an educated guess.

Thus what is needed it to established the possible source of this force and quantify it. Is it from the depressurization activity or is it not ? That is the question here. Simply to state there was a depressurization is not enough.

So I would continue as follows.

5) Watching the video I do NOT know at what point in their schedule this is all happening. Yes there is a clue about the PLSS being readied to be dumped but I needed to know how movement of the flag swinging syncs in with the schedule. Without the check the possibility exists that depressurization has ended and after this the flag is moving.

The clue for me is this transmission, “Okay, Houston. XXX Relief is now in Auto. The “XXX” will be know in a few lines. Taking that text into Google I found the transcription of the conversations here,

Preparing for Launch

The transcript shows us,
136:20:50 Shepard: Okay, Houston. Suit Circuit Relief is now in Auto.
In the video this happens at about 1:52.

So we have
136:19:09 Shepard: Houston, Antares. We're depressing the cabin for jettison now.
136:19:12 Engle: Okay, Al. We're watching that and it's looking good. Suits are looking good. (Long Pause) Okay, Antares. Could you verify Suit (Circuit) Relief (valve) in Auto, please? (Long Pause)

Then these parts are in the video,
0:57 - 1st appearance of the Flag
1:11 - Flag disappears
1:18 - Apollo conv. ---> 136:20:14 Okay, Antares. Could you verify Suit ....
1:32 - 2nd appearance of Flag
1:52 - Apollo conv. ---> 136:20:50 Shepard: Okay, Houston. Suit Circuit Relief is now in Auto.
1:55 - Apollo conv. ---> 136:20:54 Engle: Okay; thank you, Al.
2:05 - Flag disappears
3:42 to 3:51 - more appearance/disappearance of the Flag
3:52 - Final Flag disappearance

This part is not in the video
136:23:40 Shepard: Okay, Houston. We're going to jettison now.

So from NASA record I know that a depressurization was happening. The record also explains what we are viewing in the video. From this I am able to estimate when the decompression of the cabin started and ended.

Start,
136:19:09 Shepard: Houston, Antares. We're depressing the cabin for jettison now.
End
136:23:40 Shepard: Okay, Houston. We're going to jettison now.

I am estimating that it took them 3 1/2 minutes to depressurize the LEM.

From dump valve specs I find,
“With a bacterial filter installed, the forward hatch valve could dump pressure from 5.0 to 0.08 psia in 310 seconds without cabin oxygen inflow; without a filter in place, either valve could dump cabin pressure to 0.08 psia in 180 seconds; “
I will stick with 3 1/2 min as the time to depressurize.

6) To generate a “wind” which will strike the flag you need a flow stream. Thus we need an estimation of the flow rate, Volume/Time.

The following is given by NASA, “ASCENT STAGE - The ascent stage, control center of the LM, is comprised of three main areas: crew compartment, midsection, and equipment bay. The crew compartment and midsection make up the cabin, which has an overall volume of 235 cubic feet. The basic structure is primarily aluminum alloy; titanium is used for fittings and fasteners. “
V_cabin = 235 cubic feet

“While the LM has a cabin pressure of 3.5 psi on the Moon. “
So the potential pressure differential cabin - Space to drive the oxygen out is ~3.5 psi.

Warning: If you do not have a dark sense of humor don't go, Gases

So we know the Ascent Stage has 235 ft3 of oxygen at 3.5 psi that was released over a period of 3 1/2 minutes. Bar stool calculation gives 1.1 ft3/sec. but the rate is sure to be much higher as the other side is open to vacuum.

To get a feel for these numbers I bled my compressor in the basement to a pressure of around 7 psi and let it loose. What I got was breeze a little stronger than if I vigorously blew the air from my mouth with the hand a foot away from the nozzle. OK, everything on the Moon is happening in vacuum so that physical experiment doesn't count.

7) Next we need to locate the venting point(s) for the Ascent Stage ?

First dump valve found in the front (AFT) section where the LEM windows are located, here

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LMCrewCompFrwrd.gif

Cabin Relief and Dump Valves

http://historicspacecraft.com/Photos/Lunar_Module/LM_NASM2009RK_01.jpg

second located on top of the LEM is shown here

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LMCrewCompAft.gif

http://www.apolloproject.com/diagrams/lm-interior.jpg

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/LM12-co26.jpg

5) The next crucial issue is geometry. Where is the flag relative to these vents ?

I think it is safe to forget about the top vent but if anyone has a problem with that extend what I have done.

To locate the flag relative to AFT vent we look in photos. I found a photo around the end of EVA-2,

The flag looks to be perpendicular to the cabin hatch. What we lack is distances. Vertical distance to the depressurization valve measured from surface is about 14 ft .


Lateral distance I estimated from photo and LEM diagram as around 23 ft. So straight line distance valve-flag is about 27 ft.

Seeing the numbers above I did another experiment with my compressor to checked at what distance I would stop feeling the “wind” from the compressor at 7 psi. Try the experiment to experience the answer.

7) The top vent can not be the source of the disturbance for the obvious reasons that it is looking upward into space. The second AFT vent is another matter. We need some numbers to access the pressure disturbance from such an event.

But this is not a trivial problem as we are venting into vacuum through hole(s) (choke point) in the dump valve seen here,

The phenomena describing this in fluid dynamics is call Ventury Effect.


So basically we are looking at a small rocket motor in terms of fluid dynamics. But this “rocket engine” has 3.5 psi behind it.

So where am I going with this ? Listen to this lady at 2 min mark in the video here where she expalains why the plume is not seen at lift off.
video


The effect of expanded plum size in vacuum was also used to explaining why the rocket engine did not kick up a dust storm on the Moon. Plume was said to be very large hence the pressure of the plume on the surface was just like a “gentle breeze”.

So what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the rocket plume expands I would expect the jet of oxygen coming out of the depressurizing cabin at 3.5 psi to behave similarly. Expanding in ever widening "plume" move those 27 ft. toward the flag in zero pressure space. As this would be happening, those oxygen molecules would be fly off in all directions creating a “gentle breeze” on the metal pole and flag.

So intuition suggest to me that if a rocket engine's large plume does not generate a huge dust storm as the pads probes contact the lunar surface to shut it down then the dump port releasing air at 3.5 psi cabin pressure will not sway a flag on a metal rod assembly pointed nearly perpendicular to the ports while overcoming the the frictional forces in flag assembly at a distance of about 27 ft. Looking at the engineering diagrams of the flag it seems that it rotates with the upper pole assemble inserted inside the central pole assemble and not around the hinge.


However intuition in itself does not prove that it can't happen. So this is not a closed case. Perhaps the air stream configured itself such that it went straight for the flag. I have no idea. But there is a way to find out.

This could be solved by simulating the depressurizing operation by using a computational fluid dynamic simulator. Here we can see how results for something like this would look,


The simulator would return velocity field, density field , etc in the area of the flag. One would then be able to calculate the Forces acting on the flag assembly.

Bad news is that I do not have a simulator that can do this and I don't think it would do any good if I had one and did this work. Why ? The argument would go on as usual

Have I proved that the depressurization was not the reason for why the flag is swinging ? No.

But I have however outlined how the problem looks from a technical point of view. What orders of mangnitude the numbers we are dealing if the dumping of oxygen is the source of the Force.

The same problem occurs with the Notre Dame fire. One can scream all day long that it was not cigarette butts or an electric short but that will not prove that that could not be the cause. Numbers obtained from good science are another matter but then who likes to calculate numbers ?

Such is life in the Conspiracy World.

 

[Hi_Henry]

It's the time-honored mindset of turning the valid point that we shouldn't always follow authority into an arrogant worship of the self and playing god. It leads to downfall, destruction, blindness, extremely sloppy thinking, and worse. But if your choice is to raise your fist against the sky in stubborn defiance, then so be it.

Thanks for staying engaged Luc.

Never thought of myself as being God and I know I can be wrong. However I don't feel I am fighting with Higher Authority. There is no one to fight with. All this for me is just like shadow boxing. Trying to unravel a puzzle. Moon Landing for me just happens to be such a puzzle.

Leaving that aside however, I would like to apologize to you. After reading through the comments I can see how I may have swung the rhetorical hammer a bit too strong. I could have been a bit less edgy in responding without losing anything of what I was trying to convey. In hindsight what I wrote could be interpreted as being mean spirited. In Life I am nothing like that. I usually side with the underdog and am willing to come and help. In the case of this thread I felt that Brewer was being attacked and I did what was natural for me. I tried to help but it just came out wrong.

So I hope you accept my apology.
Cheers

 

[Brewer]

Here are three pictures I just shot all illuminated by one single light source in different heights and angles. The objects are on the same exact position in every picture, the only thing that changes is where the light source is shining (from which angle). And no, I still can't see why I couldn't use a lighter as well, but for the sake of Brewer, I just used a LED light. In the last picture I also recreated the double shadow aka the Umbra, penumbra and antumbra. Notice how one single light source can produce various angles of shadows depending on which angle the light source shines in. And no I've not cheated. Just try it YOURSELF:

All you did was demonstrate that LED lights can cast more than one shadow. Yes they do, depending on the type of light, some LEDs lights only cast one shadow, my phone, for example. Most of the lights I use at my work and business are LED lights and there is a huge variation in shadows they cast. Here's the results of my experiments. The objects are not in the identical positions, I knocked them over in the dark and the local magpies knocked them over in the daytime, they like shiny zippo lighters!

Light sources used: $10 life gear flashlight here's an image of it disassembled L to R. Body, LED and battery assembly, reflector/lens.


The Sun, on a clear cloudless day. Location, south eastern NSW, Australia latitude 34.6661° S, time about 1030 24/7/19. Not pictured.

The Sun. Distance 149.6 trillion mm Image captured with ZTE android phone


LED flashlight assembled, distance, about 500mm, Image taken with ZTE android phone.


LED Flashlight minus reflector and lens. Distance 500mm. Internal mechanism only. ZTE android phone.


Notice the difference? I could repeat this experiment multiple times using different lights and I'll get the same result. Next full moon is 15
August, I'll try this again.