Why should we hold it in epoché? The flag is clearly moving. For example you state...
Because the flag is not moving. I said 'one can be forgiven for holding the flag issue in
epoché'. For myself, I do not hold the flag issue in
epoché at all because your hypothesis, has
a. failed the test of a hypothesis, and
b. failed to address the following critical path issues which must have an objective resolution by a mechanism of explanation, not simply appeal to ignorance.
1. The phantom image does not possess a square edge as it should, but only horizontal flares with parabolic end shapes that taper in transparency, indicative of phantom images produced by analog electronic effects, not natural line-of-sight vectors.
2. The red stripes do not appear, only white ones.
3. The focus of the screen always changes commensurate with the appearance/disappearance of the white 'stripes'.
4. A cathode ray tube electromagnetic interference pattern appears when the stripes disappear, indicative of a current flow inside the camera.
5. The flag does not demonstrate the slight wavering or shaking (even with a rod in it) which a 'wind' would impart. If the wind can move the flag, it can and will also waver (not flap) the flag. It did not. Wind is chaotic, the flag 'movement' was mechanical in nature.
6. There existed ANALOG (not digital) mechanical maintainers for focus and horizontal sweep, supported by devices which would enact the CRT EMI, like which was seen.
7. The 'wind', did not stir up any dust whatsoever at any time (or in any video ever). If it can move an 8 ounce flag with a bar inside it on a pole without a frictionless swivel point, then it is strong enough to move baby powder fine/high albedo dust much more easily than that. Dust which would have easily been seen moving in the cross-lit landscape bright sun.
8. We did not see much (none of it really) of the flag, and would need to see a greater percentage in order to hypothesize a wind - this would equate to not having a sufficient sample size.
9. I am forced to assume that thousands of people, promoted for their integrity and hard work, would have had to lie, to their death beds with not one confession - firm that the flag did not move, even though they knew that it did.
10. The gamma flares on the left side of the screen get longer and shorter too - and the distance from objects in the field of view, to the edge of the field of view, keeps changing throughout the video. So there is horizontal chaos.
11. The horizontal sweep controller had a specification sweep error tolerance of 1% of the horizontal view area. The stripe variance occupied about .8 to .9% of the horizontal sweep frame, so it fell within the HOR Sweep specification error tolerance.
12. You must falsify the science of analog phantom images on old CRT technology - and contend that such effects never existed.
13. The orange dish on the left side of the screen shows horizontal sweep variance of 4% of the screen - SHOWING CLEARLY THAT THE ORANGE DISH IS PICTURED-BY-FLARE/BLOOM, WHERE IT DOES NOT ACTUALLY EXIST.
#13 is fatal to your hypothesis.
#'s 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8 are consilient (all agree) and are also fatal to your hypothesis, separately from #13.
This is called the
Duty to Reduce, Address and Inform
It would be what I would require of you on Monday at 10 am if you were requesting my lab to invest money/resources into your hypothesis.