Here's a 'quick' review, annotations & timings included, of the first video that the OP posted.
0:00 to 0:30
Irrelevant and indescribably kitsch intro sequence. Presumably intended to liken his abilities to that of James Bond - sadly he doesn't realise that
JB is fictional and was neither a scientist or a particularly good investigator. Hmm, maybe there is
a comparison to be made.
Anyway, enough ad hominem, on to the actual content..
0:30 to 1:35
Irrelevant references to Bill Kaysing (a widely discredited Apollo Denier) and William Brian (who?). Mr Brian apparently was the first to notice a
flag wobbled, but he didn't know why. Oh, but he did
believe we went to the moon..
1:35 to 1:40
JW gives an 'example' of flag movement, yet I can see no significant movement whatsoever. Anyone esle? Maybe I'll do a proper frame analysis
1:40 to 1:45
JW gives a second 'example. *Again* I can see no flag movement, but clearly the *camera* moves...
1:45 to 2:05
JW gives an example from Apollo 16 where the astronaut is unfurling/handling the flag. He repeats a small sequence where the astronaut's hand can
CLEARLY be seen moving against the lower part of the flag and the bottom of the flag gets flicked upwards. It appears JW was 'unaware' there
might have been some stiffening material along the lower edge of the flag...
But wait a minute, was Jarrah REALLY unaware of that???
Here's a link to the full clip (something I don't think Jarrah wants you to see) - it's not all that big (RealMovie format, sorry - see below*):
Take a look for yourself, from about 2/3 of the way through, as he struggles to get that flag to cooperate. The fact that there is stiffening
material at the bottom seems pretty obvious. Yet Jarrah deliberately omitted all that from his careful selection. Why is that, do you think?
Then he shows us his attempts to recreate the effect, and of course it's not going to happen without that stiffening strip.
2:30 to 3:35
JW shows the Apollo 15 video where the flag wobbles slightly as astronaut Dave Scott passes by. Much repetition and dramatic music.
3:35 to 5:40
Incomprehensible, unprofessional and irrelevant ad hominem attacks on posters with contradictory opinions. Frankly, this sort of garbage shows what
type of person he is. Ever seen that sort of childish behavior in a real scientific demonstration? UNbelievable...
5:40 to 6:50
JW presents the possible reasons (proposed by another - anyone noticing a pattern here?) for the movement, namely:
1. The astronaut brushed the pole and/or flag.
2. He kicked dirt against the pole
3. His foot 'pushed' a mound of regolith in such a way that it moved the pole
4. The vibration of his boots moved the pole and/or set up a resonance
5. A static charge effect caused the flag to be attracted and/or repelled
6. There was an emission (eg from a pressure valve) on the astronauts suit or PLSS that impinged on the flag.
Note that these are not verbatim, and I've added some other possibilities (there is in fact at least one more..). Static electricity is certainly
not my favorite, but I'll leave that for later in the thread... I'm not sure why he chose it to start with.
6:50 to 7:25
JW returns to making further ad hominem attacks - this stuff is extremely tiresome.
Temporarily (i hope) ignoring all other possible explanations, JW now does a demonstration of how static would affect the flag. NOTE:
1. I'll admit I have no degree in triboelectrics (additions/corrections are welcome), but my understanding of static electricity is that this type of
attraction or repulsion can only happen if there is a medium to allow the charges to 'pull' or 'push' on each other. While there are minute
traces of gases and other 'stuff' near the lunar surface, it is effectively a vacuum. So static attraction/repulsion will only happen if the
charged materials touch
2. He does NOT make any attempt to use matching materials. Static effects vary dramatically in different materials, from extreme positive to extreme
Note the value range in the 'Affinity' column: +60 to -190
. Arbitrarily picking materials means his 'results' are completely useless.
3. He doesn't seem to realise that static effects aren't always attractive.
4. He makes no comment about the conditions for his 'demo' - if the air was humid, the static charge would dissipate rapidly.
In summary, what a complete waste of time.
Funnily enough, I don't think the flag wobble had anything to do with static either. It just goes to show that you can come to the right conclusion
using all the wrong methods.
So, all up, this really is a superb example of how this type of youtuber deceives and misleads, relying on the fact that most of his audience are
not very science literate.
He uses fancy graphics, titles and music to give the impression of professionalism
(when it's just the software choices he makes..).
He uses very brief snippets to mislead
, like his comments that the flag moves when it is the camera (1:40).
He deliberately omits information
, like the earlier part of the Apollo 16 video that shows the stiffening material that explains the later flag
movement where the bottom flicks upwards. (1:55)
He does not provide links or citations
, trying to ensure that lazy viewers will not CHECK his sources and see the full context.
He uses completely inappropriate 'analogies' and 'demonstrations'
that prove nothing of use, and do not contain a single shred of decent
methodology, (eg where are his definitions, assumptions, error ranges, explanation of choices of materials, provisos?) (1:55 & 7:35)
And of course he just plagiarised all his points from others anyway, ignoring previous deBUNKings. It would be nice to see an original thought - he
couldn't think of any *other* reasons for the flag movement? - you know, the other 5 possible reasons that he is probably hoping his viewer has now
Anyway, feel free to debate the points above, but please come armed with knowledge and references.
(* May I recommend 'Real Alternative' if you want to play RM's without all the associated bloatware... dunno if it works with Vista/7,