Theories on the Paranormal and Cover Ups Part 1

Joey D · Apr 5, 2005

I'm sure they would, I mean they spent all that time getting there right? If it was done in a studio (i.e. indoors) then the flag wouldn't be blowing anyway. If it was in space, and the astronauts waved it or something it would just keep moving because there is nothing to stop it from doing so.

There is still gravity on the moon, that would at least make it droop. And I don't know about setting all that crap up, it just seems like extra weight that was unneed on the craft. Plus it was really small anyways. They needed fuel, food, water, etc.

a6m5 · Apr 5, 2005

BlazinXtreme
Also if there is no wind on the moon how come the flag waves, I'm sure there is a very good explination for this.

The flag had something inside it, holding it up. I think they sewed in some metal frame or wires inside the flag.

69Dodge_Charger · Apr 5, 2005

BlazinXtreme
There is still gravity on the moon, that would at least make it droop. And I don't know about setting all that crap up, it just seems like extra weight that was unneed on the craft. Plus it was really small anyways. They needed fuel, food, water, etc.

I kind of made it unclear in that post, so I edited it. The flag would stay upright as there is no gravity pulling it down. I'm sure it would have slight droop, but not if they had just placed it in the ground.

69Dodge_Charger · Apr 5, 2005

a6m5
The flag had something inside it, holding it up. I think they sewed in some metal frame or wires inside the flag.

I never thought of that, it could very well be a posibility.

Joey D · Apr 5, 2005

The flag had something inside it, holding it up. I think they sewed in some metal frame or wires inside the flag.

I doubt that, highly.

Found this information with the picture.

Bad: When the astronauts are assembling the American flag, the flag waves. Kaysing says this must have been from an errant breeze on the set. A flag wouldn't wave in a vacuum.

Good: Of course a flag can wave in a vacuum. In the shot of the astronaut and the flag, the astronaut is rotating the pole on which the flag is mounted, trying to get it to stay up. The flag is mounted on one side on the pole, and along the top by another pole that sticks out to the side. In a vacuum or not, when you whip around the vertical pole, the flag will ``wave'', since it is attached at the top. The top will move first, then the cloth will follow along in a wave that moves down. This isn't air that is moving the flag, it's the cloth itself.

New stuff added : Many HBs show a picture of an astronaut standing to one side of the flag, which still has a ripple in it (for example, see this famous image). The astronaut is not touching the flag, so how can it wave?

The answer is, it isn't waving. It looks like that because of the way the flag was deployed. The flag hangs from a horizontal rod which telescopes out from the vertical one. In Apollo 11, they couldn't get the rod to extend completely, so the flag didn't get stretched fully. It has a ripple in it, like a curtain that is not fully closed. In later flights, the astronauts didn't fully deploy it on purpose because they liked the way it looked. In other words, the flag looks like it is waving because the astronauts wanted it to look that way. Ironically, they did their job too well. It appears to have fooled a lot of people into thinking it waved.

This explanation comes from NASA's wonderful spaceflight web page. For those of you who are conspiracy minded, of course, this doesn't help because it comes from a NASA site. But it does explain why the flag looks as it does, and you will be hard pressed to find a video of the flag waving. And if it was a mistake caused by a breeze on the set where they faked this whole thing, don't you think the director would have tried for a second take? With all the money going to the hoax, they could afford the film!

Note added: One more thing. Several readers have pointed out that if the flag is blowing in a breeze, why don't we see dust blowing around too? Somehow, the HBs' argument gets weaker the more you think about it.

Tacet_Blue · Apr 5, 2005

The magical cameras

The Hasselblad 500ELs

It's simple, but damm good...big lens, good optics, quality item. There were three of them on Apollo 11

For the photographic buffs...

The Data Camera was fitted with a new Zeiss lens, a Biogon f-5.6/60 mm, specially designed for NASA, which later became available commercially. Careful calibration tests were performed with the lens fitted in the camera in order to ensure high-quality, low-distortion images. Furthermore, the lens of the camera was fitted with a polarizing filter which could easily be detached.

PS · Apr 5, 2005

Ok and now adays film is much better and they've been to space for almost 45 years. I think they would spend Nasa's insane budget on getting good film by now. I should have said for the time. Also for the Van Allen's bellet, I didn't say we never went to the moon did I?

The americans spent over $1 Mill developing a pen that could write in space. The Russians used a pencil. Not everything has to be logical.

While possible it's not very likely to get detailed tracks, they would be more groves in the dust. Unless the camera man had a great trigger finger.

Do you know how slow and heavy that rover must be? Not to mention the fact that you don't know what the composition of the dust/dirt is on the moon.

Pick up a physics book, I'll get my college one outta my truck tomarrow and read it to find some stuff.

What, Page 99, "Why flags don't wave in space"?

Then those pictures are aweful clear without photo technology and did they even have colored film in the 1940's. I don't know.

Why yes, they are clear for 1940's-- IT'S NASA. You're lucky they even turned out that good.

The flag was blowing, not just wobboling.

If the flag were blowing, it would obviously be smoother and have a ripple texture.shape to it, not all denty and pockety like that one. Dude, you touch fabric in 0 friction, 20% gravity, the flag keeps moving. For a long time. And do you really think they would be that incompetant as to take a picture of the flag outdoors?

So they would have time to set up lights, focus them in correctly, aim them, and get to take a picture? Seems like something a stuido would do.

I don't see who incinuated that one...

PS. The best photo you have there is the crosshairs one...that I can't explain

Because it's actually a postcard.

It's sticking straight out and no one is holding it, with the low gravity on the moon it would be drooping slowly. It's straight out and appears wind is going over it. Maybe there is slight wind on the moon, beats me I've never been there but it doesn't seem logical.

Maybe there is a small (albeit very thin) atmosphere there. Anywhere with gravity can theorhetically have an atmosphere, and I have no doubt that it's entirely possible for it to have gained a little air here and there from Earth over it's time.

There is still gravity on the moon, that would at least make it droop. And I don't know about setting all that crap up, it just seems like extra weight that was unneed on the craft. Plus it was really small anyways. They needed fuel, food, water, etc.

Once again, not everything has to be logical. And the last time I checked, flags don't exactly slow down a 10,000,000hp rocket ship.

Joey D · Apr 5, 2005

The americans spent over $1 Mill developing a pen that could write in space. The Russians used a pencil. Not everything has to be logical.

Futhering my belief NASA as a whole is just a joke. But another time.

Do you know how slow and heavy that rover must be? Not to mention the fact that you don't know what the composition of the dust/dirt is on the moon.

From the videos it goes pretty good and it must be light (at least on the moon) since it gets good air of bumps.

What, Page 99, "Why flags don't wave in space"?

I'm referring to lighting and shadows.

If the flag were blowing, it would obviously be smoother and have a ripple texture.shape to it, not all denty and pockety like that one. Dude, you touch fabric in 0 friction, 20% gravity, the flag keeps moving. For a long time. And do you really think they would be that incompetant as to take a picture of the flag outdoors?

Yes an agency that spent how much to make a pen? Hmmm they are certianly brillian people.

I don't see who incinuated that one...

First page, about the structure.

Because it's actually a postcard.

What about the other pictures that have the same thing?

Maybe there is a small (albeit very thin) atmosphere there. Anywhere with gravity can theorhetically have an atmosphere, and I have no doubt that it's entirely possible for it to have gained a little air here and there from Earth over it's time.

Not enough to blow a big heavy flag.

Once again, not everything has to be logical. And the last time I checked, flags don't exactly slow down a 10,000,000hp rocket ship.

Didn't say they did.

a6m5 · Apr 5, 2005

That flag thing, I didn't come up with that. It's from the Japanese news paper, even before NASA actually launched the rocket. I remember seeing the illustration, explaining how it was designed, so the flag doesn't drape down on the pole. No, I wasn't alive back then, the article was featured in some book(also Japanese). I read this, very long time ago, but I still remember it, becaue it was very interesting subject.

Tacet_Blue · Apr 5, 2005

a6m5
The flag had something inside it, holding it up. I think they sewed in some metal frame or wires inside the flag.

Yep, you can see the bar quite clearly in the picture above

Clicky for pic

Joey D · Apr 5, 2005

Alright I can give you that then, I've never seen that before. :ouch:

But the waving still is odd to me.

And not only that the moons surface is fair tough under the dust, how did they just twist it into the rocks?

NASA
This picture and other filmed footage of the American flag on the moon seems to show it fluttering. How is this possible if there's no atmosphere or wind on the moon?

This is one of the most common questions about the Apollo landings and is often used as evidence of a hoax. Fortunately there is nothing peculiar about what we can see here at all. Not if we remember this is happening on the moon.

Firstly the flag had a horizontal bar attached to it at the top. This was done so that the flag would stand out from the flagpole. NASA appreciated that there would be no wind on the moon, so any normal flag would just hang limply and unattractively down the pole. To make things look better they added a bar that stood out at 90 degrees from the pole. The flag was really hanging from this, rather than from the pole. The bar was also not quite the full width of the flag, so that it was slightly furled to give a 'wave look' to it.

The moon's surface, once you get past the thin layer of dust, is very hard. So getting the flagpole to stick in was a tough job. The footage shows the astronaut twisting the pole back and forth in order to try and get it further into the ground. This movement made the attached bar and flag flutter.

The flagpole itself was light aluminium that is quite springy. Even once the astronaut let go the pole would continue to vibrate. This in turn would shake the bar and flap the flag. Without any air to dampen this it would continue to do so for longer than you might expect.

PS · Apr 5, 2005

From the videos it goes pretty good and it must be light (at least on the moon) since it gets good air of bumps.

Yah, it must be fun to drive one of those on the moon. But if it is moving slow I'm sure it would leave some pretty accurate tracks depending on the tread design and however fine the gravel/dust is.

I'm referring to lighting and shadows.

I'm still not seeing how people think the figure in whats-his-face's visor isn't wearing a space suit. You'd think if it were taken on a set by a photographer he would 1. use a stand and 2. use a different film.

Yes an agency that spent how much to make a pen? Hmmm they are certianly brillian people.

Brilliant enough to get a man on the moon.

First page, about the structure.

Do you know how much easier it is to get people to think it's a conspiracy than it is to get people to think it's real? (without evidence of course). All this person had to do was randomly place markings all over the images and *BAM* it was all faked.

What about the other pictures that have the same thing?

What are you referring to?

Not enough to blow a big heavy flag.

Last time I checked flags weren't heavy, and that one isn't big. Not to mention it doesn't follow a normal wave-form. It's obviously still moving from when he tried to stick it in the moon's surface.

Joey D · Apr 5, 2005

Yah, it must be fun to drive one of those on the moon. But if it is moving slow I'm sure it would leave some pretty accurate tracks depending on the tread design and however fine the gravel/dust is.

Well it supposed to have fine dust on the moon. So it would be like driving on unpacked sand.

I'm still not seeing how people think the figure in whats-his-face's visor isn't wearing a space suit. You'd think if it were taken on a set by a photographer he would 1. use a stand and 2. use a different film.

What about the space suit? I don't see anything odd.

Brilliant enough to get a man on the moon.

I'll debate the meaning of NASA in another thread. Not here.

Do you know how much easier it is to get people to think it's a conspiracy than it is to get people to think it's real? (without evidence of course). All this person had to do was randomly place markings all over the images and *BAM* it was all faked.

Thats a lot of faked pics.

What are you referring to?

Cross Hairs

Last time I checked flags weren't heavy, and that one isn't big. Not to mention it doesn't follow a normal wave-form. It's obviously still moving from when he tried to stick it in the moon's surface.

Well I uncovered some more information on this

Anyways lets shift gears towards something else, doesn't matter, I got theories for everything under the sun.

Tacet_Blue · Apr 5, 2005

My mistake on the Hasselblad. It wasn't a WWII one. They were first made in 1941, but the Apollo 11 ones were made from 1965 - 1971.

Still, they are unbelievably robust little beasts, quite capable of taking the quality photos you have seen.

BlazinXtreme
Anyways lets shift gears towards something else, doesn't matter, I got theories for everything under the sun.

OK

I've heard a lot...the only one I buy into is the Dallas 2pm one...
You couldn't hit a barn door at 10 yards with a Mannlicher-Carchano :lol:

Duke · Apr 5, 2005

Oh, for Jimminy Cricket's sake: CLICK HERE.

Joey D · Apr 5, 2005

Tacet_Blue
I've heard a lot...the only one I buy into is the Dallas 2pm one...
You couldn't hit a barn door at 10 yards with a Mannlicher-Carchano

Alright then JFK it is. Oh God this might get intresting. I'll let someone else start this one, while I read up on it some more. I mean I know a little bit about it, but I want to clarify some info before I start in on everything.

69Dodge_Charger · Apr 5, 2005

Duke has killed the conversation. He could have at least waited until we were about to chew each others heads off. :grumpy:

Joey D · Apr 6, 2005

He killed the moon thing, now on to JFK.

The "Magic Bullet" theory seems far fetched and not plauseable. I've shot guns for years and I've never seen that sort of ricocet before. Not saying it could happen but the odds are against it, in my eyes at least.

Lee Harvey Oswald seems like the shooter to me, but why would he do it? What was the motive. Well to be honest I think it had connections to the Soviet Union. We had very high tensions at the time, with the Bay of Pigs and Red October. Not to mention our countries utter hatred of Commies.

The USSR did terriable things to its own people, so what makes you think they wouldn't do something terriable to another country. I don't know if the government ordered the attack or it was the Russian Mob. Either sound plausable to me.

But hey I could just say JFK isn't dead and is on an island with Elvis.

MrktMkr1986 · Apr 6, 2005

BlazinXtreme
He killed the moon thing, now on to JFK.

JFK it is then.

The "Magic Bullet" theory seems far fetched and not plauseable. I've shot guns for years and I've never seen that sort of ricocet before. Not saying it could happen but the odds are against it, in my eyes at least.

It was no magic bullet. He was shot from two different angles -- clearly. Two different snipers, two different shots.

Lee Harvey Oswald seems like the shooter to me, but why would he do it?

To take attention away from the shooter in the Grassy Knoll.

What was the motive. Well to be honest I think it had connections to the Soviet Union. We had very high tensions at the time, with the Bay of Pigs and Red October. Not to mention our countries utter hatred of Commies.

I think it was a coup.

The USSR did terriable things to its own people, so what makes you think they wouldn't do something terriable to another country. I don't know if the government ordered the attack or it was the Russian Mob. Either sound plausable to me.

I believe it was an inside job (i.e. within the US gov't) in my opinion.

But hey I could just say JFK isn't dead and is on an island with Elvis.

Impossible because his wife was next to him when he was -- well you know. :ill:

Joey D · Apr 6, 2005

Hmm two snipers, that clearly is a very good possiblity. I would say that is very plausable, but what happened to the other person?

I think it was a coup.

I don't think the Commies would try to start a coup like that, but then again we, the US, did try to do the same thing in Cuba with Castro. Anything is possible.

I believe it was an inside job (i.e. within the US gov't) in my opinion.

What was the motive though? I mean JFK was a popular president among the people. He did many things the people liked, sure he had his critics, every President does. I'm just curious on what you think the motive was.

Impossible because his wife was next to him when he was -- well you know.

Many people would say that he is still alive but after seeing the video many times I can't see how it's possible.

69Dodge_Charger · Apr 6, 2005

BlazinXtreme
What was the motive though? I mean JFK was a popular president among the people. He did many things the people liked, sure he had his critics, every President does. I'm just curious on what you think the motive was.

Maybe a something along the lines of president killing president. Lyndon B. Johnson was the next in line, as he was Vice President at the time of the assasination. I don't think this is true or anything, just throwing out ideas.

Or maybe Nixon, after losing the election to Kennedy. Thinking that he could take the next elections without Kennedy involved. I don't know, but that's the only way I could see it as being an inside job.

a6m5 · Apr 6, 2005

BlazinXtreme
I don't think the Commies would try to start a coup like that, but then again we, the US, did try to do the same thing in Cuba with Castro. Anything is possible.

I don't think it was the USSR, but how about the man who replaced Kennedy as the President, Lyndon Johnson? From what I've read, Kennedy and Johnson just used each other to get in the office, and they weren't best of friends. Also, Bobby Kennedy(later got assassinated, himself) and LBJ used to get into it all the time.

With JFK making a lot of powerful enemies, I think it's entirely possible LBJ(figure head) and his backers had him killed. It sounds really paranoid, I know. Reason why I suspect this crazy idea is, how the government handled and reacted to this assassination. They come up with Oswald, who is suspected of ties with U.S. Intelligence and the communists, as the shooter(of course, he, himself gets assassinated right away). Witnesses are ignored. I don't think I'm alone in saying that lack of the governments' enthusiasm or effort to investigate their own president, makes you think..............
I think in "JFK"(movie), they said that parade route was changed last minute? If there's a truth to that, I would think the Secret Service was in on it. Also, convertible, brilliant. :ouch:

69Dodge_Charger · Apr 6, 2005

I'm not sure if you were just refering to Blazin, or both of us. Anyway that's basically what I just said.

a6m5 · Apr 6, 2005

69Dodge_Charger
I'm not sure if you were just refering to Blazin, or both of us. Anyway that's basically what I just said.

I quoted Blazin, but it wasn't directed at anybody in paticular. I was basically just posting my take on the JFK Assassination.

P.S. Did you ever see "JFK" by Oliver Stone? I don't know how much of it is true and how much is fiction, but either way, it's an excellent film(This one is directed at Charger).

69Dodge_Charger · Apr 6, 2005

a6m5
P.S. Did you ever see "JFK" by Oliver Stone? I don't know how much of it is true and how much is fiction, but either way, it's an excellent film(This one is directed at Charger).

No I haven't. To tell the truth I've never really looked up anything on the JFK assasination, but I posted here since the Moon thingie is over and done with. I just knew which presidents were around at the time of the JFK assasination and assumed they would have something to do with it.

a6m5 · Apr 6, 2005

69Dodge_Charger
No I haven't. To tell the truth I've never really looked up anything on the JFK assasination, but I posted here since the Moon thingie is over and done with. I just knew which presidents were around at the time of the JFK assasination and assumed they would have something to do with it.

Depending on how you look at it, it's so obvious that you suspect the guy who gained so much from the assassination, but since he was the Vice President, most people never question him. I think he was involved, but that's just my guess.

P.S. You should rent the movie. I usually don't care for Oliver Stone or Kevin Costner, but I this one's great. 👍

Joey D · Apr 6, 2005

The LBJ theory is very logical now that you point out the evidence. I can see how everything adds up. I will have to do some searching to find out more about LBJ and his ties with everything.

However JFK himself had mod ties, well his family did anyways. I mean come on he won the election on boot legging money. Another possible motive for murder, he pissed off the mob.

Anyways I've seen the movie JFK, it was very good and really made you wonder about how everything happened.

a6m5 · Apr 6, 2005

BlazinXtreme
The LBJ theory is very logical now that you point out the evidence. I can see how everything adds up. I will have to do some searching to find out more about LBJ and his ties with everything.

According to the people who reseach on the JFK Assassination, there are many evidence suggesting there was a lot more to this than, Lee Harvey Oswald. It's an very interesting topic, but sometimes, it's so hard to tell which evidence are true or false, just like the NASA moon landing thing.

BlazinXtreme
However JFK himself had mod ties, well his family did anyways. I mean come on he won the election on boot legging money. Another possible motive for murder, he pissed off the mob.

That's true. I forget this sometimes, but we all assume that, bad guys got the President. It is possible that Kennedy was a bad guy, and the government was forced to stop him at all cost, for the sake of national security. There were so much stuff going on back then, who knows what Kennedy was involved in. Also, don't forget that JFK was suspected of having Marilyn Monroe murdered.

Takumi Fujiwara · Apr 6, 2005

There were at least two shooters in the JFK incident. My fathers grad school acoustics professor was the same analyst who analyzed the tapes of the shooting. he told the class that there was absolutely no question that there were two seperate guns firing in the incident.

69Dodge_Charger · Apr 6, 2005

Takumi Fujiwara
There were at least two shooters in the JFK incident. My fathers grad school acoustics professor was the same analyst who analyzed the tapes of the shooting. he told the class that there was absolutely no question that there were two seperate guns firing in the incident.

The question still remains, and I think Blazin brought this up. Who was the other shooter? :ouch:

Theories on the Paranormal and Cover Ups Part 1

Joey D

a6m5

#ChopOn

69Dodge_Charger

69Dodge_Charger

Joey D

Tacet_Blue

PS

Joey D

a6m5

#ChopOn

Tacet_Blue

Joey D

PS

Joey D

Tacet_Blue

Duke

Keep 'em separated

Joey D

69Dodge_Charger

Joey D

MrktMkr1986

Joey D

69Dodge_Charger

a6m5

#ChopOn

69Dodge_Charger

a6m5

#ChopOn

69Dodge_Charger

a6m5

#ChopOn

Joey D

a6m5

#ChopOn

Takumi Fujiwara

69Dodge_Charger

Similar threads

Latest Posts