I watched this video last evening as I perused a number of videos recommended by Trevor Weaver in his book The Apollo Hoax: How Did They Do It? I had long before decided that once done, I would deposit this book upon the circular file. It is not indexed and suffers from typos, typical of any self-published effort. Typos in published works are disconcerting. How hard is it for someone to review a manuscript and fix it up? I suffer from typos here, but I am my own editor, and simply do not see what I have written until after it is published. And I can fix them. In books, they stand. Typos in a book are an unforgiveable sin.
Nonetheless, the Weaver book led me to the video that follows.
It is 25 minutes long, and anyone who comes here knows that I never urge anyone to watch anything. It’s always your call. The thing is with this video, that if you don’t watch it, we have nothing to talk about. I’ve watched quite a few videos in the last two days, and while some are claimed to be “proof” of this and that, they seldom prove anything.
This one concerns something I was aware of, though I did not know specifics, that an astronaut during Apollo 15 had walked hurriedly by a planted flagpole, supposedly on the Moon, and that the flag waved as he did so. That should not happen in a place where there is no atmosphere.
I never thought that was solid proof of anything, just a NASA glitch that its supporters overlook. The astronaut could have brushed up against it. NASA offered six reasons why it would wave, and in the end, no one except those already convinced the Moon landings were fake thought anything of it. I know it did not convince me of anything.
Enter Steve the Chemist. He saw what all of us saw, but had a completely different take on it, one that left me shaking my head in wonder at his brilliant insight. He “proved” that the flag in question was not on the Moon, and yes, I never use the word “prove”! So watch the video, give it your time, follow the reasoning of his beautiful mind. It’s priceless.** ***
___________________
No doubt I will discover after this that NASA has “debunked” this video. Just so we are clear on the matter, “debunk” is a term that came out of the behavioral psychology branch of CIA. I read a book while back called The Memoirs of Billy Shears, the main thrust of which that it was written by “Billy Shears”, Paul McCartney’s replacement. That part is nonsense, but the book had more to say. It contained pages and pages of footnotes, and those footnotes had a different writer’s voice. They were more factual and insightful, even saying things that are probably true. Those footnotes discussed use of the term “debunk”:
The most trusted fact-checking websites on television programs go to some expense to maintain their reputations and are often useful to check on inconsequential urban legends or threats of computer viruses. However, providing many true statements for each ruse, along with disproving false rumors, they also claim to “debunk” (a trigger word to make people believe them) proof of scams perpetrated by specific treacherous corporations.
“Debunk” has an air of authority and finality about it, which is why it is so widely used by anyone pushing the official narrative for any major hoax, including NASA and the Moon landings. People have been gnawing away at NASA’s credibility for decades now, and NASA claims to have beaten back every accusation of hoax. They have not, of course, but use of the word “debunk” carries more weight than simply countering some data with some other data, is in “disputing” or disagreeing”. Debunking is final. Once debunked, it’s over. That is the purpose of the word.
In that sense, “debunk” serves the same psychological purpose as “conspiracy theory.” What happens when someone is accused of having a conspiracy theory? Thinking stops in its tracks. That is also the purpose of the “debunk” meme, that it places “factual” matters in a realm of their own, and relegates all else to a place of ridicule. Once something is debunked, once it is labeled a conspiracy theory, it can safely be ridiculed. No one likes ridicule. Ergo, thinking stops.
It’s thought control, done by experts.
___________________
** Once through it, you might be surprised to learn that NASA has delicately exposed in its videos that a tool bag or some thing moved for variously reasons. NASA then used that movement as proof that it is on the Moon. NASA is aware of the physics of pendulums! The thing is, with the flag video, the pendulum effect was unintentional, and so NASA could not fake its outcome. It was therefore left to its shills to debunk.
*** Steve the Chemist does make an error here, an oversight. The initial time of the pendulum was calculated at just about two seconds, and later Steve will show us that it should have been more like 1.55 seconds. That does not destroy the experiment, however, since if were on the Moon the time of pendulum swing would be more like five seconds. What Steve did not realize, nor I, was that most of the NASA footage shot on the “Moon” was shot in slow motion, to give the astronauts a more authentic 1/6 gravity look. If the film is slowed it would increase the time of the swing, and knowing that, and knowing the flag is on Earth, and not the Moon, we can calculate the degree of slowing of the film by NASA – about 20%.
Piece of Mindful 
Mark, may I have your email address, please? I have a pdf that I wish to send to you that you may find “illuminating”.
Regards,
RiccardoWA
LikeLike
mpthct at proton dot me.
LikeLike
Thank you, please me know if you received the pdf.
LikeLike
got it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It figures a chemist gets it right, we’re the best scientists lol. But seriously it’s hard to bullshit in chemistry, as the goal is to isolate, purify, characterize, and obtain basic physical data on pure compounds and elements. Can’t be faked – until you start talking vaccine particles and their behavior, which take on life-like properties, impossible for a particle.
LikeLike
And I watched the video, it’s well done, and you’re right he doesn’t account for the fact that NASA could speed up and slow down the tape. And no idea why a flag would start moving in a place with no atmosphere, that makes zero sense. I would also say we don’t know the gravitation on the moon (maybe someone does) but that is based on a lot of assumptions, like the mass of the earth and moon are known and all celestial mechanics are governed by gravity, and only gravity.
LikeLike
I waded through the old bullshit of gravity one more time to make sure I wasn’t fooling myself.
Asked AI what is the physical driving force behind gravity? Answer: it’s curved space-time! Old St. Einsteins answer for everything. So if you believe that gravity is 1/6 on the moon, and gravity is a real “force”, you’re basing your assumption that mass creates “potholes” in space time. Weak, weak theory.
LikeLike
Isn’t AI supposed to be on top of things?
This was going to be a post, but I got waylaid … a Dr. Rosenau back in the time of the Spanish Flu conducted experiments using soldiers and people who had the disease, many in the brig as I recall, and put them all together, had them breathe and cough and sneeze on one another, sit across at close distance for extended time, touch, and even put mucus from one under the skin from another. I think if you search the blog for Rosenau, you’ll find details of the experiments. No one contracted it.
I asked AI why Rosenau failed, and AI said that the reason is that the Spanish Flu was caused by the H1N1 virus, which was no longer spreading at that time. That is, to my knowledge, absolutely a contrived answer based on a cadaver discovered frozen from that time in which they “isolated” that virus.
It is just one more example of use of virus pseudoscience to cover up the real causes of disease, in this case, as I read it, the war and use of poison gas. It is speculative, of course, but the point is that it was never studied again after Rosenau. In the U.S. it could be traced back to a couple of military bases, as I recall. With the virus, the door is shut tight, and we will never know the real causes.
And AI is at the forefront of the cover-up. It’s another propaganda source.
LikeLike
Trivia question: what the error in velocities needed to maintain orbit in a satellite? This would have to apply to any moon orbiter, or re-entry into the atmosphere, to control the path.
It’s 0.05%. GTFOOH. How do you measure and control velocity to that high of a degree of accuracy? This is +/-4 m/s. Hard to believe
LikeLike
Apart from atmosphere, electrostatic charges can have an impact and while American Moon refutes the notion that static discharge could play a role, it seems it could.
Question 24 asked in American Moon
Given that the flag begins to move even before the astronaut reaches it – which excludes both static discharge and a physical contact – can you suggest anything different from the displacement of air to explain the flag’s movement?
Response
This question refers to the moment captured on video during the Apollo 15 moon landing when the astronaut David Scott bounced past a flag and the flag started to move. It has been suggested that Scott touched the flag with his elbow (see the entry at 148:57:15). However, this 3d recreation indicates that he was too far from the flag to touch it. It is possible, however, that the movement was caused by a static charge that Scott was carrying on the surface of his suit.
According to this slideshow by a NASA scientist (slides 7 and 8), static charges dissipate on the moon in milliseconds, which would make it hard to see how Scott could have been carrying a charge when he passed the flag. The reason for the fast dissipation is the solar wind, which bombards the moon with electrons and protons and creates a “plasma sheath” of electrons around the moon. These ambient electrons act as a ground to any positive charge and dissipate it. Interestingly, though, a negative charge takes slightly longer to dissipate, because it is dissipated by the ions in the solar wind, which are less numerous than the electrons in the moon’s plasma sheath. I found an interesting paper, “Concerning the dissipation of electrically charged objects in the shadowed lunar polar regions”, which gives a formula for the amount of time it takes for a static charge to dissipate on the moon.
The most interesting fact is that the time taken for the charge to dissipate is inversely proportional to the area that the charge covers. This is because the larger the area, the more ions will come into contact with the charged surface, and the quicker the charge will be dissipated. So if the charge is concentrated in a small area, it takes longer to dissipate. The example given in the paper is of an astronaut’s spacesuit, with an area of 10 square metres. They say a negative charge would dissipate from a spacesuit in 0.003 seconds. But for an astronaut’s boot, which is only 1m², the charge would take ten times longer (0.03 seconds) to dissipate. Using the formula given we can calculate that a negative charge that covered only 80cm² would take 3.5 seconds to dissipate, which would have given Scott time to receive the charge off-camera and to move past the flag while still charged, making the flag move.
For the rest of the response to Question 24:
https://www.reddit.com/r/SensibleSite/comments/i1rkbp/debunking_american_moon_part_2/
LikeLike
The astronaut walked by the flag with a bit of w whoosh! of air, much in the way of same way that this post went by you. For me, the answer to that part is easy, that the astronaut disturbed the air around the flag, since it was located on Earth. It created a flurry. NASA has debunked this simple notion. You used to talk of Occam’s Razor, yet when you come upon a situation where it is actually useful, whoosh!
Now I asked everyone who came across this post to view the video. You have not done so. Do so, and then report back.
LikeLike
It’s taken me a very long time to crystallise the issue in my mind – I cannot believe how long it’s taken.
The essential problem of your argument is this:
the earth and the moon are nothing alike, they are completely different from each other in very significant ways. Therefore the notion that fakery can be maintained in so many pieces of evidence with just the odd anomaly showing up here and there is against reality. They couldn’t possibly maintain fakery in the way required and, in fact, what we see are things that so very closely align with the vast differences between the earth and the moon not what we’d expect of fakery.
Signs of an atmosphere wouldn’t just pop up in the case of Dave Scott walking past the flag, OK? If there was an atmosphere in everything they shot we’d see other signs of it not just Dave Scott walking past the flag. I don’t have to watch the movie – I might agree that yes it looks odd but I don’t know how electrostatic charge works on the moon and perhaps it can explain it.
Many things seem anomalous due to ignorance – it’s called argument from incredulity.
What I know about reality though is that if everything was shot in an atmosphere we’d see other signs of it.
LikeLike
You’re missing something important: That particular shot would have been censored out had NASA known what it contained. They tried to delete it, and then tried to censor it. Almost everything else was under their control.
LikeLike
I’m not disputing that shot, what I’m saying is that you believe that they faked so very much without the fakery being detectable. They can have as much control as they like, the earth is nothing like the moon and the notion that just a few slipups happened while everything else was able to be faked without detection is utterly ludicrous.
LikeLike
We don’t know how many people doubt the Moon Landings as real, but I think it was Esquire Magazine that reported 20% non-believers in 1969. And, a large percentage of those who disbelieved were gays and blacks, people disenfranchised and not bought in anyway. Makes sense.
I hear tell don’t quote me of 50% or more skeptical in say Europe, and China should be even higher.
You continually say that if it was fake it would be impossible to keep it secret. You overlook a critical factor in public opinion, a controlled news media. That’s where most people get their information, and where skeptics are routinely ridiculed. As you know, ridicule is a powerful and widely used tool in managing public opinion.
LikeLike
“You continually say that if it was fake it would be impossible to keep it secret.”
You strawman my argument, Mark. I never say things can’t be kept secret because I see very good examples of where things have been kept secret – or really they’re not so much real secrets but more “open secrets” although I certainly will allow that there are a number of real secrets too.
What I say is that you can’t fake the moon on earth without detection because the moon and the earth are too different … sure you could fake it with limited material but there’s way too much material provided for the fakery to be pulled off so well.
LikeLike
Petra, of course they can fake the Lunar surface! Other than some Rovers in the 60s that sampled the soil, we have no idea beyond a guess. Ergo, the lunar surface during Apollo was anything NASA said it was!
LikeLike
“Petra, of course they can fake the Lunar surface! Other than some Rovers in the 60s that sampled the soil, we have no idea beyond a guess.”
What I like to work with much more than claims of “could” – especially when those claims of “could” are massively hypothetical – are clear facts and favouring possibilities that make better sense than those that make little sense.
Fact:
We have been told that:
— the moon sky is black day and night
— the moon has 1/6th gravity of the earth
— there is virtually no atmosphere on the moon
What makes much better sense than these claims being false and all the evidence being faked to fit these vastly different characteristics – especially so very closely – is that the claims are true and the evidence fits these unique lunar characteristics.
If your world is such that you think there’s endless possibility of fakery upon fakery without any signs of it so be it. That is not the real world to me.
LikeLike
Well, l live to expose fakery, and there is no small amount of it to feed on!
I am now beginning to know that the origins of Apollo lie in the Manhattan Project, probably deeper, but a good starting point for a project structured like a pyramid with a seeing eye atop. Everything was based on need to know, and most participants were either (or both) kept in the dark or contained by NDAs, the substance of which must be generational!
Apollo was Manhattan 2, with the real outcome, to this day, secret. But it does not take a rocket scientist to see that we did not leave lower earth orbit, did not go anywhere near the Moon, and even now do not know the true import of the program or its objectives.
LikeLike
Which reminds me of 14,000 tapes disappearing, that I go back and forth, that they did not even exist or contained gibberish.
LikeLike
I’m going with never existed… no maintenance/storage needed on that purported immense volume.
LikeLike
That makes sense, that they never existed so that their disappearance would be the thing that made them appear real. However, we have all of those people sitting in front of computer screens as Mission Control, most, if not all, convinced the mission was real. If their work was being recorded, then it would have to be destroyed, as it would expose the fraud.
LikeLike
Yeah, and Petra, there’s also not any shot they could’ve made a shot on the moon with a burning-up camera film and then broadcast that bacon film as a signal from the moon to the earth!
LikeLike
The problem with single-item debunkings
The problem with single-item debunkings is that they don’t align with reality.
What reality demands:
Reality demands that for an hypothesis to be correct every single piece of relevant material is either consistent with or favours that hypothesis.
Rather than trying to find individual anomalies what you really want to find is consistency of anomaly for two very good reasons:
For a number of years I thought that the 2.25 seconds of freefall in WTC-7’s destruction was a single-item proof of controlled demolition and hence inside job. Then I discovered that the footage was fake … but it didn’t matter because there was consistency of anomaly every which way.
When you believe that the moon landings didn’t happen because you have found what you believe to be a number of anomalies what you’re ignoring is the great consistency of alignment with expectations of the alien lunar conditions.
Reality wouldn’t be such that you have:
— on the one hand, a number of anomalies proving fakery
— on the other, remarkable consistency of alignment with expectations of the alien lunar conditions
It’s just not the way reality works.
LikeLike