does the flag on the moon look right?

img123.imageshack.us...





i mean if there is gravity shouldn't the flag be down unless there is a breeze keeping the flag up and straight like that

maybe it has something to do with the "lack" of atmosphere? but if there is gravity that shouldn't matter it should hold things down just like the it does the astronaut


mod edit: title spelling

[edit on 9-2-2008 by sanctum]

The reason it dont loon right is because a pole runs along the top, in the stitching to hold it up.

are you sure about that? Why do they need to do that? plus, it looks like, if there was a pole along the top, that it was somewhat flexible, because right in the middle there seems to be a kink.

It kinda does look like a pole is running through the top, though.

Smoking baby, that's not good for you. Babies really shouldn't smoke.

Something is definitely "loon-ey" about what we were told and shown about the Loon Landings (puns intended pertaining to OP typo in thread title "loon" right)

reply to post by indierockalien


I didn't fly to the moon and plant the flag, so I could be mistaken. NASA website explains the flag and hardware. Search and you will find.

Originally posted by cockadoodledo
The reason it dont loon right is because a pole runs along the top, in the stitching to hold it up.

yes you are right, i zoomed in and there is a pole

sorry

reply to post by OSSkyWatcher


No problem, you had a valid question. Thats what ATS is all about.

Back in Elementary School, many moons ago, I remember vividly watching one of the first moon walks on TV and noticing at one point the flag in the background flappin' like crazy.
It only lasted for a few seconds but still it was odd.

Originally posted by ItsHumanNature
Something is definitely "loon-ey" about what we were told and shown about the Loon Landings (puns intended pertaining to OP typo in thread title "loon" right)

I think you mean "Loon Manding"

There is a pole on the top and bottom of the flag, but the bottom pole malfunctioned. It was supposed to keep the flag outright, but because of the bottom one being broken it appears as if it is wavering since only the top pole is connected.

reply to post by OSSkyWatcher


Here's some info about the flag on the moon.

scientists rigged a telescoping pole with a telescoping horizontal crossbar that was supposed to make the flag look as if it were blowing in the wind. The flag itself was standard issue, although the top was hemmed so that the astronauts would be able to slide it over the crossbar. And the entire assembly weighed less than ten pounds. Even so, the astronauts reported having some trouble setting the flag up. They weren't able to stick the pole far enough into the ground, and they weren't able to fully extend the horizontal crossbar.

the flag looks to have a little elbow or some kind of growth

and that rock in the back is kind of reflecting light, maybe even a lot of it

(probably have to click on full picture to see rock unless i can get a thumnail up in here)



[edit on 9-2-2008 by OSSkyWatcher]

The flag whipping around would just be a matter of momentum vs mass and drag (Being very little working against the motion) IMO. Combined with a base sort of elastic quality of the material etc.. The 'elbow' effect to me appears a perspective issue vs. the current geometric configuration of the flag.

I've read a few articles regarding the lunar landing being faked and I don't think I understand it.

The evidence for (No stars in the background, the flag movements, different reflections etc..) either strike me as functioning as it should (in theory) or not indicative of anything.

I could see a reason for faking it (Space race and it being a matter of national pride etc..). But I just don't see evidence as presented in most of them.

Is there evidence out there that is non-speculative or reliant on circumstantial? I mean: Anything hard core for this topic?

Also, why do the forums on this seem so vitriolic (not nesc this thread mind you, but I have seen many people frothing at the mouth.)?

Originally posted by lordtyp0

The evidence for (No stars in the background, the flag movements, different reflections etc..) either strike me as functioning as it should (in theory) or not indicative of anything.

As to why stars are not seen in the Apollo Photos:

Pretend for a moment you are an astronaut on the surface of the Moon. You want to take a picture of your fellow space traveler. The Sun is low off the horizon, since all the lunar landings were done at local morning. How do you set your camera? The lunar landscape is brightly lit by the Sun, of course, and your friend is wearing a white spacesuit also brilliantly lit by the Sun. To take a picture of a bright object with a bright background, you need to set the exposure time to be fast, and close down the aperture setting too; that's like the pupil in your eye constricting to let less light in when you walk outside on a sunny day.

So the picture you take is set for bright objects. Stars are faint objects! In the fast exposure, they simply do not have time to register on the film. It has nothing to do with the sky being black or the lack of air, it's just a matter of exposure time. If you were to go outside here on Earth on the darkest night imaginable and take a picture with the exact same camera settings the astronauts used, you won't see any stars!

source
www.badastronomy.com...

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by lordtyp0

The evidence for (No stars in the background, the flag movements, different reflections etc..) either strike me as functioning as it should (in theory) or not indicative of anything.

As to why stars are not seen in the Apollo Photos:

Pretend for a moment you are an astronaut on the surface of the Moon. You want to take a picture of your fellow space traveler. The Sun is low off the horizon, since all the lunar landings were done at local morning. How do you set your camera? The lunar landscape is brightly lit by the Sun, of course, and your friend is wearing a white spacesuit also brilliantly lit by the Sun. To take a picture of a bright object with a bright background, you need to set the exposure time to be fast, and close down the aperture setting too; that's like the pupil in your eye constricting to let less light in when you walk outside on a sunny day.

So the picture you take is set for bright objects. Stars are faint objects! In the fast exposure, they simply do not have time to register on the film. It has nothing to do with the sky being black or the lack of air, it's just a matter of exposure time. If you were to go outside here on Earth on the darkest night imaginable and take a picture with the exact same camera settings the astronauts used, you won't see any stars!

source
www.badastronomy.com...

Agreed; I was meaning all the evidence that I see posted seems to be suppositional, presumptuous or disingenuous at best. Flat out wrong at worst.

Is there any evidence that is solid out there?

reply to post by lordtyp0


You mean evidence to support that the moon landing was a fake?

There's a few clips that always made me think "maybe the moon landing was actually faked", there's a clip where the astronaut falls and as he's getting up you can see him for a second completely in mid-air as if he's on a wire. Part of him leans towards the ground and the other end goes upwords. Makes it look like wires are attached to his sides.

The other clips are what look like light glare reflecting off possible wires above the astronauts as they walk and it follows the same movement as the astronauts. Another one is when the lander takes off you see a hill in the background. In a future mission you see this same hill but no remnants of the lander is seen.

I believe we've been there, but some of what we were shown was faked

[edit on 10-2-2008 by nightmare_david]

Correct: Evidence that it was faked.

I've never seen any evidence that might suggest that the moon landings were faked. I've seen people post fake evidence or information that they simply misunderstood. The flag thing is a perfect example of how people apply their perception of what is happening but don't know what is really happening. But to answer your question, I have never once seen any legitimate evidence that might suggest the moon landings have been faked.