ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: najak on November 28, 2024, 05:55:24 AM
-
How do Apollogists (may I please use this term?) reconcile the footage of Apollo 12's Lunar Rendezvous where the Dish mysteriously cuts loose and seems to fall with gravity.
Here's the best footage I could find, but it's not a NASA source:
https://youtu.be/EeeeTVr4Lyg?t=777 (https://youtu.be/EeeeTVr4Lyg?t=777)
I cannot seem to find this anywhere on the NASA site.
I haven't verified the details yet, but have heard that they used to have this video on their site, but scrubbed it (removed it) after some MLH guys pointed it out.
Paolo Attivissimo's debunking site doesn't even mention this instance.
-
That is the S Band Steerable Antenna
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20090015392/downloads/20090015392.pdf
-
where the Dish mysteriously cuts loose and seems to fall with gravity.
Classic conspiracist mindset at work. "I don't know anything about what I am looking at, but instead of doing a jot of research I will automatically jump to mystery and conspiracy". What an entirely tiring lens to view the world through.
-
IIRC correctly, at the same time, the LM crew pull the breakers for the S-band, essentially turning it off. In addition, it's possible for mechanical devices to have a 'neutral' position that they occupy/return to when unpowered (essentially spring based, and when powered motors work against the spring), where they don't move much from, I would imagine for safety purposes in general (Clarke even used this as a plot device in 2001). If it was "hanging loose" and moves due to gravity, then how is the LM suspended? At the same time, you'll notice that the signal goes to pot, when the S-band on the LM is no longer being used, so the signal is routed through the CSM. And, for a final thought, once the S-band comes to rest, it doesn't move again, despite the LM continuing to change orientation.
-
How do Apollogists (may I please use this term?) reconcile the footage of Apollo 12's Lunar Rendezvous where the Dish mysteriously cuts loose and seems to fall with gravity.
Here's the best footage I could find, but it's not a NASA source:
https://youtu.be/EeeeTVr4Lyg?t=777 (https://youtu.be/EeeeTVr4Lyg?t=777)
I cannot seem to find this anywhere on the NASA site.
I haven't verified the details yet, but have heard that they used to have this video on their site, but scrubbed it (removed it) after some MLH guys pointed it out.
Paolo Attivissimo's debunking site doesn't even mention this instance.
najak,
I have removed your ability to create new topics until all of your other topics are resolved.
-
How do Apollogists (may I please use this term?) reconcile the footage of Apollo 12's Lunar Rendezvous where the Dish mysteriously cuts loose and seems to fall with gravity.
You're supposed to be a physicist (gish gallup!) what is wrong with it exactly?
I cannot seem to find this anywhere on the NASA site.
It's from the DAC 16mm footage, the clue being it was filmed in space.
I haven't verified the details yet, but have heard that they used to have this video on their site, but scrubbed it (removed it) after some MLH guys pointed it out.
A pathetic statement where you parrot a claim without verification.
Very simply, the dish breaks loose from the force of an RCS thruster. Once the dish breaks from its connector, it sways about for around 2 seconds then it becomes perfectly still. The LM continues to move, rotates a full 90 degrees and the dish stays still. This actually demonstrates how it must be in space.
None of this DAC footage was broadcast on live television. The 16mm DAC camera was used and the film developed back on Earth.
There is just no way NASA would not have watched it through. During the event, it was discussed on the audio recording. They must have known about it.
So basically NASA decides to script a malfunction of the dish, discuss it on audio, then create the scenario to film this incident, and this, according to the crazy claim, when it "shows evidence of gravity"?
It takes a real moron to conjure that one up.
Just a small thing. The DAC footage has the view inverted by 180 degrees, so there appears to be some deception inverting it as though it is "hanging off".
End of thread.
-
How do Apollogists (may I please use this term?) reconcile the footage of Apollo 12's Lunar Rendezvous where the Dish mysteriously cuts loose and seems to fall with gravity.
Here's the best footage I could find, but it's not a NASA source:
https://youtu.be/EeeeTVr4Lyg?t=777 (https://youtu.be/EeeeTVr4Lyg?t=777)
I cannot seem to find this anywhere on the NASA site.
I haven't verified the details yet, but have heard that they used to have this video on their site, but scrubbed it (removed it) after some MLH guys pointed it out.
Paolo Attivissimo's debunking site doesn't even mention this instance.
I see nothing falling away, the breakage occurs @ ~13:00 of the video, but the dish never falls away, perhaps you could enlighten the group as to whe it falls away to you eyes.
ETA: the dish goes into a shadow and stays there until the area falls below the window.
-
How do Apollogists (may I please use this term?) reconcile the footage of Apollo 12's Lunar Rendezvous where the Dish mysteriously cuts loose and seems to fall with gravity.
Here's the best footage I could find, but it's not a NASA source:
https://youtu.be/EeeeTVr4Lyg?t=777 (https://youtu.be/EeeeTVr4Lyg?t=777)
I cannot seem to find this anywhere on the NASA site.
I haven't verified the details yet, but have heard that they used to have this video on their site, but scrubbed it (removed it) after some MLH guys pointed it out.
Paolo Attivissimo's debunking site doesn't even mention this instance.
najak,
I have removed your ability to create new topics until all of your other topics are resolved.
I think you might have stopped him from posting in general. He's over on the FB group saying he's been banned, and that he can't see/comment in any of the threads.
-
It's good to not have FB/Meta. :)
-
I think you might have stopped him from posting in general. He's over on the FB group saying he's been banned, and that he can't see/comment in any of the threads.
Hmm. I applied a membership role that was only supposed to prohibit him from starting new topics. I'm not sure why it was preventing him from seeing the forum. I have removed that role. He should be able to access the forum now.
-
The TV footage, with corresponding 16mm, is here:
It looks as though the actual incident in question is just off camera.
-
And on the evening news.
-
The TV footage, with corresponding 16mm, is here:
It looks as though the actual incident in question is just off camera.
OBM, I have attempted to access ALSJ to copy videos, but I continually get error messages. An example
No webpage was found for the web address: https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a14/a14v.1354348.rm. Where di NASA store them?
-
Hmm. I applied a membership role that was only supposed to prohibit him from starting new topics. I'm not sure why it was preventing him from seeing the forum. I have removed that role. He should be able to access the forum now.
Thank you, I'm back, and working fervently on this Apollo 12 Rendezvous topic. Before I delve in to a topic too far, I do like to get the official Apollogist viewpoint.
(I hope you are OK with me saying "Apollogist" - as Biblical Apologists are fine with self-identifying as such. And here on this forum, I'm called the "over-inclusive HB" - which implies that I tend to believe in "many Hoaxes" which is simply not the truth.) Apollogist seems good, fairly neutral and catchy.
===
I am doing frame image analysis, geometry analysis, along with the Journal and audio. To paint what I believe is a strong MLH theory.
The fact that this A12 Rendezvous appears MISSING from the Debunking sites I know of, as well as this footage went MISSING from NASA's own repos... made this appear to me as a "good candidate for investigation".
I'm a rookie, so I'm trying to prioritize "What's next?" -- and pre-querying for the Apollogist counter-arguments, helps the process be more efficient, productive, and fruitful.
Thank you again for hosting this, and providing me a means for presenting the MLH "best ideas" that I can find.
-
You may start with answering my question in reply # 6.
-
The TV footage, with corresponding 16mm, is here:
It looks as though the actual incident in question is just off camera.
OBM, I have attempted to access ALSJ to copy videos, but I continually get error messages. An example
No webpage was found for the web address: https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a14/a14v.1354348.rm. Where di NASA store them?
You need to understand that both the ALSJ and AFJ may be hosted by NASA, but they are maintained by enthusiasts. Files get moved around and links need maintaining as a result. That doesn't always happen.
In any case, the real media format you're linking to there isn't the best. You are better off looking at the various Apillo Flight Journal youtube sccounts for each mission, NASA/JPL's uploads to archive.org, lunarmodule5's youtube series, and Apolloinrealtime.org, depending on which mission ypu want.
It's been a bone of contention for some time, at least for me, that while the Apollo missions remain NASA's greatest achievement, their archiving and presentation of it is inconsistent and chaotic. Maintaining this kind of thing takes time and money. Those things are prioritised elsewhere these days.
-
I knew I'd done some discussing of this before:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/need-debunking-apollo-12-lm-caught-on-a-wire.11690/
-
I knew I'd done some discussing of this before:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/need-debunking-apollo-12-lm-caught-on-a-wire.11690/
The real issue is twofold. It's moronic logic to suggest NASA scripted this, as clearly they talk about it and it was on a live TV transmission. The thing completely stops moving even with the LM continuing to rotate. The second irrefutable observation debunks the whole thing.
There will be another stream of HBs in a decade, stumbling across this with their amateur detective hats on, thinking they've found something. It will never end. Even when Artemis lands on the Moon, I reckon they'll all just huddle together and come up with more denial and ever deepening daft claims.
-
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/need-debunking-apollo-12-lm-caught-on-a-wire.11690/
Your posts are the most helpful of all, laced with grace and intelligence. Thank you for engaging with me. I read this other thread, to make sure my analysis covers everything.
I also watch your News Broadcasts -- and one that perked my ears was the evening news where Houston declared that they could see the [RCS] "Thrusters firing" -- and you could see something here (as you can see ALL other hypergolic fuel thrusts except for those of the magical Apollo LM/AM).
https://youtu.be/Cl4pPHyiIQc?t=53 (https://youtu.be/Cl4pPHyiIQc?t=53)
What is your take on this?
-
None of this DAC footage was broadcast on live television. The 16mm DAC camera was used and the film developed back on Earth.
THANK YOU! I was dumbly unaware of this. Now I am informed, thanks to you. I looked it up, and the issue seems confused - as though these DAC's do BOTH? (films and transmits to SSTV at same time)
Is this true? (it does both) But the films we see here on YouTube were the 16mm film, thus much better resolution.
It takes a real moron to conjure that one up.
We morons have feelings too, please go easy on me. When I cast my insults, it was about "not having a grasp of physics/logic" - but I didn't say (or think) moron. The Apollo proofs I'm doing are both simple and advanced... simple if you are really good at Physics and Trig (some Calculus)... and "advanced" if you are not. I believe more than 3/4th's of the USA population lacks the skills required to do the "basic physics/trig" that is involved in my proofs. I was wanting to find people who are among the smartest. The evidence I've seen from you so far, is that you aren't nearly as smart as you think, and that you enjoy being on this site with your buddies who have your back as you "bash on HB's" - thinking you are really making winning arguments, even when you are not.
But also, I believe that many HB's aren't very smart either - at least not Physics/science smart. And they make a lot of mistakes -- AND stick to them. (I'll make mistakes, but I'll change my stance quickly, as my mistakes are made known.)
You will find me different than the others, I'm guessing... give it time.
So please go easy here. If it turns out that the ML is Hoax, all of these insults come back onto you and bury you in a pit. The evidence I'm seeing, indicates that this is a likely thing to happen. I know you disagree, but I intend to camp out here, and take y'all through my version of the "slam dunk" evidence that we didn't land men on the moon.
-
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/need-debunking-apollo-12-lm-caught-on-a-wire.11690/
Your posts are the most helpful of all, laced with grace and intelligence. Thank you for engaging with me. I read this other thread, to make sure my analysis covers everything.
I also watch your News Broadcasts -- and one that perked my ears was the evening news where Houston declared that they could see the [RCS] "Thrusters firing" -- and you could see something here (as you can see ALL other hypergolic fuel thrusts except for those of the magical Apollo LM/AM).
https://youtu.be/Cl4pPHyiIQc?t=53 (https://youtu.be/Cl4pPHyiIQc?t=53)
What is your take on this?
I'm not sufficiently expert in the RCS, or whether or not the products of them should or should not be visible.
I can see that there is something, but what I can't be certain of is whether you are seeing the RCS firing, the effect of that firing on the chamber, or the products of that firing.
To answer your other question, the DAC did not transmit back to Earth. It recorded film which was developed later.
-
Now for my Draft #1 of this Proof, which I believe addresses the various Refutations, of which I find all of them to be Critically invalid. (see this document I'm posting for the logic)
After watching this video many many times -- I realized a few things:
1. The S-Band is CORRECTLY tracking the earth, so it seems, as it is counter-rotating as the Pitch-Down-90 begins... it snaps after about 25 degrees of rotation.
2. This "tracking of earth" did NOT happen for Apollo 11 -- I consider this a Simulation mess-up. Why didn't they need to track earth? Or was it a detail they forgot to do for Apollo 11?
My theory on what flung it - was that they were using a thin cord to emulate the "tracking earth" behavior - which forced the dish to face in the same absolute direction as the AM rotated. But this mechanism got stretched/stressed, and the cord broke -- thus the dish snapped back. There appears to be some sideways stress on the armature, which flings back, so it was loaded up with stress when the cord broke.
Page 2 of this document shows list of Critical Issues with all of this (pasted here without formatting):
====
#1: No legitimate Apollogist explanation exists for this Dish Flinging. The attempted explanations they make are all critically flawed.
#2: With the antenna flung to more than 30 degrees off target, the S-Band should have entirely dropped its signal instead of inserting static. Static was flawed “damage control” on NASAX’s part to cover this up.
#3: “My antenna is OK” (Bean) is the ONLY thing they said about this. This was a big deal, so why was nothing more said about it, or conferring on how to fix it, or mitigate the issue? Why didn’t it show up in the Debriefing? It shows up nowhere else, almost as if it didn’t happen.
#4: There exists a 2-second discrepancy in Audio-Lag compared to the video, which cannot be reconciled. The static was inserted into the audio feed 2-3 seconds too soon. A human error in fakery. The other 3 reference points to indicate timing would all perfectly align to the video if skewed to be earlier by 7 seconds. But this then introduces a 3-second error on the Static insertion. A strong sign of fakery.
#5: Apollo 12’s S-Band Tracked Earth, but they forgot to do this at all for Apollo 11. Does this make sense?
===
@OneBigMonkey - I look forward to your feedback and corrections the most.
-
1: I'm not sufficiently expert in the RCS, or whether or not the products of them should or should not be visible.
2: To answer your other question, the DAC did not transmit back to Earth. It recorded film which was developed later.
#1 - this is a side issue -- I added this reference to my "No Plume" MLH argument for review at a future date. For me that argument is more about "No Light Emission" more than no-plume, because for each of those Launches, while the AM was only 5' off of the Lander Base platform -- it the "BRIGHT fire plume" goes "completely dark" instantly! ... yet we KNOW that A50+N2O4 burns BRIGHT! And we also know we can see it in this context. NASA not illuminating the top of the Lander's Base after 0.8 sec, was a simulation mistake, IMO.
#2: THANK YOU, this is great information. But how then did the evening news show the Rendezvous (where Houston said "I see the firing").
Also - how did Apollo 11 broadcast the "Landing/descent footage live" -- this was live right?
-
Classic conspiracist mindset at work. "I don't know anything about what I am looking at, but instead of doing a jot of research I will automatically jump to mystery and conspiracy". What an entirely tiring lens to view the world through.
Oh come on, you're one of my heroes here... now your crushing my optimism about you.
Just as you "jump to Apollogize" because in your mind, Apollo was real, therefore everything needs to go through that filter of "reconciling it with being real"... I do the same thing, but in the opposite direction as "I know it was faked, so will jump to reconcile with what I know to be true." We're the same, and it's OK. Don't be the pot calling the kettle black.
You have your reasons for believing it's real; and I have mine for believing we didn't land humans on the moon. And I intend to camp out here for many weeks, as I take you through various proofs, on steroids.
I find the existing pockets of MLH evidence to be lacking, flawed, unprecise, reaching, etc....
My aim it to leave a "100% integrity set of articles" in my wake. It'll be a collaborative effort.
There are SO MANY DUMB MLH arguments that are popular - it makes me cry. I know the source of these-- it's Apollogist agents -- aiming to weaken MLH by corrupting the REAL arguments with horrid arguments... And since 3/4th's+ of USA Americans don't have the skillsets to tell the difference, those who venture into MLH will fall into EVERY ONE OF THESE TRAPS.
While the good arguments get suppressed... so that these casual MLH believers will never find the good arguments -- and sadly, flock to the bad arguments because they "seem better".
For example - "There's no way Nixon made a phone call to the moon!" and the infamous (and stupid) - "Look at those shadows converging or diverging!" -- makes me cringe.
But despite me throwing out 80% of the arguments floating around, I believe I'm sitting on a mound of proof and circumstantial evidnece that we didn't land men on the moon.
This will be an enjoyable few weeks (or months), hopefully for all involved here.
-
I would LOVE to engage with you in private chat if you are open to it. I think work between two opposing minds produces wondrous fruit, so much better than two like-minds.
And you seem to have a goldmine of knowledge, interest and smarts. And I can sense your loving, sincere, honest, and humble spirit.
-
1: I'm not sufficiently expert in the RCS, or whether or not the products of them should or should not be visible.
2: To answer your other question, the DAC did not transmit back to Earth. It recorded film which was developed later.
#1 - this is a side issue -- I added this reference to my "No Plume" MLH argument for review at a future date. For me that argument is more about "No Light Emission" more than no-plume, because for each of those Launches, while the AM was only 5' off of the Lander Base platform -- it the "BRIGHT fire plume" goes "completely dark" instantly! ... yet we KNOW that A50+N2O4 burns BRIGHT! And we also know we can see it in this context. NASA not illuminating the top of the Lander's Base after 0.8 sec, was a simulation mistake, IMO.
#2: THANK YOU, this is great information. But how then did the evening news show the Rendezvous (where Houston said "I see the firing").
Also - how did Apollo 11 broadcast the "Landing/descent footage live" -- this was live right?
It showed it because at the same time as recording it on 16mm film it was broadcasting it on live TV.
Apollo 11 didn't broadcast the descent live. Audio transmissions yes, TV no. They did broadcast from lunar orbit before landing using the CSM TV camera. The LM camera was attached outside and was activated after landing - it could not have broadcast the descent.
-
It takes a real moron to conjure that one up.
We morons have feelings too, please go easy on me.
<sigh> Read it properly for context. You are suggesting indirectly that somebody in NASA thought this up. It would have taken a prize-cretin to come up with the idea of showing anything on TV and also on 16mm film that demonstrates a glaring problem.
"So basically NASA decides to script a malfunction of the dish, discuss it on audio, then create the scenario to film this incident, and this, according to the crazy claim, when it "shows evidence of gravity"? It takes a real moron to conjure that one up."
You will find me different than the others, I'm guessing... give it time.
Please take note. You totally disrespected me and others with your crap about who knows physics. So don't lecture anyone about any mild attitude shown in return. So far, all I am seeing from you is a scrambled attempt to divert and avoid things that anyone with a reasonable grasp of physics would understand as very strong evidence.
The dish does move, never denied. But the LM keeps on moving and all the dish does is slow its pendulum motion. Right there should tell any honest person all they need to know about this claim. It comes to a stop with the LM still rotating.
Why are you still posting about this? Concede it.
-
There are SO MANY DUMB MLH arguments that are popular - it makes me cry. I know the source of these-- it's Apollogist agents -- aiming to weaken MLH by corrupting the REAL arguments with horrid arguments... And since 3/4th's+ of USA Americans don't have the skillsets to tell the difference, those who venture into MLH will fall into EVERY ONE OF THESE TRAPS.
So Bill Kaysing and Ralph Rene, two of TBFDU's heroes were NASA agents? The source for all the useless claims is not from anyone arguing against them!
While the good arguments get suppressed
There aren't any.
-
1: I'm not sufficiently expert in the RCS, or whether or not the products of them should or should not be visible.
2: To answer your other question, the DAC did not transmit back to Earth. It recorded film which was developed later.
#1 - this is a side issue -- I added this reference to my "No Plume" MLH argument for review at a future date. For me that argument is more about "No Light Emission" more than no-plume, because for each of those Launches, while the AM was only 5' off of the Lander Base platform -- it the "BRIGHT fire plume" goes "completely dark" instantly! ... yet we KNOW that A50+N2O4 burns BRIGHT! And we also know we can see it in this context. NASA not illuminating the top of the Lander's Base after 0.8 sec, was a simulation mistake, IMO.
#2: THANK YOU, this is great information. But how then did the evening news show the Rendezvous (where Houston said "I see the firing").
Also - how did Apollo 11 broadcast the "Landing/descent footage live" -- this was live right?
Your no plume argument shows how little you know about the RDC. At the mixing of the two propellants, that do burn without a visble plume there is a non recurring unsteady state ignition that is visible.
Now that I have indicated you have little knowledge of the RCS please answer my question contained in
You may start with answering my question in reply # 6.
It is a simple questioning where in the video do you "see" the dish falling away?
-
It is a simple questioning where in the video do you "see" the dish falling away?
Ah, I retracted that indirectly. Before I wrote the article, I thought this was "falling in gravity"... after watching it more, trying to "track earth", looks like it was flung when the cord attached to it snapped (which was there to create this effect of tracking earth).
So my "falling away" concept isn't in my article. When I made my first post, I was just preparing for the creation of this article, and hadn't finished my research/analysis. I chose this example, because of how I noticed primary Debunking sites totally avoid it... so thought there was something to it, that Apollogists don't want others to see. And I think this is correct -- this video is a smoking gun of fakery, in several ways.
-
So Bill Kaysing and Ralph Rene, two of TBFDU's heroes were NASA agents? The source for all the useless claims is not from anyone arguing against them!
These guys are heroes for "being first". But with their tech and operating SOLO, without peer review, they made MANY bad arguments (e.g. shadows, no stars). Also there are arguments that are also "Bad" not because they are WRONG, but because there exists a "feasible rationale to justify it could have also been real"... so arguing these cases is a very bad idea.
The NASA agents (not necessarily on payroll) simply do their best to propagate/promote the "very worst" arguments, and I believe may even be the source for inventing new ones... It's a very effective technique for keeping people from discovering the truth about a false narrative (such as Landing humans on the moon). Create Red Herrings, and promote them like crazy.
So today, NASA agents will definitely promote MANY of the ideas put forth by Kaysing. As for Kaysing, he was sincere.. If you believe the "Truth" for the wrong reasons, doesn't mean it's suddenly not "Truth". Kaysing knew the Truth here -- we didn't land men on the moon.... and quite possibly never left LOE.
-
From what I can see, this MLH claim of my, still stands unrefuted. Here are the unrefuted issues that still stand:
#1: No legitimate Apollogist explanation exists for this Dish Flinging. The attempted explanations they make are all critically flawed.
#2: With the antenna flung to more than 30 degrees off target, the S-Band should have entirely dropped its signal instead of inserting static. Static was flawed “damage control” on NASAX’s part to cover this up.
#3: “My antenna is OK” (Bean) is the ONLY thing they said about this. This was a big deal, so why was nothing more said about it, or conferring on how to fix it, or mitigate the issue? Why didn’t it show up in the Debriefing? It shows up nowhere else, almost as if it didn’t happen.
#4: There exists a 2-second discrepancy in Audio-Lag compared to the video, which cannot be reconciled. The static was inserted into the audio feed 2-3 seconds too soon. A human error in fakery. The other 3 reference points to indicate timing would all perfectly align to the video if skewed to be earlier by 7 seconds. But this then introduces a 3-second error on the Static insertion. A strong sign of fakery.
#5: Apollo 12’s S-Band Tracked Earth, but they forgot to do this at all for Apollo 11. Does this make sense?
-
But the LM keeps on moving and all the dish does is slow its pendulum motion. Right there should tell any honest person all they need to know about this claim. It comes to a stop with the LM still rotating.
You were the only one attempting to contend with any of these 5 issues I've identified.
The AM is only rotating here at about 2.3 deg/second... the radar bouncing after fling bouncing lasts for about 6 seconds, so about 14 deg of rotation. Do you really think 14 deg of rotation "fully cancels all pendulum-like rotation?" Nope. Your explanation fails to debunk my hypothesis, entirely.
As for how to explain the dish motion for this MLH hypothesis, we have:
1. The Dish armature may have some springs involved that make it go to a default position. The "earth tracking" guide wire pulled against this default position... until it snapped, and then bounced around and returned to the default position.
OR
2. The camera orientation in this simulation could be "downwards" - and that also explains why the dish remains stable after the next rotation... as the dish is pulled downwards.
====
@Mag40 also hypothesized: "Very simply, the dish breaks loose from the force of an RCS thruster. Once the dish breaks from its connector, it sways about for around 2 seconds then it becomes perfectly still. The LM continues to move, rotates a full 90 degrees and the dish stays still. This actually demonstrates how it must be in space."
I've addressed this in my article, here it is pasted:
===
AWFUL PROPOSAL, implies a critical design failure. This would have been a repeated issue, and these RCS thrusters are not aligned with this dish. Also, at the time the dish is flung (they say “blown”) there is no associated acceleration on the AM (as these RCS thrusters were overpowered at this stage of empty fuel tanks, and an acceleration would be noticeable).
===
So my 5 points, remain solid without viable Apollogy.
-
These guys are heroes for "being first". But with their tech and operating SOLO, without peer review, they made MANY bad arguments (e.g. shadows, no stars). Also there are arguments that are also "Bad" not because they are WRONG, but because there exists a "feasible rationale to justify it could have also been real"... so arguing these cases is a very bad idea.
I just refuted your claim about the source of most of the crazy claims and you assign hero-worship to the fools who foisted it on the world? That says more about your fixation, than any of the suggestions you've thus far made about how you can be persuaded to change.
The NASA agents
Oh do shutup.
So today, NASA agents will
Should we introduce some whacky, mysterious music to go along with this unsubstantiated hyperebole?
-
IIRC correctly, at the same time, the LM crew pull the breakers for the S-band, essentially turning it off. In addition, it's possible for mechanical devices to have a 'neutral' position that they occupy/return to when unpowered (essentially spring based, and when powered motors work against the spring), where they don't move much from, I would imagine for safety purposes in general (Clarke even used this as a plot device in 2001). If it was "hanging loose" and moves due to gravity, then how is the LM suspended? At the same time, you'll notice that the signal goes to pot, when the S-band on the LM is no longer being used, so the signal is routed through the CSM. And, for a final thought, once the S-band comes to rest, it doesn't move again, despite the LM continuing to change orientation.
You too tried to contend with this non-viable hypothesis. I rebutted your "pulled breakers" in my article:
==
CONCLUSION: FALSE. Breakers pulled 92 seconds beforehand and for a different Dish!
==
You wrote: "Signal goes to pot".
Conclusion: It should have cut out entirely! This was a huge deal. No mention made of it at all other than Bean saying "My antenna is OK". No, it's not! No longer aimed at earth AT ALL. No mention of this issue by anyone in the CSM.
Based upon their mad insertion of static, it appears they were NOT trying to emulate "re-routing voice through the CSM" (as maybe this wasn't even possible) -- otherwise, "why the static?" The VHF transmission from 100' away was surely fine - no static. So this "Static" was clearly their attempt to cover up this simulation mishap.
And regarding the dish coming to rest, there are several reasonable explanations for how this happened (that I said to Mag40 above).
-
I just refuted your claim about the source of most of the crazy claims and you assign hero-worship to the fools who foisted it on the world? That says more about your fixation, than any of the suggestions you've thus far made about how you can be persuaded to change.
I have NEVER quoted either of them. I know that many of their technical arguments are dumb, or easily refuted. I mostly honor Kaysing for his fortitude - coming out against NASA SOLO... to share a truth he knew was truth - and even self-published a book, which takes a lot of effort. He was hated, and ridiculed -- not revered.
Since I believe his underlying conclusions of "faked landing" are true -- I give him the honor that I feel he deserves.
Do you also think Thomas Baron was a Liar? He's perhaps my biggest hero of all, because of what I believe was martyrdom. He's a big part of my motivation now to "do this work for free with no appreciation, but only scorn from most".
-
You were the only one attempting to contend with any of these 5 issues I've identified.
You were as vague as anyone can get in the OP.
The AM is only rotating here at about 2.3 deg/second..
Kind of missing the bloody point. It's changing position whilst the "loose" dish only has one single action. It comes loose and oscillates to a complete stop.
the radar bouncing after fling bouncing lasts for about 6 seconds, so about 14 deg of rotation.
If you are really arguing the toss about this, your physics is in question. The dish performs its own thing. It comes loose and oscillates to a stop. There is clearly no force being imparted by the rotation.
D o you really think 14 deg of rotation "fully cancels all pendulum-like rotation?"
It doesn't affect it in any way, the whole point!
Your explanation fails to debunk my hypothesis, entirely.
You haven't made any hypothesis and it wasn't an explanation. It's what is visibly happening. The rotation is not making any difference to the independent activity of the dish. No change in subsequent attitude moves it.
2. The camera orientation in this simulation could be "downwards" - and that also explains why the dish remains stable after the next rotation... as the dish is pulled downwards.
You are just not capable of critical thinking. The motion is independent of the LM rotating.
AWFUL PROPOSAL, implies a critical design failure. This would have been a repeated issue, and these RCS thrusters are not aligned with this dish. Also, at the time the dish is flung (they say “blown”) there is no associated acceleration on the AM (as these RCS thrusters were overpowered at this stage of empty fuel tanks, and an acceleration would be noticeable).
If I ran the Zoo. I don't care why it broke free or what it is doing. It only matters that once it does start moving, it is not related in any way to the continued orientation of the rotating LM.
So my 5 points, remain solid without viable Apollogy.
Stop with the pathetic word-plays.
#1: No legitimate Apollogist explanation exists for this Dish Flinging. The attempted explanations they make are all critically flawed.
Irrelevant, absolutely irrelevant. Nobody needs to explain the cause to you.
#2: With the antenna flung to more than 30 degrees off target, the S-Band should have entirely dropped its signal instead of inserting static. Static was flawed “damage control” on NASAX’s part to cover this up.
Do you remember the bit about the NASA "moron" who must have conjured this up?
According to you NASA contrived to create a deliberate malfunction that "exposed" gravity (when it clearly didn't!), they screwed up the LM capacity to communicate (because NASA wouldn't realise this? - Really?), they filmed it with a live video camera and a 16mm camera and chatted about it.
If you think that actually makes any sense you are living in cuckoo land.
#3: “My antenna is OK” (Bean) is the ONLY thing they said about this. This was a big deal, so why was nothing more said about it, or conferring on how to fix it, or mitigate the issue? Why didn’t it show up in the Debriefing? It shows up nowhere else, almost as if it didn’t happen.
Completely irrelevant to the issue.
#4: There exists a 2-second discrepancy in Audio-Lag compared to the video, which cannot be reconciled. The static was inserted into the audio feed 2-3 seconds too soon. A human error in fakery. The other 3 reference points to indicate timing would all perfectly align to the video if skewed to be earlier by 7 seconds. But this then introduces a 3-second error on the Static insertion. A strong sign of fakery.
Nope, a clear sign of incompetent HB understanding. It's like you think your assessment of noises must mean something.
#5: Apollo 12’s S-Band Tracked Earth, but they forgot to do this at all for Apollo 11. Does this make sense?
Says who? One of the comms experts will be along at some stage, if they can be bothered.
-
I just refuted your claim about the source of most of the crazy claims and you assign hero-worship to the fools who foisted it on the world? That says more about your fixation, than any of the suggestions you've thus far made about how you can be persuaded to change.
I have NEVER quoted either of them. I know that many of their technical arguments are dumb, or easily refuted. I mostly honor Kaysing for his fortitude - coming out against NASA SOLO... to share a truth he knew was truth - and even self-published a book, which takes a lot of effort. He was hated, and ridiculed -- not revered.
So the source of the dumb crap is those two muppets. and not "...I know the source of these-- it's Apollogist agents".
Ridiculous.
Do you also think Thomas Baron was a Liar? He's perhaps my biggest hero of all, because of what I believe was martyrdom. He's a big part of my motivation now to "do this work for free with no appreciation, but only scorn from most".
Gish gallup crap. There are plenty of threads on this already.
-
It doesn't affect it in any way, the whole point!
If the camera were oriented downwards, then the pendulum effect would be operating away from the camera, as we see. A 14 degree rotation doesn't significantly change the "downward position" - and so gravity acting on this dish to make it "level with the ground" -- will cause it to continue to swing like a pendulum until it levels out... which it does after 6 seconds.
While if this were in no-gravity, then gravity wouldn't be there to "keep it swinging" when the angular rotation, as you insisted would cause this oscillation to slow down very quickly.
So you really made the strong argument for how "gravity must be present" else the dish would have stopped oscillating more quickly...
Also -- since the oscillations get less each time --- it's not BOUNCING BETWEEN TWO EXTREMES -- but instead this oscillation can ONLY be explained by gravity.
This example gets stronger and stronger as we go.
Yes, please bring in a "Comm's guy" to explain how Apollo 11 had good reason to not aim their S-Band dish at earth, while Apollo 12 did. This'll might be good.
-
You don't need a comms guy, you can see for yourself.
-
You don't need a comms guy, you can see for yourself.
That's just one shot. Watch the video of many rotations, where the S-Band dish stays RIGID -- doesn't track earth at all, while they continue to talk.
https://youtu.be/TB4TenTk-Bc?t=184 (https://youtu.be/TB4TenTk-Bc?t=184)
This appears to be a HUGE mess-up on their simulation. Please don't burn all of your materials though. Perhaps you can join me. :)
-
So the source of the dumb crap is those two muppets. and not "...I know the source of these-- it's Apollogist agents".
Ridiculous.
Keep up with me now. Again, I'm saying that TODAY, the Apollogist agents are promoting the bad arguments. Three such "agents" are Google, YouTube, and Facebook.
It's not some "insidious plan" - it's a very simple thing to do, and very effective.
If you ever found yourself on the "other side of mainstream Truth" for any major mainstream narrative, you'd know what I'm talking about here.
It's similar to the "Strawman" tactic... by painting "MLH" as represented by all of these bad ideas, the Apollogists can "win the argument" (against the bad ideas).
As we're seeing now-- there exist some very good MLH arguments, which never seem to get any air time. Google will only show me "bad MLH arguments debunked" links.
-
You don't need a comms guy, you can see for yourself.
That's just one shot. Watch the video of many rotations, where the S-Band dish stays RIGID -- doesn't track earth at all, while they continue to talk.
https://youtu.be/TB4TenTk-Bc?t=184 (https://youtu.be/TB4TenTk-Bc?t=184)
This appears to be a HUGE mess-up on their simulation. Please don't burn all of your materials though. Perhaps you can join me. :)
I've watched it. Many times. I particularly like the view of Earth you get in it at the end. Given that much of the ascent and rendezvous stage was done before that Earth was visible, what use do you think S-Band would have been?
You even have this:
https://www.nasa.gov/history/afj/ap11fj/19day6-rendezvs-dock.html
125:11:17 Aldrin (onboard): I had to turn my S-band off so I could hear him - my S-band switch on the audio panel. Woo-woo!
during the process.
Perhaps you'd like to explain how they simulated it. How big was the moon model? Where was it? How was the LM suspended?
-
I've watched it. Many times. I particularly like the view of Earth you get in it at the end. Given that much of the ascent and rendezvous stage was done before that Earth was visible, what use do you think S-Band would have been?
The maneuvers I've linked to above, all happen AFTER Signal Acquired.
Here's a time-stamped link to the video with sound track reasonably aligned, referring to the pitch maneuver, with ground control.
https://youtu.be/E2InsDwgcXk?t=655 (https://youtu.be/E2InsDwgcXk?t=655)
Signal Acquired at 127:51:36 -- dialog begins right after:
127:51:42 Armstrong: Okay. You've got me. <== this matches up to 11:00 in the video link
127:52:24 Aldrin (onboard): Pitch up then when we translate up just a little...
So we've got Apollo 11 with "Signal Acquired" but in the Simulation, they forgot to point the dish at the earth.
Watch for about a minute - at the end, the dish *might* be pointing at earth -- but as it did all of these maneuvers, it was NOT.
So they *tried* to fix this mess-up for Apollo 12, with a guide-cable to keep it "appearing to track earth" -- but then it snapped... and the "Fling" fiasco happened. So they simply "stopped filming/showing the rendezvous" for all the rest... gave up.
Clearly they judged their audience/context correctly -- people will tend to find a way to believe whatever makes them feel the best. They will simply overlook some glaring mess-ups showing that what they believe is FALSE.
It's how humans are wired. Even the smartest among us.
=== SIMULATION SUGGESTIONS ====
How to simulate this? NASA had HUGE budgets for simulation facilities, which included robotic mechanisms for picking up and maneuvering the LM/AM/CSM. These facilities existed. NASAX simply made use of them after hours, when the "real workers" were away.
NASA had Simulation capability for every mission, every detail... all the way to the Control Room... all in the name of "Simulation/Scenario testing" as real-world as possible. Gene Kranz indicated in his book that the people in the control room couldn't tell the difference between a Simulation and the Real Deal.
This was all NEEDED for the real mission... but since they couldn't land men on the moon, they had to fake, at least that part.
This is the MLH theory, which I find more plausible than the claim that "we landed men on the moon".
-
If the camera were oriented downwards, then the pendulum effect would be operating away from the camera, as we see. A 14 degree rotation doesn't significantly change the "downward position" - and so gravity acting on this dish to make it "level with the ground" -- will cause it to continue to swing like a pendulum until it levels out... which it does after 6 seconds.
And NASA were dumb enough not to know what you "know"?
While if this were in no-gravity, then gravity wouldn't be there to "keep it swinging" when the angular rotation, as you insisted would cause this oscillation to slow down very quickly.
When something "loose" only oscillates for 6 seconds? And you say you understand physics? That's quick by any standards!
So you really made the strong argument for how "gravity must be present" else the dish would have stopped oscillating more quickly...
Your major skill appears to be chronic circular logic.
Also -- since the oscillations get less each time --- it's not BOUNCING BETWEEN TWO EXTREMES -- but instead this oscillation can ONLY be explained by gravity.
Released tension, subsequent inertia and Newton's 3rd law. My use of the words "pendulum effect" are not saying this is a pendulum!
This example gets stronger and stronger as we go.
Nope and you ignored how NASA must have been morons to do this.
Yes, please bring in a "Comm's guy" to explain how Apollo 11 had good reason to not aim their S-Band dish at earth, while Apollo 12 did. This'll might be good.
I said if they can be bothered.
-
#1: Released tension, subsequent inertia and Newton's 3rd law. My use of the words "pendulum effect" are not saying this is a pendulum!
#2: Nope and you ignored how NASA must have been morons to do this.
#3: I said if they can be bothered.
#1: Each of the 6 changes in direction are lesser magnitude -- so the big dirty question is "what causes them to change direction at decreasing amplitudes??" - only the presence of Gravity supplies the needed answer. In no gravity -- if they haven't reached the "further rotational extent... then there is nothing to bounce off of!"... If you watch these rotations in slow motion (which I have), you'll see it moving "like a pendulum with gravity"... it slows down at the end of each move, before changing direction ... very parabolic.
This is a slam dunk win for MLH.
Now I see why the Debunking sites pretend this issue doesn't exist (and omit it from debunking). And why NASA site no longer shows (hasn't for years).
==
#2: NASAX, not NASA. NASAX has a lot more military men, pragmatic - and guess what, "they were right" -- even with all of these subtle (but provable/damning) mistakes -- EVERYONE BOUGHT IT. They didn't need to waste their time fixing it all.
Antenna breaks?? "have Bean simply say, My Antenna is OK" and move on like nothing is wrong. IT WORKED. They weren't morons. They're all dead now -- and STILL most of the world still swallows the Apollo lie.
Verdict: NASAX knows their audience. NASAX succeeded. So, not morons.
==
#3: Please "bother them" - it's a quick answer -- "how did Apollo 11 communicate with Houston" for the first few minutes, and why didn't they have their S-Band dish set to "Track earth" - as did Apollo 12 (until it snapped).
-
#1: Each of the 6 changes in direction are lesser magnitude -- so the big dirty question is "what causes them to change direction at decreasing amplitudes??" - only the presence of Gravity supplies the needed answer. In no gravity -- if they haven't reached the "further rotational extent... then there is nothing to bounce off of!"... If you watch these rotations in slow motion (which I have), you'll see it moving "like a pendulum with gravity"... it slows down at the end of each move, before changing direction ... very parabolic.
The dish is still held in place, it is oscillating between extremes of what is holding it, one side to the other. Impacts lessen inertia.
This is a slam dunk win for MLH.
And NASA were that stupid that they scripted it, transmitted it live and filmed it on 16mm. Then chatted about it.
Not for them the bloody obvious "CUT, someone tape that damn dish up"!
Now I see why the Debunking sites pretend this issue doesn't exist (and omit it from debunking). And why NASA site no longer shows (hasn't for years).
Yep, that's what's happening - NASA release box-sets, DVDS and still do so, the internet is replete with versions of this and because the ALSJ doesn't have a link to the DAC footage - we get this stupid statement. You people act like clones, devoid of logic or reason and making the same old claims as you stumble upon them.
-
You still haven't answered my question please note a time stamp when the dish falls away with gravity?
-
#1: The dish is still held in place, it is oscillating between extremes of what is holding it, one side to the other. Impacts lessen inertia.
#2: And NASA were that stupid that they scripted it, transmitted it live and filmed it on 16mm. Then chatted about it.
#1: If you watch it, and look at the frame caps... or just watch it, because it's obvious -- each time it oscillates, it's LESS. If this were in no-gravity - it would ONLY "slow down" while the amplitude of each oscillation would remain the SAME.. But when you see a pendulum effect that has decreasing amplitude of the oscillations - here is your sign of Gravity.
#2: NASAX is who perpetrated this upon us - a military operation of deception. They aren't the smartest -- but that's OK - -they only need to be smarter than "Group Think"... so long as they are presenting a narrative that APPEALS TO EVERYONE -- many many mistakes will be forgiven... even for 55 years. Christianity is 2000 years old, and Islam 1200 years (approx) -- one (or both) of them are critically wrong -- and thus are "hoaxes" -- but it appeals to these believers -- and they will never forsake their Holy Book, and the Heaven that it promises them.
Apollo tells us "wow, Mankind is awesome -- which includes you"... A Universalist religion.
-
You still haven't answered my question please note a time stamp when the dish falls away with gravity?
Answered above -- I RETRACTED this statement. It does not "FALL away" -- it is being pulled/stressed by a guiding cable, trying to create the effect of "Tracking Earth" - -when the cable breaks, the dish "flings" with force... then oscillates like a pendulum ONLY would with Gravity...
-
You still haven't answered my question please note a time stamp when the dish falls away with gravity?
Answered above -- I RETRACTED this statement. It does not "FALL away" -- it is being pulled/stressed by a guiding cable, trying to create the effect of "Tracking Earth" - -when the cable breaks, the dish "flings" with force... then oscillates like a pendulum ONLY would with Gravity...
But seconds later the dish is magically again attached to your 'guiding cable'? Because it no longer follows your gravity, but stays steadily in one place.
-
But seconds later the dish is magically again attached to your 'guiding cable'? Because it no longer follows your gravity, but stays steadily in one place.
Watch the FINAL oscillation of the dish - it "hardens up" - if it remained loose, it would have gone on for a bit longer... so maybe static fiction holds it steady... or it could have a motorized capability that they engaged to stop it -- to lock it in place. The "tracking cable remains snapped" - as it doesn't attempt to "Track Earth" either after this.
It oscillates slowly and easily, with decreasing amplitude-- until it "sticks at the end" -- 7 bounces total.. then "sticks". I can only call it like I see it.
This particular case is one of the easier "slam dunks" to prove fakery, as there are 6 critical points that I've highlighted here (see the doc):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/17wJ8O6-RMlPyQyJa2OZ6VBVuce3fyTrKZonCX6XxZL8/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/document/d/17wJ8O6-RMlPyQyJa2OZ6VBVuce3fyTrKZonCX6XxZL8/edit?usp=sharing)
===
#1: No legitimate Apollogist explanation exists for this Dish Flinging. The attempted explanations they make are all critically flawed.
#2: The dish bounces less with each oscillation (like a pendulum coming to rest). This behavior definitively indicates the presence of Gravity.
#3: With the antenna flung to more than 30 degrees off target, the S-Band should have entirely dropped its signal instead of inserting static. Static was flawed “damage control” on NASAX’s part to cover this up.
#4: “My antenna is OK” (Bean) is the ONLY thing they said about this. This was a big deal, so why was nothing more said about it, or conferring on how to fix it, or mitigate the issue? Why didn’t it show up in the Debriefing? It shows up nowhere else, almost as if it didn’t happen.
#5: There exists a 2-second discrepancy in Audio-Lag compared to the video, which cannot be reconciled. The static was inserted into the audio feed 2-3 seconds too soon. A human error in fakery. The other 3 reference points to indicate timing would all perfectly align to the video if skewed to be earlier by 7 seconds. But this then introduces a 3-second error on the Static insertion. A strong sign of fakery.
#6: Apollo 12’s S-Band Tracked Earth, but they forgot to do this at all for Apollo 11. Does this make sense?
-
But seconds later the dish is magically again attached to your 'guiding cable'? Because it no longer follows your gravity, but stays steadily in one place.
so maybe static fiction holds it steady... or it could have a motorized capability that they engaged to stop it -- to lock it in place.
Wait, besides an external wire they now also put a motor inside to make it stop in case the wire broke?
-
Wait, besides an external wire they now also put a motor inside to make it stop in case the wire broke?
There are multiple ways they could have faked this. They did have Simulation facilities able to Lift/rotate the LM and CSM in any direction (used it once to try and shake broken glass out of an LM). So this AM that we're looking at could be "real" - the MLH theory is that NASAX made use of the simulation facilities/capabilities that were funded by NASA for the "real deal". In parallel, NASAX used them for creating footage.
So the dish could have been put in "neutral" as it was "tracking earth" and then engaged the motors when that failed.
Or if it's a model -- it might not make sense to have just a "fully loose dish armature" - having a why to just "lock it up" (make it rigid) might be all they had to do.
You see, when you are proposing a "magic show" -- there can be many ways to "perform the trick".
When you are proposing "this is real" -- but it turns out how this one did for Apollo 12 -- it can leave you in an indefensible position. I think you are cornered on this one.
-
Wait, besides an external wire they now also put a motor inside to make it stop in case the wire broke?
There are multiple ways they could have faked this. They did have Simulation facilities able to Lift/rotate the LM and CSM in any direction (used it once to try and shake broken glass out of an LM). So this AM that we're looking at could be "real" - the MLH theory is that NASAX made use of the simulation facilities/capabilities that were funded by NASA for the "real deal". In parallel, NASAX used them for creating footage.
So the dish could have been put in "neutral" as it was "tracking earth" and then engaged the motors when that failed.
Show the "Simulation facilities able to Lift/rotate the LM and CSM in any direction" and explain how they made that imagery, with all the rotations seen, without showing any of the simulation devices.
Or if it's a model -- it might not make sense to have just a "fully loose dish armature" - having a why to just "lock it up" (make it rigid) might be all they had to do.
Why how/would they do it? If it was pre-recorded they would simply start over.
You see, when you are proposing a "magic show" -- the story you try to tell becomes move absurd with every line you write.
-
#1: Show the "Simulation facilities able to Lift/rotate the LM and CSM in any direction" and explain how they made that imagery, with all the rotations seen, without showing any of the simulation devices.
#2: Why how/would they do it? If it was pre-recorded they would simply start over.
#1 - I'll retract this statement, as it was based on something I read months ago, but I can't find it... and it's not vital. So I'll concede that I can't prove it exists, and it might not.
#2 - They didn't need to... as you can see, they succeeded big time, "as is". They correctly judged the gullibility of group think, when you are feeding a whole society a message that they all love to believe.
If I had been working for NASAX, I'd be saying "we MUST redo this to get it right" - and my boss would say "nope, it's good enough, let's move on"... and I'd be throwing a FIT... but in the end, my boss would be right -- it really was "Good enough"... 55 years -- all those responsible for NASAX are dead or feebly old.
This will be revealed within the next few years, IMO. It's finally "time".
===
How did they fake it, we may never know. But it's like this - if you see a magic show and they are levitating a person -- you're going to assume fakery here, even if you have no idea how they did the trick.
My primary job here is to show the areas where "NASA Broke Physics" -- therefore there is fakery involved.
I've identified 6 things about this Apollo 12 footage, where some of these are impossible, or very highly improbable, and not feasible to explain from your standpoint.
-
#2 - They didn't need to... as you can see, they succeeded big time, "as is". They correctly judged the gullibility of group think, when you are feeding a whole society a message that they all love to believe.
If I had been working for NASAX, I'd be saying "we MUST redo this to get it right" probable, and not feasible to explain from your standpoint.
And now you realise how absurd your previous story was
having a why to just "lock it up" (make it rigid) might be all they had to do.
you come up with this next, maybe even more absurd, story they took the gamble "it was good enough"
-
you come up with this next, maybe even more absurd, story they took the gamble "it was good enough"
That's how the world works. It wasn't much of a gamble -- people are very gullible. Half of Americans think the USA 2020 Election was Rigged, and half do not -- At least half of all Americans were Hoaxed into believing a lie... it is really that easy. When you tell a lie that "appeals to ALL" (like "look at how awesome we are") - it's a win-win-win. Nixon sold this off as the focal point for "World Peace and Unity".
Back then, individuals had no real "reach" - unless the media sponsored you. But if you were going "Anti-Apollo" - if they let you be seen at all, it would be to make fun of you.
Most of Apollo was real - in my mind. Just not the part where we "did the impossible" and landed men on the moon.
How do you reoncile this footage of Apollo 12 with your current Apollogetic beliefs?
-
That's how the world works. It wasn't much of a gamble -- people are very gullible.
But then again; you're story doesn't match up with your other story where they didn't take the gamble.
The static was inserted into the audio feed 2-3 seconds too soon.
Would have been much easier to just record it again. Your story simply doesn't make any sense at all.
-
Would have been much easier to just record it again. Your story simply doesn't make any sense at all.
Apparently they understood psychology well enough -- making mistakes in plain site, if you simply pretend their real -- simply works. Look at your response to them -- "they can't be mistakes, or they would have just redone them." When you want to believe something, these types of mistakes will never hinder you.
The key to their success was "good enough" and mostly "Make sure you are selling something people REALLY want to believe." -- and it generally works. As we all are witnessing now.
How do you reconcile these critical issues with your current Apollogist beliefs?
-
Would have been much easier to just record it again. Your story simply doesn't make any sense at all.
It's also good to keep in mind the context. This was a "one show and done", no replays, no rewatch analyses, nor forums/groups online where you could find hundreds of others to rewatch and analyze. It was a much lower bar to clear, back then.
Please address the points I raised as critical issues for Apollogists, to reconcile this Apollo 12 footage as Real.
-
Look at your response to them -- "they can't be mistakes, or they would have just redone them."
It is not my response; its yours; You keep redoing your story every time you are confronted with a mistake.
How do you reconcile these critical issues with your current Apollogist beliefs?
Regarding your first two 'critical issues':
No legitimate Apollogist explanation exists for this Dish Flinging.
The steerable s-band antenna was controlled by a knob, it could have been switched. (not saying this happened, but it happened before). Also it is possible the automatic control "lost it". There had been more problems with this antenna.
The dish bounces less with each oscillation (like a pendulum coming to rest). This behavior definitively indicates the presence of Gravity.
Not necessarily, any resistance would have done it. Also if you look at the movement and the abrupt stop of it on one axe this is can't be explained from gravity.
-
#1: The steerable s-band antenna was controlled by a knob, it could have been switched. (not saying this happened, but it happened before). Also it is possible the automatic control "lost it". There had been more problems with this antenna.
#2: Not necessarily, any resistance would have done it. Also if you look at the movement and the abrupt stop of it on one axe this is can't be explained from gravity.
#1 - Your explanation must explain the others, else it's not a "legitimate explanation" -- for example, they simply added "STATIC" rather than cutting the signal. And never mentioned this issue.... only said "My Antenna is OK" -- none of this makes sense, and therefore your #1 explanation fails. Also, when it's "tracking earth" in a rotation like this -- it would also make no sense to ever "use the knob", to do something that is far better done automatically.... as WAS BEING DONE, when the guide cable broke.
#2: Learn more about this physics. For a hinge joint, there are extremes of rotation... if you hit the extreme, then you will BOUNCE off of this extreme, and reverse directions. If you are oscillating to the opposite direction before hitting the extreme.... this then is the real problem. In no gravity, it would ALWAYS go to the "Extreme" then bounce off... But with gravity.. the gravity pulls it back, and so it reverses direction BEFORE hitting the extreme.
For example, if the extreme is 20 degrees... the first few oscillations hit this 20 degrees, but the 3rd/4th one did not, the 5th, 6th, 7th ones got less and less -- yet continued to reverse directions without hitting that 20 degree extreme.
Also -- pendulums in gravity last longer, than does "bounce-based oscillations" because more energy is lost in bouncing.
So with no gravity -- every swing would go to the extreme... bounced, then reverse directions... until friction and elastic-bounce-loss absorbed all of the kinetic energy.
In a Pendulum, you do NOT have the loss from "poorly elastic bounces" -- and so it lasts longer..
Just spelling it out -- as it seemed you didn't have a clear grasp of pendulum science, versus the "no gravity oscillations on a constrained hinge joint".
The "reducing amplitude pendulum motion" is difficult to contend with for Apollogists.
-
#1 - Your explanation must explain the others
Ah, the famous moving goal posts.
#2: Learn more about this physics.
...
But with gravity.. the gravity pulls it back, and so it reverses direction BEFORE hitting the extreme.
Incorrect
So with no gravity -- every swing would go to the extreme... bounced, then reverse directions... until friction and elastic-bounce-loss absorbed all of the kinetic energy.
Incorrect
And again also complete ignoring it was a steerable antenna, the movement you see can even be caused by the automatic mode.
Regarding the following mistake in your story:
This was a "one show and done", no replays, no rewatch analyses,
The only reason we are having this discussion is because NASA released so many detailed information about the missions, and that is not only the imagery.
-
Wait, besides an external wire they now also put a motor inside to make it stop in case the wire broke?
There are multiple ways they could have faked this.
There are multiple ways for you to misinterpret what is happening.
-
#1: If you watch it, and look at the frame caps... or just watch it, because it's obvious -- each time it oscillates, it's LESS. If this were in no-gravity - it would ONLY "slow down" while the amplitude of each oscillation would remain the SAME.. But when you see a pendulum effect that has decreasing amplitude of the oscillations - here is your sign of Gravity.
You don't know what you are doing. You ignored the reply:
Released tension, subsequent inertia and Newton's 3rd law. My use of the words "pendulum effect" are not saying this is a pendulum! Basically it's simply wobbling between the extremes of that which is holding it in place.
I'm seeing the same rhetoric from you as TBFDU uses.
-
#2 - They didn't need to... as you can see, they succeeded big time, "as is". They correctly judged the gullibility of group think, when you are feeding a whole society a message that they all love to believe. If I had been working for NASAX, I'd be saying "we MUST redo this to get it right" - and my boss would say "nope, it's good enough, let's move on"... and I'd be throwing a FIT... but in the end, my boss would be right -- it really was "Good enough"... 55 years -- all those responsible for NASAX are dead or feebly old.
You don't know what you are doing. The whole crux is that NASA deliberately staged this, filmed it, videoed it and scripted dialog discussing it. But on footage in space instead of redoing it, they chose to leave this supposedly telling item up?
Luckily, out of the entire community of people who understand physics, we have you, who is the only one able to see this to crow about how smart you are - demonstrating the logic of a toaster.
-
#1: No legitimate Apollogist explanation exists for this Dish Flinging. The attempted explanations they make are all critically flawed.
Wrong way round. No legitmate hoaxer explanation exists for the S-band dish's movement. All attempted explanations have no supporting evidence, requiring the existence of the greatest conspiracy of all time, in order to work.
#3: With the antenna flung to more than 30 degrees off target, the S-Band should have entirely dropped its signal instead of inserting static. Static was flawed “damage control” on NASAX’s part to cover this up.
You're assuming they were communication via the steerable S-band antenna. Did you know there were three S-band antennae on the LM?
#4: “My antenna is OK” (Bean) is the ONLY thing they said about this. This was a big deal, so why was nothing more said about it, or conferring on how to fix it, or mitigate the issue? Why didn’t it show up in the Debriefing? It shows up nowhere else, almost as if it didn’t happen.
Why would it show up in a briefing? Bean's not referring to the steerable antenna, especially since neither Bean or Conrad could see it, and Gordon didn't comment on it. Don't cherry pick the section from the transcript, you need to read the whole section for the context on what is occurring.
#5: There exists a 2-second discrepancy in Audio-Lag compared to the video, which cannot be reconciled. The static was inserted into the audio feed 2-3 seconds too soon. A human error in fakery. The other 3 reference points to indicate timing would all perfectly align to the video if skewed to be earlier by 7 seconds. But this then introduces a 3-second error on the Static insertion. A strong sign of fakery.
Sure it can be reconciled; the footage being watched has the audio out of sync, since they were recorded separately and were joined at a later date. There we go, reconciled, and no crazy conspiracy required.
#6: Apollo 12’s S-Band Tracked Earth, but they forgot to do this at all for Apollo 11. Does this make sense?
If Intrepid was tracking Earth with the steerable during the ascent, don't you think we should see the steerable move during the docking footage? The only movement is the one in question. It looks like the steerable was pointing at the moon for most of the video in question. Flicking through the various missions, for the returning LM, the majority have the steerable 'hanging' down the side of the LM, with only 17 having it in the same position as 12 as they approached (before 12 moved to the 'hanging' position).
On the side, does anyone know which way the "P" axis was for the steerable? Just looking in the flight plan, and it looks like the steerable is supposed to go to P=+90 Y=0 when the MFSN is out of line of sight.
-
You still haven't answered my question please note a time stamp when the dish falls away with gravity?
Answered above -- I RETRACTED this statement. It does not "FALL away" -- it is being pulled/stressed by a guiding cable, trying to create the effect of "Tracking Earth" - -when the cable breaks, the dish "flings" with force... then oscillates like a pendulum ONLY would with Gravity...
Hogwash, a pendulum effect is in action here and the motion. At each end some of the inertia is dissipated until none exists, and it stops, you are so bad at this.
-
There are multiple ways for you to misinterpret what is happening.
Given that the Apollogist explanation (i.e. "it was real") has 5 identified critical issues that make it seemingly "impossible" - this forces us to hypothesize about "well then, what did really happen with this footage?"
I'd like to hear one legitimate explanation from the Apollogists for this one.
I modified my article page 2 to degrade the "2 second audio skew" to "supplemental", because this will consume more time than it's worth. We can stick with the remaining 5.
-
I'm seeing the same rhetoric from you as TBFDU uses.
Granted Jarrah White and I appear to be cut from similar stones.
And I'm seeing the same form of posturing from YOU specifically that I've seen many times from Fundamentalist Christians defending their Book.
-
#1: Wrong way round. No legitmate hoaxer explanation exists for the S-band dish's movement. All attempted explanations have no supporting evidence, requiring the existence of the greatest conspiracy of all time, in order to work.
#2: You're assuming they were communication via the steerable S-band antenna. Did you know there were three S-band antennae on the LM?
#1: When you go to a magic show and they cut the woman in half, and you say "It's true until PROVEN WRONG". I'm making the point that "this impossible claim requires great evidence to support it."
This footage of Apollo 12 falls completely apart for Apollogists. The onus on them is to provide "just one legitimate explanation" - but for this, they cannot. If it really happened, this should be an easy chore.
#2: "3 S-Band Antennas...." - well the documents and Google AI say "there was ONE" that was used for communications with earth, and that this one is the one that flopped around madly, without causing a loss of signal.
For those who say "it was routed through the CSM" -- why then did they insert a massive amount of static at the point of the incident? (but with 2 second skew mistake) ??? If it was routed through the CSM, then why the sudden surge in static?
This footage is a slam dunk for MLH theory. They're cutting a woman in half, and Apollogists are claiming it's real, but with no viable explanation for it.
-
And I'm seeing the same form of posturing from YOU specifically that I've seen many times from Fundamentalist Christians defending their Book.
Bollocks. I'm defending what I understand with things that form part of my understanding. You are just refusing to address the ones that prove you are wrong.
-
Bollocks. I'm defending what I understand with things that form part of my understanding. You are just refusing to address the ones that prove you are wrong.
As were they.
-
#1: When you go to a magic show and they cut the woman in half, and you say "It's true until PROVEN WRONG". I'm making the point that "this impossible claim requires great evidence to support it."
This footage of Apollo 12 falls completely apart for Apollogists. The onus on them is to provide "just one legitimate explanation" - but for this, they cannot. If it really happened, this should be an easy chore.
#2: "3 S-Band Antennas...." - well the documents and Google AI say "there was ONE" that was used for communications with earth, and that this one is the one that flopped around madly, without causing a loss of signal.
#1 - This has been provided, with a few potential ideas, none of which require a massively complicated conspiracy to achieve (a conspiracy that has yet to be demonstrated)
#2 - You should probably look at some actual Apollo documents. I have several on the LM, all of which show three S-band antennae (even shots of the LM control panels refer to the different antenna).
-
#1 - This has been provided, with a few potential ideas, none of which require a massively complicated conspiracy to achieve (a conspiracy that has yet to be demonstrated)
#2 - You should probably look at some actual Apollo documents. I have several on the LM, all of which show three S-band antennae (even shots of the LM control panels refer to the different antenna).
Thank you for the kindness in your tone. This seems to be in short-supply here. I feel the warmth.
#1 - I'm not seeing any hypothesis yet that explains the 5 Critical issues. Can you direct me to this singular hypothesis?
#2 - Yes, would love to look at MORE. I've seen some, but am actually looking for the "repository of LM documents".. what all is Left of these? The MLH claim is that the vast majority of them were thrown out. As of yet, I cannot find a single Apollogist who will guide me to finding MORE... If you'll do this -- I would be grateful. Does such a centralized repository exist?
My sincere goal here is 100% integrity. I don't want to make any claims that are False or unsubstantiated - and so when I do, I appreciate the corrections.
I see the fore/aft S BAND mini-antennas... but unsure of their purpose or reason for existence, nor their SNR range/effectiveness. They appear to be "omni-directional" which is WAY worse than the directional/steerable Dish, which can send it's FULL signal specifically with a narrow beam (0.5 deg wide? -- this is where LM design docs would come in handy - where are they?)
SNR for a Dish vs. omni-antenna differs by up to 100,000 : 1, depending upon the narrowness of the Dish beam.
-
Thank you for the kindness in your tone. This seems to be in short-supply here. I feel the warmth.
Would you like me to compile your petty jibes made upon your noisy arrival?
#1 - I'm not seeing any hypothesis yet that explains the 5 Critical issues. Can you direct me to this singular hypothesis?
There are no critical issues. The LM is rotating, the dish motion is not tied to it in any discernible fashion. The LM contines moving after the dish stops.
My sincere goal here is 100% integrity. I don't want to make any claims that are False or unsubstantiated - and so when I do, I appreciate the corrections.
Which absolutely doesn't involve insulting people when you don't understand the subject yourself.
"Again, it seems I'm dealing with people here who do not understand basic simple high school physics.
@Allen F - you promised me "smart scientific minds" here. Please summon them, ASAP. "
-
I've been told by the Master Overseers of this forum that I haven't sufficiently addressed the objections to my thesis.
To be clear, my thesis here is ONLY THIS:
I believe there has been no fully viable hypothesis presented here that can explain all 5 critical issues that I've identified for this Apollo 12 Rendezvous clip.
If I've missed such a hypothesis, please tell me what it is.
If you'd like to present such a hypothesis, please do so now. Be complete.
Otherwise, what else is there to do with this thread? It's time to pause it, until someone steps forward to propose a viable hypothesis.
-
As with your other threads, you have had perfectly reasonable explanations for the behaviour you've identified.
Not hypothesis, explanation.
The problem isn't that those explanations aren't correct, it's that you don't like them. In expressing your disagreement you've also exposed your lack of knowledge and understanding about Apollo hardware and processes, and displayed an attitude that us really not likely to persuade anyone in charge of the forum to do you any favours.
-
I see the fore/aft S BAND mini-antennas... but unsure of their purpose or reason for existence,
Ahh, you mean the S-band inflight antennae. Guess when they were used?
-
You don't know what you are doing. The whole crux is that NASA deliberately staged this, filmed it, videoed it and scripted dialog discussing it. But on footage in space instead of redoing it, they chose to leave this supposedly telling item up?
Luckily, out of the entire community of people who understand physics, we have you, who is the only one able to see this to crow about how smart you are - demonstrating the logic of a toaster.
You don't know what you are doing. You ignored the reply:
Released tension, subsequent inertia and Newton's 3rd law. My use of the words "pendulum effect" are not saying this is a pendulum! Basically it's simply wobbling between the extremes of that which is holding it in place.
24 seconds from event beginning:
(https://i.ibb.co/YLgqN72/9clgm9.gif)
Next 24 seconds:
(https://i.ibb.co/rMxY9vC/9clguf.gif)
It stops moving even as the LM continues to rotate. And another of these stupid threads bites the dust. Should we "agree to disagree"?
This actually proves they are in space, the dish comes loose, flops about on its mounting , unaffected by the LM moving and stops completely even when the LM continues moving. The LM after it completes its rotation then yaws left and the dish doesn't move even a tiny bit.
-
displayed an attitude that us really not likely to persuade anyone in charge of the forum to do you any favours.
That's an issue. Why do I need "favors" from the Forum Overseers? I don't want favors... just the semblance of equal treatment. I am EQUALLY opposed to MLH forums treating Apollogists in this fashion, and almost got banned by the MLH'ers for being to empathetic towards Apollogists. I consider Apollogists who are willing to venture into MLH dens as rare/goldmines. But the MLH forum overseers just consider them Lying Trolls. They can't imagine how these Apollogists could genuinely believe the Apollo Lie.
This is how humans are wired. Confirmation Bias and Tribalism.. And viewing as evil/bad anyone who challenges their tightly held worldviews.
I'm glad for this forum, because at least here, my opposition isn't treated like crap. On MLH forums, I have to try and take people offline into private chat for more meaningful discussions, to avoid the "crap that is thrown at them from the side viewers".
I believe I'm making some points here that are uncomfortable for Apollogists.. and the response I'm seeing is "normative" for human wiring. I can't blame people for being "human"... although I do hope to see better.
-
Ahh, you mean the S-band inflight antennae. Guess when they were used?
Got any info on these antennas? SNR/range? And if they were good enough for use, why was the Apollo 12 S-Band dish trying to track earth, before the "fling incident"?
The SNR (signal-to-noise) ratios for a Non-Directional antenna (typical 3-10 dB gain), and depends upon reception angle), vs. a Dish (30-40dB gain) - 500 to 5,000 times better signal.
If you can find any information on the SNR/specs for these other two mostly undiscussed antenna, that might be news to the world. I wouldn't be surprised if these specs were destroyed with the other docs on the LM design that were destroyed.
-
This actually proves they are in space, the dish comes loose, flops about on its mounting , unaffected by the LM moving and stops completely even when the LM continues moving. The LM after it completes its rotation then yaws left and the dish doesn't move even a tiny bit.
Here are the 5 Critical Issues I've identified. Can you describe a Hypothesis that covers all 5?
#1: No legitimate Apollogist explanation exists for this Dish Flinging. The attempted explanations they make are all critically flawed.
#2: The dish bounces less with each oscillation (like a pendulum coming to rest). This behavior definitively indicates the presence of Gravity.
#3: With the antenna flung to more than 30 degrees off target, the S-Band should have entirely dropped its signal instead of inserting static. Static was flawed “damage control” on NASAX’s part to cover this up.
#4: “My antenna is OK” (Bean) is the ONLY thing they said about this. This was a big deal, so why was nothing more said about it, or conferring on how to fix it, or mitigate the issue? Why didn’t it show up in the Debriefing? It shows up nowhere else, almost as if it didn’t happen.
#5: Apollo 12’s S-Band Tracked Earth, but they forgot to do this at all for Apollo 11. Does this make sense?
If not, then my statement stands:
I believe there has been no fully viable hypothesis presented here that can explain all 5 critical issues that I've identified for this Apollo 12 Rendezvous clip.
Or if you'd like to just address a subset of these -- please do, and be specific about which claim you are refuting.
-
Here are the 5 Critical Issues I've identified.
Bollocks, your claim they are critical doesn't make it so.
Can you describe a Hypothesis that covers all 5?
I can describe one that creates them, obfuscation and inability to concede the obvious.
#1: No legitimate Apollogist explanation exists for this Dish Flinging. The attempted explanations they make are all critically flawed.
A pathetic and irrelevant observation. The cause of the event is not suspicious in any way. Any perceived "flaw" by you can automatically be dismissed as confirmation bias.
#2: The dish bounces less with each oscillation (like a pendulum coming to rest). This behavior definitively indicates the presence of Gravity.
Asked and answered!
#3: With the antenna flung to more than 30 degrees off target, the S-Band should have entirely dropped its signal instead of inserting static. Static was flawed “damage control” on NASAX’s part to cover this up.
Asked and answered.
#4: “My antenna is OK” (Bean) is the ONLY thing they said about this. This was a big deal, so why was nothing more said about it, or conferring on how to fix it, or mitigate the issue? Why didn’t it show up in the Debriefing? It shows up nowhere else, almost as if it didn’t happen.
Your assessment of it being a "big deal" is irrelevant. The "if I ran the zoo" bollocks again. No evidence of any hoax.
#5: Apollo 12’s S-Band Tracked Earth, but they forgot to do this at all for Apollo 11. Does this make sense?
No idea, don't care. I'm sure JayUtah and a few others know this. You have stop acting the goat and maybe you'l get an answer. Not evidence of a hoax!
If not, then my statement stands:
I believe there has been no fully viable hypothesis presented here that can explain all 5 critical issues that I've identified for this Apollo 12 Rendezvous clip.
Strawman irrelevance.
How about you address my post - which answers the ridiculous claims in the first place!
It stops moving even as the LM continues to rotate. And another of these stupid threads bites the dust. Should we "agree to disagree"?
This actually proves they are in space, the dish comes loose, flops about on its mounting , unaffected by the LM moving and stops completely even when the LM continues moving. The LM after it completes its rotation then yaws left and the dish doesn't move even a tiny bit.
-
This actually proves they are in space, the dish comes loose, flops about on its mounting , unaffected by the LM moving and stops completely even when the LM continues moving. The LM after it completes its rotation then yaws left and the dish doesn't move even a tiny bit.[/b]
If you'd like to write up your response in a more comprehensive fashion, I'll include this in my document as your claim that you've adequately handled all 5 of my Critical issues.
Currently your response is on page 8 of the document - I'll give you a whole section here, how do you want it to look?:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/17wJ8O6-RMlPyQyJa2OZ6VBVuce3fyTrKZonCX6XxZL8/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/document/d/17wJ8O6-RMlPyQyJa2OZ6VBVuce3fyTrKZonCX6XxZL8/edit?usp=sharing)
-
Here are the 5 Critical Issues I've identified. Can you describe a Hypothesis that covers all 5?
#1: No legitimate Apollogist explanation exists for this Dish Flinging. The attempted explanations they make are all critically flawed.
#2: The dish bounces less with each oscillation (like a pendulum coming to rest). This behavior definitively indicates the presence of Gravity.
#3: With the antenna flung to more than 30 degrees off target, the S-Band should have entirely dropped its signal instead of inserting static. Static was flawed “damage control” on NASAX’s part to cover this up.
#4: “My antenna is OK” (Bean) is the ONLY thing they said about this. This was a big deal, so why was nothing more said about it, or conferring on how to fix it, or mitigate the issue? Why didn’t it show up in the Debriefing? It shows up nowhere else, almost as if it didn’t happen.
#5: Apollo 12’s S-Band Tracked Earth, but they forgot to do this at all for Apollo 11. Does this make sense?
#1 - This isn't a "critical" issue, it's nothing more than you hand waving away any explanation with nothing more than you don't like it.
#2 - And you have the working knowledge and details on how the S-band steerable moved? What resistances were included in the mechanisms? Was there a neutral position for the equipment, that it could return to when unpowered? Was it powered or unpowered at the time?
#3 - Demonstrate that they were using the S-band steerable during the docking procedures, rather than the S-band inflight antennae.
#4 - Bean wasn't referring to the S-band steerable, how could he be? He couldn't see it, so he wouldn't know of it's movement, and Gordon doesn't mention it either, being the only person who could see it. I'd recommend going back a few minutes in the transcript to get the context of the conversation, perhaps look at what Conrad was doing at the time (hint: it might have something to do with those pesky inflight antennae)
#5 - If the steerable was tracking the Earth during the docking procedures, why can't we see it move? Have you established where the Earth was at the time? From what I can tell, the S-band steerable is pointing in the wrong direction, it's pointing at the moon.
There we go, turns out you don't have 5 critical points, you only have a list of personal incredulity.
-
...
OK, pasted your rebuttal onto page 9.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/17wJ8O6-RMlPyQyJa2OZ6VBVuce3fyTrKZonCX6XxZL8/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/document/d/17wJ8O6-RMlPyQyJa2OZ6VBVuce3fyTrKZonCX6XxZL8/edit?usp=sharing)
I may make a counter-rebuttal, at which point you can adjust your FIRST rebuttal as you deem fit, to invalidate/pre-address my counter rebuttal. What I won't have in this document is more than one back-and-forth. I Claim, you Rebut, then I counter-rebut... and then you get to revise your rebuttal in retrospect, until you are done with revisions. So that in the end, the reader will see: "Claim, Rebuttal, Counter-Rebuttal"...
And yes, this whole KB is designed to highlight Apollo from MLH perspective, but NOT WITHIN AN MLH VACUUM.... nor done in a fashion whereby I'll be slimy and highlight "but the FIRST TIME YOU SAID XYZ.... you have no credibility, look at you changing your story!"... Nope, we're on the same team here. I won't disrespect you in that way.
-
OK, pasted your rebuttal onto page 9.
Mom!! Look Mom, I'm famous!!!
So that in the end, the reader will see: "Claim, Rebuttal, Counter-Rebuttal"...
You've missed a very important step there; Claim, Evidence that supports claim...
-
OK, pasted your rebuttal onto page 9.
Mom!! Look Mom, I'm famous!!!
So that in the end, the reader will see: "Claim, Rebuttal, Counter-Rebuttal"...
You've missed a very important step there; Claim, Evidence that supports claim...
He's also apparently missed the bloody point of this thread - the title - post 80 clearly shows that any diminishing movement is not changed as the LM rotates, well past the point it stops. It then yaws 180 degrees and the "loose" dish doesn't move a single bit.
Now why would anyone think gravity is in play when the movement shows no correlation with any of the position changes?
-
He's also apparently missed the bloody point of this thread - the title - post 80 clearly shows that any diminishing movement is not changed as the LM rotates, well past the point it stops. It then yaws 180 degrees and the "loose" dish doesn't move a single bit.
Now why would anyone think gravity is in play when the movement shows no correlation with any of the position changes?
Does my document cover your objections adequately? You've got page 8, "Apollogist Counter Argument #1".
https://docs.google.com/document/d/17wJ8O6-RMlPyQyJa2OZ6VBVuce3fyTrKZonCX6XxZL8/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/document/d/17wJ8O6-RMlPyQyJa2OZ6VBVuce3fyTrKZonCX6XxZL8/edit?usp=sharing)
I'd like to reference you by username if you are OK with that.
-
Does my document cover your objections adequately? You've got page 8, "Apollogist Counter Argument #1".
https://docs.google.com/document/d/17wJ8O6-RMlPyQyJa2OZ6VBVuce3fyTrKZonCX6XxZL8/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/document/d/17wJ8O6-RMlPyQyJa2OZ6VBVuce3fyTrKZonCX6XxZL8/edit?usp=sharing)
I'd like to reference you by username if you are OK with that.
Why don't you quit your "historical document" bollocks and admit the obvious - here? The dish shows no correlation movement with a rotating LM and stops during continued movement. It doesn't move at all during a full 180 yaw.
Your OP claim is a load of old baloney. A "smart physicist" would look at that footage and think it must be in an environment where gravity is NOT in effect.
-
Why don't you quit your "historical document" bollocks and admit the obvious - here? The dish shows no correlation movement with a rotating LM and stops during continued movement. It doesn't move at all during a full 180 yaw.
Your OP claim is a load of old baloney. A "smart physicist" would look at that footage and think it must be in an environment where gravity is NOT in effect.
I'll state my stance ONE MORE TIME -- but this is just a REPEAT of stuff I've already said. So we're beating a dead horse.
Pendulums do NOT run on momentum-- they run on the oscillation between stored/potential energy (from elevation) and kinetic energy (maximized at the bottom of the swing)...
So a slow rotation, doesn't mean that the dish, will stop the pendulum effect... So long as "down is relatively down" (and 15 degrees of rotation doesn't change this enough) -- gravity will continue to drive a pendulum activity -- even with a slow rotation.
The rotation may help to bring it to a stop quicker, but will not STOP it ...
What makes this a CLEAR pendulum is the REVERSAL OF DIRECTION BEFORE IT REACHES THE EXTREME HINGE CONSTRAINT.
The first couple bounces reflect off of this hinge-constraint... the next 7 oscillations DO NOT. This dish changes direction BEFORE reaching the constraint? What causes it to keep swinging back and forth without a rebound off of the constraint?
If gravity were present, THIS would explain this motion entirely.
Without gravity, what is a viable explanation for these motion reversals??? No viable explanations have been presented yet.
At the very end, after oscillation #9 - the oscillation suddenly STOPS/STICKS... You will see NO MORE PIXEL OSCILLATIONS after that... it's sudden, but small.
Why did it suddenly stop at the very end? Unsure. We both have viable explanations for how it suddenly became "rigidly held in place", and I do not claim otherwise.
So this "sticking" explains why it doesn't move freely after that.
Here's the video close-up for reference. I suggest downloading it, and viewing in Media Player for a good view. The "stoppage" occurs right at about 11.7 seconds... before that it was moving according to a decaying pendulum.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ta2jL43_1NLGuCjDJg8VkfkbbVhkkNXz/view?usp=drive_link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ta2jL43_1NLGuCjDJg8VkfkbbVhkkNXz/view?usp=drive_link)
I get that you don't like my explanation - so write up the rebuttal you want to be included in the document, and I'll paste it in.
There's no point to you and I continuing this repetition. Agree to Disagree. We disagree -- that's to be expected. This doesn't mean one of us is being disingenuous.
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2022.0;attach=1256)
-
What makes this a CLEAR pendulum is the REVERSAL OF DIRECTION BEFORE IT REACHES THE EXTREME HINGE CONSTRAINT.
How do you know this, can you look inside the mechanism of the disc?
We both have viable explanations for how it suddenly became "rigidly held in place", and I do not claim otherwise.
In your theory they must have build in 2 separate 'stop' mechanisms which they enabled when the 'string' snapped; So they knew the string could snap and build in all these mechanisms to catch it, instead of simply redoing the image; again there is no logic in your story.
-
#1: How do you know this, can you look inside the mechanism of the disc?
#2: In your theory they must have build in 2 separate 'stop' mechanisms which they enabled when the 'string' snapped;
#1: we can witness the VERY FAST REBOUNDING for the first 2 bounces -- they are actual "Bounces" indicated by an IMMEDIATE CHANGE IN DIRECTION.
Then it begins to operate like a pendulum... before each reversal there was a deceleration then acceleration... it slowed down, stopped, then reversed.
We can see this clearly from the video.
#2: In my theory, the "guide wire" was "makeshift" to try and fix what they forgot to do from Apollo 11 (which was to have it track earth at all).
So this model wasn't just cheap plastic -- it could have been a real AM... or a model with some mechanisms inside. Perhaps the ONLY thing they had on this armature was an electronic "brake" of some sort... that just "held in in place".
They didn't think up this "guide wire" technique until Apollo 12, yet still used the same module as Apollo 11.
===
My hypothesis is that NASAX was largely a Military-run operation... the leadership were military leaders, not engineers. So when mistakes were made, they had a schedule -maybe running behind and so for many mistakes said "that's good enough; no one will notice" -- and "if they do - people won't let them poop on the parade"... And they were right.. These mistakes were kept, not fixed - and it made NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL. Everyone believed it just the same.
Similar to how Christians will overlook the 91+ times of genocide commanded by Moses then Joshua, as they proclaim Yahweh to be All Loving and opposed to baby slaughter. :) They overlook whatever nuances stand in their way, to hold to the beliefs that serve them. Apollo has always behaved much like a religion. I don't blame people for this -- it's how we're wired. I think it's good to realize this, as you assess reality though.
-
#1: we can witness the VERY FAST REBOUNDING for the first 2 bounces -- they are actual "Bounces" indicated by an IMMEDIATE CHANGE IN DIRECTION.
Then it begins to operate like a pendulum... before each reversal there was a deceleration then acceleration... it slowed down, stopped, then reversed.
We can see this clearly from the video.
The first 2 "bounces" are on a different axis as the other, and all of this can be simply be the motor controller dealing with it. No need for gravity.
You hypothesis simply doesn't hold; According to you all the people involved knew they were making something that didn't work
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19650025875/downloads/19650025875.pdf
-
#2: In my theory, the "guide wire" was "makeshift" to try and fix what they forgot to do from Apollo 11 (which was to have it track earth at all).
So this model wasn't just cheap plastic -- it could have been a real AM... or a model with some mechanisms inside. Perhaps the ONLY thing they had on this armature was an electronic "brake" of some sort... that just "held in in place".
They didn't think up this "guide wire" technique until Apollo 12, yet still used the same module as Apollo 11.
===
My hypothesis is that NASAX was largely a Military-run operation... the leadership were military leaders, not engineers. So when mistakes were made, they had a schedule -maybe running behind and so for many mistakes said "that's good enough; no one will notice" -- and "if they do - people won't let them poop on the parade"... And they were right.. These mistakes were kept, not fixed - and it made NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL. Everyone believed it just the same.
Still waiting for a single piece of evidence to support any of those claims there.
-
#1: The first 2 "bounces" are on a different axis as the other, and all of this can be simply be the motor controller dealing with it. No need for gravity.
#2: You hypothesis simply doesn't hold; According to you all the people involved knew they were making something that didn't work
#1: The motor controller was clearly active before it snapped/flung wildly (for a couple bounces), not at all like the fine tuned motor control. None of this motion after the fling: (a) matched the type of rigid motion this motor was doing or designed to do, and (b) this flinging off target, would make no sense. This dish was the primary means for communication with MSFN, with more than 100x the SNR (dB gain) of the Omni antenna. The behavior here - makes zero sense to their mission. If it failed, why not mention it failing and switching over to backup antenna? Instead Bean simply says, within a few seconds afterward, "my antenna is OK". No failures mentioned anywhere in their transcript or journal or Debrief.
#2: The MLH theory is that 99.9% of NASA was operating under the presumption that it was ALL real... doing their work as though it were all real, and believed it. This could make for a good new thread, the MLH theory of NASAX, and the compartmentalization of NASA as a whole. I worked in such an environment for Lockheed for 4 years, writing Sonar Signal Processing algorithms for the Seawolf Submarine. After my work "passed component testing" it was sent on to Integration testing, and then onto System Testing then to Field Testing.. But I saw NONE OF IT... I didn't even know who was on those teams, or which room they worked in. If Seawolf Submarine was partially dysfunctional -- I would have had no clue. It was a matter of National Security that groups NOT talk to each other -- Need to Know Basis was a strict serious rule.
-
#1: The motor controller was clearly active before it snapped/flung wildly (for a couple bounces), not at all like the fine tuned motor control. None of this motion after the fling: (a) matched the type of rigid motion this motor was doing or designed to do, and (b) this flinging off target, would make no sense. This dish was the primary means for communication with MSFN, with more than 100x the SNR (dB gain) of the Omni antenna. The behavior here - makes zero sense to their mission. If it failed, why not mention it failing and switching over to backup antenna? Instead Bean simply says, within a few seconds afterward, "my antenna is OK". No failures mentioned anywhere in their transcript or journal or Debrief.
It's as if you can't actually read properly or see things properly. Shortly after, the astronauts threw this great big machine away. What you interpret as the motion you think it matched, means nothing. It stopped completely after wobbling, even when the LM carried on moving.
Once again your claim doesn't match the visual account and the absence of LM correlated motion prove that it cannot be down to gravity.
-
Once again your claim doesn't match the visual account and the absence of LM correlated motion prove that it cannot be down to gravity.
yes it requires him a person to pull a string and another one to pull the brakes one the s-band antenna when the string would snap. They were really prepared at NASA.
-
Still waiting for a single piece of evidence to support any of those claims there.
That's not evidence that will ever be available, unless Buzz Aldrin spills the beans before he dies. They made a lot of small (but provable) mess-ups with Physics - but they weren't dumb enough to leave a huge gaping paper trail.
The basis of the MLH argument is to produce a "List of things that NASA Claimed which was impossible". e.g. Apollo cannot break physics.
If you see a VIDEO of a man chopping a woman in half, then just squeezes her back together... you are allowed to say "I don't believe that this footage is genuine" even if you cannot prove HOW he actually pulled off this illusion. The evidence of him doing something IMPOSSIBLE can justify your disbelief.
So if you hypothesize, "I think he used mirrors", someone can't rightfully say "that's stupid, because YOU CANNOT PROVE HE USED MIRRORS, therefore your conclusion is stupid and unfounded." You are justified to disbelieve the footage based upon the occurrence of something that is provably not possible, or a series of occurrences that are extremely unlikely.
-
#1: The motor controller was clearly active before it snapped/flung wildly (for a couple bounces), not at all like the fine tuned motor control.
Please tell me how the motor control worked....
#2: The MLH theory is that 99.9% of NASA was operating under the presumption that it was ALL real... doing their work as though it were all real, and believed it.
So how much of the steerable S-band antenna did work? Wat it motor controlled, could it be used in automatic mode. Was it capable of doing the communications?
For just this small part to fake you already needed hundreds of people involved.
-
yes it requires him a person to pull a string and another one to pull the brakes one the s-band antenna when the string would snap. They were really prepared at NASA.
In my hypothesis, the guide wire was simply attached some where to create the effect of Tracking. No one was at the other end.
For Apollogist theory and mine - there was a loosely wobbling antenna that "stiffened up". Neither of us knows why it stiffened up... but stiff it became. Which explains why it became motionless after that.
The motion prior to stiffening, emulated a pendulum motion -- reversing directions after deceleration, and before reaching the hinge limits.
-
They made a lot of small (but provable) mess-ups with Physics - but they weren't dumb enough to leave a huge gaping paper trail.
You have demonstrated ineptitude with Newtonian physics and your claimed "mess-ups" are mainly down to your baseless opinions.
The basis of the MLH argument is to produce a "List of things that NASA Claimed which was impossible". e.g. Apollo cannot break physics.
A list so far that has no entries.
If you see a VIDEO of a man chopping a woman in half, then just squeezes her back together... you are allowed to say "I don't believe that this footage is genuine" even if you cannot prove HOW he actually pulled off this illusion. The evidence of him doing something IMPOSSIBLE can justify your disbelief.
Did he really just spam the magician analogy again?
-
#1: Please tell me how the motor control worked....
#2: So how much of the steerable S-band antenna did work? Wat it motor controlled, could it be used in automatic mode. Was it capable of doing the communications?
For just this small part to fake you already needed hundreds of people involved.
#1: The other motions we witness from this motor are expected --relatively slow and stiff movements, consistent with a servo-motor. High fidelity steady motion.
#2: I have no idea if this was a partially functional model, or a full-sized real model. Or somewhere in between.
What I do know is that the side-to-side motion matches a pendulum motion... and as of yet, I've heard no reasonable explanations how this behavior could have happened in no gravity.
It is not required for me to know the "how did they fake this", to make an observation that "this pendulum behavior makes no sense without gravity."
-
In my hypothesis, the guide wire was simply attached some where to create the effect of Tracking. No one was at the other end.
What the hell are you even talking about? It looks like a mechanism to hold it in place broke.
For Apollogist theory and mine - there was a loosely wobbling antenna that "stiffened up".
Bollocks! It looks like it became loose of one part holding it and simply oscillated back and forth against something else also holding it.
Neither of us knows why it stiffened up.
And bollocks again. It simply ran out of inertia.
but stiff it became. Which explains why it became motionless after that.
An exercise in hyperbole to avoid the obvious. Something gave way under some tension. It was still held in place by something else. It oscillates back and forth - lessening inertia.
At no stage does anything related to the moving LM correlate to its movement. Once it stops moving, obviously not connected to gravity, it stops completely.
That is what the visual record shows and your admission of this will not be forthcoming because we have an ascent stage with the Moon behind it, approaching the CSM for final docking.
The motion prior to stiffening, emulated a pendulum motion -- reversing directions after deceleration, and before reaching the hinge limits.
It rocked back and forth, impacting first one extremity then the other. Pendulums move for far longer than what we are seeing! It is clearly an impact-declining process.
-
#1: The other motions we witness from this motor are expected --relatively slow and stiff movements, consistent with a servo-motor. High fidelity steady motion.
Incorrect. It has been noted in Apollo 16 there were also problems with the steerable S-Band antenna oscillating.
It is not required for me to know the "how did they fake this", to make an observation that "this pendulum behavior makes no sense without gravity."[/b]
You have been giving more then one explanation as of how this behaviour could happen, but you simply ignore them.
-
You have been giving more then one explanation as of how this behaviour could happen, but you simply ignore them.
There are 5 key points to be addressed. I've PASTED into the doc responses from 2. Would you like to posit your own ideas too? You should collectively get together and decide what the best response is to each of these... and I'll include it into the document. I want to post the VERY BEST REFUTATIONS YOU GOT... so have at it. I'm not ignoring... Give me your best.
Apollo 16 "Oscilliations of antenna" -- got a link?
One thing we do know is Apollo 12 did NOT have any reported issues at all with this antenna, nor any transcript to acknowledge it. I think they were just hoping no one noticed -- and THEY WERE RIGHT-- nobody noticed or cared about these mistakes.
-
There are 5 key points to be addressed.
Repeating your lie. Addressed by more than one user and they are not key points. They are just your attempts to divert from the dish stopping completely - way faster than a pendulum would and subsequently staying stopped. Clearly to an honest and competent physicist, not in gravity.
Those are the key points and your squirming diversion won't alter that.
-
Apollo 16 "Oscilliations of antenna" -- got a link?
096:18:53 Duke (LM comm): Okay, look up over my - our right side and look at that antenna, the - the steerable, and see how it - it's moving. I'm going to move it in pitch, then in yaw. Over.
096:19:05 Mattingly: Okay, on your right side. Okay: I got it, and it's moving in - It looks like a combination now. It's moving though. It's oscillating at this time.
096:19:17 Duke (LM): Okay, it should be stable
096:19:XX Mattingly: Now it's steady.
https://www.nasa.gov/history/afj/ap16fj/15_Day5_pt3.html
I think they were just hoping no one noticed -- and THEY WERE RIGHT-- nobody noticed or cared about these mistakes.
Incorrect, previously you claimed they must have altered the audio, it would have been very easy to insert it into the flight journals too.
But now you already have to add an additional wire, two stopping mechanisms and an audio edit to your story; it keeps adding up.
-
If you see a VIDEO of a man chopping a woman in half, then just squeezes her back together... you are allowed to say "I don't believe that this footage is genuine" even if you cannot prove HOW he actually pulled off this illusion. The evidence of him doing something IMPOSSIBLE can justify your disbelief.
Please stop with the tortured analogy. You're comparing an illusion, that absolutely every viewer know is an illusion, with a decade long program, employing hundreds of thousands of people, with extensive documentation and evidence, that is understood to be authentic by nearly everyone for over 5 decades.
At best, this analogy is just a terrible representation of the situation, and at worst and more likely, is a deliberate attempt to superimpose your foregone conclusion that Apollo is fake by presenting it as nothing more than a magic trick in your analogy. Either way, stop. If you are unwilling or unable to use a valid analogy then don't use one at all.
-
096:18:53 Duke (LM comm): Okay, look up over my - our right side and look at that antenna, the - the steerable, and see how it - it's moving. I'm going to move it in pitch, then in yaw. Over.
096:19:05 Mattingly: Okay, on your right side. Okay: I got it, and it's moving in - It looks like a combination now. It's moving though. It's oscillating at this time.
096:19:17 Duke (LM): Okay, it should be stable
096:19:XX Mattingly: Now it's steady.
https://www.nasa.gov/history/afj/ap16fj/15_Day5_pt3.html
Incorrect, previously you claimed they must have altered the audio, it would have been very easy to insert it into the flight journals too.
Thanks for the link. Do you know where the video footage is of this excerpt?
Note that they are talking about it for over 14 seconds... so it was oscillating beforehand before he first spoke on it. Compare this to the 3 second "flung oscillation" of the Apollo 12.... It was very dramatic at the beginning, but settled out like a pendulum -- in about 3 seconds total. Not 20 seconds.
So these don't seem to correlate at all. Do you agree?
-
At best, this analogy is just a terrible representation of the situation, and at worst and more likely, is a deliberate attempt to superimpose your foregone conclusion that Apollo is fake by presenting it as nothing more than a magic trick in your analogy. Either way, stop. If you are unwilling or unable to use a valid analogy then don't use one at all.
You make a good point. I'll think of a better analogy, as the heart surgeon one you provided is also not good.
1. It implies he's doing something "truly useful to humankind" (healing someone) - vs. a stunt that doesn't help anyone directly.
2. It doesn't include this doctor spending $Billions in tax payer money to do this "stunt" that serves no one, while needs here on earth are neglected.
3. It needs to be Televised from a location with only 3 live witnesses, all of which are ex-military men.
4. It needs to be tied to a "Cold War / Fear" where success helps to address/alleviate this fear/competition.
5. After they are done, they destroy the most hard to fake evidence, such as the most of the medical research papers that would be essential for someone to repeat the task.
6. The guys who did this stunt initially all resign, and one won't even celebrate it at established events.
7. The guy who headed up this whole program, resigns just a few months before they finally succeed.
8. The guy who blows the whistle on "what is really happening" gets killed 6 days later, late at night, by a one-car train... and his 500-page report goes missing.
9. After the stunt is completed, Nixon sells it off like a New World Religion -- the focal point for "World Peace and Unity"... so anyone who opposes it is also pooping on World Peace and Unity, capped off by a friendly Russian alliance by May 1972. Lots of optimism flowing around - all hinged on Apollo's claim.
Something like this would be a better analogy.
-
You make a good point. I'll think of a better analogy, as the heart surgeon one you provided is also not good.
1. It implies he's doing something "truly useful to humankind" (healing someone) - vs. a stunt that doesn't help anyone directly.
2. It doesn't include this doctor spending $Billions in tax payer money to do this "stunt" that serves no one, while needs here on earth are neglected.
3. It needs to be Televised from a location with only 3 live witnesses, all of which are ex-military men.
4. It needs to be tied to a "Cold War / Fear" where success helps to address/alleviate this fear/competition.
5. After they are done, they destroy the most hard to fake evidence, such as the most of the medical research papers that would be essential for someone to repeat the task.
6. The guys who did this stunt initially all resign, and one won't even celebrate it at established events.
7. The guy who headed up this whole program, resigns just a few months before they finally succeed.
8. The guy who blows the whistle on "what is really happening" gets killed 6 days later, late at night, by a one-car train... and his 500-page report goes missing.
9. After the stunt is completed, Nixon sells it off like a New World Religion -- the focal point for "World Peace and Unity"... so anyone who opposes it is also pooping on World Peace and Unity, capped off by a friendly Russian alliance by May 1972. Lots of optimism flowing around - all hinged on Apollo's claim.
Something like this would be a better analogy.
1 - 'Boots' on the moon was most definitely a massive middle finer to the then Soviet USSR. Basic exploration could be achieved via unmanned craft, HOWEVER, boots on the moon allow for a much larger range of activities, since humans already come with built in tools that can be adapted to handle multiple tasks, as well as the ability to make decisions in the moment. A lander can only perform the specific tasks that are built into it.
2 - I've never understood this argument. Are you not aware that governments are capable of supporting multiple programs at the same time? Exploration is what man has always excelled at. What purpose was there in climbing Everest? What purpose is there in going to the bottom of the ocean? We explore, we learn, and expand our knowledge base.
3 - The live television decision was last minute, regarding the Apollo 11 landing. As far as tasks for the lunar surface, live video served no real purpose beyond publicity. Extended missions could later take advantage of live video by having ground based experts involved in decisions, but for Apollo 11s 2.5 hour EVA, the TV was public relations.
4 - It didn't "need" to be, but it did provide a good driver. Most of mas quickest achievements quite often happen when there is an 'enemy' to beat. This does sometimes also come with the costs of inadequate testing to meet timelines that have been determined by politicians and not qualified people.
5 - *sigh* All the important data is around, in various reports and research items, as well as some hard copies. BUT, today, telemetry data is nothing more than a curiosity, given the changes in spacecraft designs since. Armstrong's and Aldrin's heartrate at the time of the first EVA is useless to us today, but I have a scanned copy. Oh, and there's lots of medical data in the Apollo BioMedical reports, almost as if that was their whole purpose.
6 - They didn't all resign, some remained with NASA, some transferred back to military roles, and some retired altogether.... so what? And I take it you are referring to Armstrong? Armstrong made a lot of public appearances post Apollo, however he was, and was always known as, a quite and reserved person. Find the photo of the Apollo astronauts, you will find Armstrong, arguably the most famous of them all, standing at the back, with Buzz out front, as was his personality.
7 - Webb stood down prior to Apollo 8 as Johnson had announced he wasn't running for re-election. Webb had close ties with Johnson, and would have seen this as a clean transition for the next administration. If the next president wanted Webb, who knows what might have been. In the end, though, Webb was far to above Apollo to be considered the 'head' of the program, I'd drop that title on George Mueller, who had far greater control over the program than Webb did.
8 - Baron's not the great whistleblower you seem to think he is. Even the one person he named in the Apollo 1 committee contradicted and denied his claims. His original report was given, looked over, and there were several areas in which they agreed with his report. The 500 page report, based on all available evidence, was taken up by the committee as evidence but was not published as part of the public record due to its size, not an uncommon occurrence. But maybe if he'd been paying attention, or wasn't trying to beat the engine, he, his wife, and one of his step-daughters (one survived, did you know that?) may still be alive (or at least have died a natural death).
9 - Apollo was effectively cancelled in 1969, with funding being decreased before then. From Nixon's point of view, it wasn't his achievement, he was just the person there when it happened; he didn't start the program, he didn't fight for it, rather the opposite, he pushed to cancel it (hence the lack of Apollo's 18 through 20). That he saw the political capital in Apollo is plain to see, and he milked it for all he could. Perhaps if it was Nixon's program, we may have received more of the Apollo Applications program, rather than being left with the cut-down Skylab program being the only survivor (and still hard fought for, I have copies of some of the correspondence in relation to NASA's survival after Apollo).
Whelp, turns out your analogies are weak again.
-
Whelp, turns out your analogies are weak again.
This analogy was just to replace the less pertinent "heart transplant" analogy suggested earlier. This was a stunt for which they had to justify all that spending which was under IMMENSE pressure for cancellation, because pre-fiat money, money was harder to come. Nowadays it's just "more debt" -- back then, when money was spent on one thing, it was pulled from another budget. So while people were in poverty, schools/roads in shambles -- we decided to spend money on Apollo instead. So how much worse would it have been if we simply said "sorry we wasted all of your money and failed at our core mission."
So in THIS context, there was more "motive" for the Lie. And the "Means" by tying it to DoD/Cold-War to justify the deception - making it Armstrong's Patriotic duty to keep the National secret, and not be a traitor by revealing it.
THIS is the context where I am finding a fair amount of "Unexplainable Broken Physics"... situations for which no comprehensive viable theory exists to explain it. So this needs to be the analogy to match it.
-
THIS is the context where I am finding a fair amount of "Unexplainable Broken Physics"... situations for which no comprehensive viable theory exists to explain it. So this needs to be the analogy to match it.
Except you expect over simplified answers to complex situations, refuse to engage when situations and process' are attempted to stepped through with you (a pity, I was finding it interesting and thought there would be great potential for learning something new), have repeatedly stated in pretty much every thread about the multiple items you haven't looked at, yet still manage to cling to your belief that "no comprehensive viable theory exists to explain it", when you simply do not have all the details to make such a claim. It's not that you can't see the forest for the trees, you haven't left the house yet.
-
...refuse to engage when situations and process' are attempted to stepped through with you (a pity, I was finding it interesting and thought there would be great potential for learning something new)
Great! Please walk this process with him, so the can "teach you" -- while showing the whole world, that for the first time ever, the "Lunar Launch Too Fast" can be Debunked.
But he won't -- because he can't. Use your head, you are smarter than this. You are behaving like a Fundamentalist holding to the infallibility of the Bible - no.matter.what.
-
So while people were in poverty, schools/roads in shambles -- we decided to spend money on Apollo instead.
This is also an overused fallacious argument. Do you think they just shot billions of dollars in cash into space? Where do you think the money spent on Apollo actually went? A lot of us in the real world maintain that much of it was spent on the people working in the hundreds of thousands of jobs that actually produced the Apollo results. And this doesn't just mean a paycheck for the guys sitting in Mission Control, it's everyone from the engineers designing all of the hardware, the people building everything from all of the contracted companies, the people sewing spacesuits in Massachusetts, right down to the people fabricating rivets and bolts. It was a massive public works project, with enormous amounts of money being invested in America and spent on Americans, and this doesn't include any of the economic stimulus of all of the local commerce that would have sprung up to support all of the hubs of industry all over the country that were elevated due to Apollo. And we haven't touched on the technological developments that were a direct result of the investment of this government spending that continued to employ many of these people long after Apollo was cancelled.
This is just another example of your simplistic, surface level thinking, and you presenting other people's unvetted ideas as something true. Each component of your hoax hypothesis is essentially just an example of the "fake rock from Denmark". At least in that single instance, you admitted you didn't know what you were talking about.
Great! Please walk this process with him, so the can "teach you" -- while showing the whole world, that for the first time ever, the "Lunar Launch Too Fast" can be Debunked.
But he won't -- because he can't. Use your head, you are smarter than this. You are behaving like a Fundamentalist holding to the infallibility of the Bible - no.matter.what.
You have nothing to lose by going through the process the way Jay wants, and if you're right, everything to gain. So put your money where your mouth is for a change and humor him. Let's see what happens when you actually step to the plate.
-
So these don't seem to correlate at all. Do you agree?
No not at all, you claimed earlier all the motor movements were as "expected"; now it has been pointed out this was not at all the case you want the exact same movement to be shown; talking about moving goalposts.
In the end the only argument you are left with in this thread is that it isn't really mentioned in the flight journals, that's it.
-
You have nothing to lose by going through the process the way Jay wants, and if you're right, everything to gain. So put your money where your mouth is for a change and humor him. Let's see what happens when you actually step to the plate.
There's a reason he won't do this with you. It's NOT his plan to finish a proof, but to stall, divert, and claim he's discrediting me as incompetent.
He won't show this proof, because he CAN'T - which is why such a DEBUNK still doesn't exist.
The Apollogy that "We've debunked ALL MLH claims" is a Lie. But Apollogists claim they are honest. So why Lie?
-
In the end the only argument you are left with in this thread is that it isn't really mentioned in the flight journals, that's it.
So you think the loose flinging about followed by pendulum pattern - is explainable by "this was motorized control" ?? Why would the motor employ this algorithm -- when it was TRACKING EARTH as it was SUPPOSED TO... Then the Motor itself runs this pendulum pattern on purpose?
I'm not sure what you've got riding on Apollo, or why you'd make this defense.
-
...and claim he's discrediting me as incompetent.
That's not hard to do when you keep making really stupid, glaring errors and ignoring the corrections.
-
So you think the loose flinging about followed by pendulum pattern - is explainable by "this was motorized control" ?? Why would the motor employ this algorithm -- when it was TRACKING EARTH as it was SUPPOSED TO... Then the Motor itself runs this pendulum pattern on purpose?
No I showed you're earlier claim about all other motions as being expected to be incorrect. Right at that time you start moving the goalposts again. It shows how weak your argument is.
I'm not sure what you've got riding on Apollo, or why you'd make this defense.
I didn't say such a thing, don't put words in my mouth or make any stupid assumptions.
-
So you think the loose flinging about followed by pendulum pattern - is explainable by "this was motorized control" ?? Why would the motor employ this algorithm -- when it was TRACKING EARTH as it was SUPPOSED TO... Then the Motor itself runs this pendulum pattern on purpose?
No I showed you're earlier claim about all other motions as being expected to be incorrect. Right at that time you start moving the goalposts again. It shows how weak your argument is.
I'm not sure what you've got riding on Apollo, or why you'd make this defense.
I didn't say such a thing, don't put words in my mouth or make any stupid assumptions.
Yeah apparently we're only defending apollo because we might faint or have some sort of existential crisis if our world view is shattered 🙄
In another thought, the board software should have word replacement functions. Can I suggest it be made to swap out "Apollogist" for something less childish? It's right up there with "astronot" for its annoying passive aggressive insinuations.
-
Yeah apparently we're only defending apollo because we might faint or have some sort of existential crisis if our world view is shattered
Yep, it would be the end of the world as we now it :)
It is funny he claimed to be aware of this Apollo 16 oscillation because you had pointed it out to him on the metabunk thread a week ago already ( https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2022.msg57972#msg57972 )
To which his response was:
I read this other thread, to make sure my analysis covers everything.
.....
-
It is funny he claimed to be aware of this Apollo 16 oscillation because you had pointed it out to him on the metabunk thread a week ago already ( https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2022.msg57972#msg57972 )
I can only keep up with so much. So it's funny to you that "I missed something said in the plethora of comments from a dozen different people"? I'd call that normative. I'm rushed - I have a life too. So I'm trying to lessen how much I spend in these banters -- especially for the threads where I've completed my statements, and some folks simply want to beat a dead horse, until I submit to what I believe is "bad logic".
So when you brought it up, I looked it up -- and saw that it was a long-lasting occurrence, which was talked about and addressed - and never filmed. For a couple reasons, this seems to be apples to oranges, and doesn't provide any support to justify the "loose wild flinging, followed by a pendulum motion indicating gravity" of Apollo 12.
I digest all of YOUR comments, because your comments are brief, and non-repetitive.
-
What a time waster - gets handed his arse and runs away!
Maybe we'll get the HB bollocks about how far ahead the Soviets were. Finger poised on the button:
https://i.ibb.co/JCRFxYT/Bingo-bongo.jpg
-
In another thought, the board software should have word replacement functions. Can I suggest it be made to swap out "Apollogist" for something less childish? It's right up there with "astronot" for its annoying passive aggressive insinuations.
The forum does have that ability, and I've done it jokingly in the past when a hoax believer was overusing "astronot". But I generally don't like to use it to alter the posts made by the members of the forum, and only use it to censor obscenities and unsafe spam links.
-
Maybe we'll get the HB bollocks about how far ahead the Soviets were. Finger poised on the button:
https://i.ibb.co/JCRFxYT/Bingo-bongo.jpg
Good one. Reminds me of the Trump anti-gun agenda Bingo card I made a few years ago. :)
-
Pushing now for Official conclusion of this thread.
I have summarized my findings within this document:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/17wJ8O6-RMlPyQyJa2OZ6VBVuce3fyTrKZonCX6XxZL8/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/document/d/17wJ8O6-RMlPyQyJa2OZ6VBVuce3fyTrKZonCX6XxZL8/edit?usp=sharing)
In short, it appears to me that there are no viable Apollogies for the following:
1. What could explain this unexpected uncontrolled flinging away from a steady-tracking-of-earth, to out-of-control flip-flopping about in a pendulum-like fashion?
2. Why was this complete failure of the S-Band Tracking not mentioned in the journal transcript or mission report?
3. Why was this failure not accompanied by a loss-of-signal, followed by a manual switchover to the Unidirectional antenna?
As a representative of Moon Landing Skeptics, I posit the following possible explanation:
1. AM could have been the real AM (manipulated by large machine), or a smaller model, with motorized S-Band, that could also be placed in "neutral".
2. S-Band antenna was attached to thin wire maintaining it's directional aim at a theoretical earth. It was placed in "neutral" during this maneuver.
3. As the Pitch maneuver occurred, too much strain against the hinge extremes, the guide wire snapped it, thus releasing the dish to fling about freely.
4. In earth's gravity, the dish swings back-and-forth like a pendulum, until it settles to a stop. These types of motion reversals are a sign of gravity.
5. The motor was then re-engaged to prevent further motion.
6. This failure was NOT mentioned in transcript or reports, in hopes that nobody would notice or make an issue of it, as there exists no viable explanation for it. If they could have made a viable excuse for it, they would have created that excuse within the texts. With no viable excuse, their best bet was to minimize visibility in hopes of avoiding notice.
===
We can discuss this more, to achieve the best stated Apollogist response, and I'll document it as such within my document.
-
In short, it appears to me that there are no viable Apollogies for the following:
And until you learn the difference between 'viable' and 'within your understanding' there never will be. So long as you remain the arbiter of what explanation is acceptable there can be no discussion. You already include statements like 'this should have happened' and 'they would have included this', which are based only on your expectations. The people actually doing the missions are under no obligations to meet the expectations of a layman decades after the fact.
-
So long as you remain the arbiter of what explanation is acceptable there can be no discussion. You already include statements like 'this should have happened' and 'they would have included this', which are based only on your expectations.
We are ALL arbiters. At the end of debates, there are still divisions on beliefs among the audience, as each viewer is an arbiter.
You are an arbiter who believes we landed on the moon because of your reasons that are limited by your own understanding and expectations.
My aim here is to determine which of the Hoax claims can be viably debunked. Which is why I come to this forum, where people are experienced and motivated to debunk such claims.
I'll NEVER see these debunked within the context of a Moon Hoax Echo Chamber -- so I come here... and then am silenced.
I don't mind being berated/insulted, but silenced is the part that demonstrates the fear factor involved with the Apollogy. If Apollo really landed men on the moon, why is there this fear?
I am willing and eager to document in my conclusions the "best debunk attempts" for this A12 Dish Flinging incident.
-
My aim here is to determine which of the Hoax claims can be viably debunked.
All of them. Literally. Because they are, without fail, based on lack of understanding.
Which is why I come to this forum, where people are experienced and motivated to debunk such claims.
And yet you dismiss that experience and motivation all the time it disagrees with you.
I don't mind being berated/insulted, but silenced is the part that demonstrates the fear factor involved with the Apollogy. If Apollo really landed men on the moon, why is there this fear?
Oh, the tedium of this 'what are you afraid of?' argument is beyond description. There is no fear here. You are not being silenced, you are being held to reasonable standards of polite discussion, which is not to flood the place with endless arguments, not to throw more crap at the wall while other points remain open, etc.
I will say this again, we have DECADES (literally) of experience of hoax believers just like you coming on and hurling out large numbers of arguments and then complaining about how they are treated rather than dealing with the substance. We have had people throw out large numbers of arguments so they can find the one that gets less response and claim it's because no-one has an answer. We've had people basically do EXACTLY as you are doing, and it's boring. I am happy to discuss Apollo, but not with someone who does not engage in good faith. And you are absolutely not engaging in good faith, despite your protestations to the contrary.
-
1. What could explain this unexpected uncontrolled flinging away from a steady-tracking-of-earth, to out-of-control flip-flopping about in a pendulum-like fashion?
Many things, but inventing a whole 'it had a neutral setting' makes no sense at all. It has no need to ever be disengaged from the driving gears.
2. Why was this complete failure of the S-Band Tracking not mentioned in the journal transcript or mission report?
Seconds before it occurs, Conrad says 'Okay, I'm going Omni aft, Houston.' Guess where the omnidirectional S-band antenna was on the LM. That leads me to suppose it was not a failure but an anticipated problem during the manoeuvre due to the relative positions of the spacecraft and Earth perhaps causing tracking issues.
3. Why was this failure not accompanied by a loss-of-signal, followed by a manual switchover to the Unidirectional antenna?
On that video you linked to there is a very significant increase in interference that coincides with te entire event. Do you not think that had something to do with it?
As a representative of Moon Landing Skeptics, I posit the following possible explanation:
1. AM could have been the real AM (manipulated by large machine), or a smaller model, with motorized S-Band, that could also be placed in "neutral".
There is literally no reason for a steerable antenna to have a 'neutral' setting. You have simply invented that (as with your weighted feather or fabricated documents) to explain something with no supporting evidence.
2. S-Band antenna was attached to thin wire maintaining it's directional aim at a theoretical earth. It was placed in "neutral" during this maneuver.
There is literally no reason to do this either. Once again, you are making up scenarios that have to exist for your theory to work but make no sense in any other context.
3. As the Pitch maneuver occurred, too much strain against the hinge extremes, the guide wire snapped it, thus releasing the dish to fling about freely.
4. In earth's gravity, the dish swings back-and-forth like a pendulum, until it settles to a stop. These types of motion reversals are a sign of gravity.
5. The motor was then re-engaged to prevent further motion.
Again, this makes no sense. If the thing had a motor there is absolutely no reason for it ever to need to be disengaged to allow it to move freely.
6. This failure was NOT mentioned in transcript or reports, in hopes that nobody would notice or make an issue of it,
Or see above. It's not an issue, and there is an explicit mention of switching to another antenna before the pitchover and loss of tracking of the steerable antenna.
-
From the Mission transcripts, this interaction, as the crew is performing their checklist operations, takes place right before the radar antenna moves:
145:30:02 Conrad: All right, let me stop my radar - have you got it?
145:30:04 Gordon: I've got it.
145:30:05 Conrad: You've got it.
145:30:06 Bean: Okay, you need to pull both rendezvous circuit breakers.
145:30:08 Conrad: Okay, wait just a second. Is the rendezvous radar in the right place?
145:30:13 Gordon: It's 320, 320, which is where it should be.
145:30:16 Conrad: Okay. Got those out. Rendezvous radar breakers are pulled from the Verb 44.
Right after the antenna moves there is this statement made:
145:31:56 Bean: My antenna's okay.
I was using the TV transmission, which had NAT SOT audio. Additionally the 16mm DAC footage was properly synched to this TV feed.
This to me looks like the in-built auto-correction capability of the steerable antenna which is during the time where Conrad engages -both-circuit breakers. it also corresponds to Bean stating "My antenna's OK" once the procedure has been completed.
-
Seconds before it occurs, Conrad says 'Okay, I'm going Omni aft, Houston.' Guess where the omnidirectional S-band antenna was on the LM. That leads me to suppose it was not a failure but an anticipated problem during the manoeuvre due to the relative positions of the spacecraft and Earth perhaps causing tracking issues.
Thanks for this. THIS is the reason I come here. I hadn't noticed this through my biased eyes.
Of course to me, this appears as "damage control", and is not aligned with the increase in static. But it DOES provide NASA with another "out". I'm going to see what specs/info there is on the S-Band Gimballed dish, and see if this explanation can make good sense or not.
I believe this is designed as a 2-hinge/axis gimbal... The dish can rotate, and the arm can rotate.
However, before this "snap", we see the armature itself being "contorted away from the body of the LM"... I don't think the armature has 2-hinges like this... if not -- it's a sign of being "pulled by the guide wire" (hoax theory) in a direction that was not designed.
Thank you for making this note about "switching to Omni Aft" (although it appears to me that Omni-Fore might have been a better choice if not able to use the Dish).
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2022.0;attach=1295)
-
From the Mission transcripts, this interaction, as the crew is performing their checklist operations, takes place right before the radar antenna moves:
145:30:06 Bean: Okay, you need to pull both rendezvous circuit breakers.
....
145:30:16 Conrad: Okay. Got those out. Rendezvous radar breakers are pulled from the Verb 44.
Thank you for this post.
One note is that these breakers are for the Rendezvous breakers, not S-Band. So should be fully unrelated. I believe this marks the point where they simply stop using the Rendezvous Breaker, and switch to eyeballing it, right?
Right after the antenna moves there is this statement made:
145:31:56 Bean: My antenna's okay.
This to me looks like part of the "damage control", to say something about the antenna.
I was using the TV transmission, which had NAT SOT audio. Additionally the 16mm DAC footage was properly synched to this TV feed.
Can you please clarify what you mean here, maybe provide some links/time-stamps if applicable?
This to me looks like the in-built auto-correction capability of the steerable antenna which is during the time where Conrad engages -both-circuit breakers. it also corresponds to Bean stating "My antenna's OK" once the procedure has been completed.
The uncontrolled pendulum like motion looks like "auto-correction"? The orientation of the S-Band for the first 30 degrees of the Pitch rotation is correct (confirmed it)... it's pointing to where the earth should be. As it rotates, we see what looks to me as "strain" on the armature as it starts to come away from the LM body (which it's not designed to do)... What it snaps, it behaves unlike a server motor is involved at all -- hitting the hinge extremes and bouncing off of them, then it settles into a pendulum behavior, decreasing each time... not of this looks like servo-motor operation which is slower and rigid. Not loose.
During this flailing, it goes from being "aimed at earth" to being aimed Not-at-earth--- and then freezes up and doesn't move again.
So if this was "auto-correction to find earth" - it would make no sense that it didn't then CONTINUE to track earth steadily for the remaining 55 degrees of the pitch maneuver.
===
For me the most damning aspects of this incident are:
1. The misalignment of static with "changing over to omni aft" antenna. What exactly was supposed to be the action or incident that caused this static? (the flinging of the Dish, or the switchover to Omni Aft?)
2. The strain on the armature moving in a direction without a hinge for it.
3. The flip flopping about - doesn't look like anything this servo-motor controlled device should ever do.
4. The settling out in pendulum fashion (continuously decreasing amplitudes - no longer bouncing off of the hinge extremes, but being pulled back by "something else").
-
....
Thanks for this. THIS is the reason I come here. I hadn't noticed this through my biased eyes.
....
Therin lies your main problem, because of your biased eyes/conviction no amount of proof will be good enough for you. You have been shown that A14 was not on the Earth, yet you hand wave all of this away with comments such as the pendulum is too fast. But under all cases it is slower than one Earth. Further you continue to attempt to shift the goal posts by saying the amplitude of the pendulum decreases with time. No, it doesn't to every observer except yourself. The amplitude decreases once it interferes with some other piece of structure on the descent module of the LM.
-
Therin lies your main problem, because of your biased eyes/conviction no amount of proof will be good enough for you. You have been shown that A14 was not on the Earth, yet you hand wave all of this away with comments such as the pendulum is too fast. But under all cases it is slower than one Earth. Further you continue to attempt to shift the goal posts by saying the amplitude of the pendulum decreases with time. No, it doesn't to every observer except yourself. The amplitude decreases once it interferes with some other piece of structure on the descent module of the LM.
So you don't have any bias? Does having bias mean no one can be convinced? As of 2016 I believed the Moon Landing was real, and never questioned it. That was my bias. I grew up atheist too - that was my bias. Then became a fundamentalist Christian for 6 years -- during that time, this was my bias. Then turned back to Atheism -- and again, this was my bias. Now I'm a Universalist -- and now this is my bias.
I believed the Lunar Launches were 2.5x too fast -- THIS was my bias. Now it's not.
We're ALL biased towards what we currently believe -- it's called Confirmation Bias, and is part of the human wiring. And we're all wired to think "our team doesn't have bias; it's always the other guys"... because believing in your own confirmation bias, dispels it.
I believe in mine. I know that I have it. And because of it, my eyes miss things I shouldn't miss. Thus I come here -- for the opposing bias, to obtain a more complete view of things.
I need the people of this site, for serious investigations. I want to dig to the bottom of what I currently find to be the most compelling MLH claims. If you show them to be truly debunkable, I will eagerly and thankfully accept these corrections. The last thing I want to be doing is promoting things that are flawed/wrong.
ATM, I still firmly lean in the direction of MLH. Having only had the opportunity to explore 4 threads to completion - stunts the purpose of this forum.... which I would assume is for the purposes of free thought and meaningful debate/discussions.
-
So you don't have any bias?
Do you have any evidence of bias against you that rises any higher than the fact that others dispute your claims?
As of 2016 I believed the Moon Landing was real, and never questioned it.
Literally every hoax claimant says he used to be a firm believer in the authenticity of Apollo, but was then dragged to the opposing view by the strength of the evidence. That claim never holds up to scrutiny.
I believed the Lunar Launches were 2.5x too fast -- THIS was my bias. Now it's not.
Now your bias is the firm belief that you are a physics genius who answered your own question, no thanks to all the people who had to correct your many misconceptions along the way and are still attempting to do so.
I need the people of this site, for serious investigations.
You are not a serious investigator. You are a self-important claimant who has nothing to offer that hasn't already been tried. You've relied upon others to recite to you the old claims, and you think that you can breathe new life into them by sheer fiat.
Having only had the opportunity to explore 4 threads to completion - stunts the purpose of this forum.... which I would assume is for the purposes of free thought and meaningful debate/discussions.
You've demonstrated marked disinterest in meaningful debate.
-
1. ...firm belief that you are a physics genius who answered your own question...
2. You are not a serious investigator. ...you think that you can breathe new life into them by sheer fiat.
3. You've demonstrated marked disinterest in meaningful debate.
1. My claim is that this sufficient-enough approximation was SIMPLE, and does NOT require a physics genius to assess. Even though the accurate answers require more complexity, the "ballpark estimations" can be simplified to show that "Static Pressure Thrust" is likely "in the ballpark of providing enough early thrust".
2. I've shown seriousness here, and that I follow the evidence. I have compiled enough materials to start a book, or produce a video. I'd like to see if any of my remaining ideas hold water. I also have a few original ideas that I haven't heard presented yet.
3. 8 flag motions was meaningful debate. It has shown there to be no available explanations for such movements.
-
My claim is that this sufficient-enough approximation was SIMPLE, and does NOT require a physics genius to assess.
Your model is not wrong because it's simple. It's wrong because it's wrong.
I've shown seriousness here, and that I follow the evidence.
Except for all those times when your explanation for why the evidence doesn't work for you amounts to accusing everyone of being paid shills or religious fanatics, and all those times you exhibit sick personal fixations. I don't think you've spent enough time doing actual research to understand just how abjectly weird your behavior is.
It has shown there to be no available explanations for such movements.
According to you.
-
It has shown there to be no available explanations for such movements.
According to you.
According to everyone here. Nobody here will make a claim and stand by it, after scrutiny. There are no intelligible viable explanations that stand up to the scrutiny according to ALL here. Show me one person who has made a viable claim, and then stood by it through the scrutiny.
This particular claim is troublesome for the TD's here (Truth Defenders as Lunar Orbit mandates that I call you).
-
Of course to me, this appears as "damage control",
And there we have the entirely predictable response. You have no basis for assuming that apart from it must be in order for your scenario to be true. However, it may also be a genuine procedural step. What you are doing here is the equivalent of the 'that's exactly what a guilty person would say' argument applied to a protestation of innocence. That fails because protesting innocence is also exactly what an innocent person would do because it happens to be true.
Sorry, but when having a reasoned debate, which you claim to want here, you don't get to simply cast aside every counter with the statement 'it could be faked too'.
I'm going to see what specs/info there is on the S-Band Gimballed dish, and see if this explanation can make good sense or not.
I believe this is designed as a 2-hinge/axis gimbal... The dish can rotate, and the arm can rotate.
And you really don't see the problem with doing thing this way round? You are only now going to look up specs for the thing, then tell us your entire argument is based on how you believe it worked?
However, before this "snap", we see the armature itself being "contorted away from the body of the LM"...
That's your interpretation, but you have already said you haven't looked at the specs for the antenna to know how it should or could actually move.
it's a sign of being "pulled by the guide wire"
A guide wire you have no evidence ever existed, nor can provide any reason for it being used if the antenna was in fact steerable. This is just you seeing something you don't understand at first glance and coming up with some random explanation for it that is easier than doing the actual research required to understand exactly how that component works and what its limitations are.
-
3. The flip flopping about - doesn't look like anything this servo-motor controlled device should ever do.
Says who? Why do you (and so many other hoax believers) think you can just look at a complex bit of engineering and decide it's operating in a suspect fashion?
-
1. Sorry, but when having a reasoned debate, which you claim to want here, you don't get to simply cast aside every counter with the statement 'it could be faked too'.
2. And you really don't see the problem with doing thing this way round? You are only now going to look up specs for the thing, then tell us your entire argument is based on how you believe it worked?
3. A guide wire you have no evidence ever existed, nor can provide any reason for it being used if the antenna was in fact steerable. This is just you seeing something you don't understand at first glance and coming up with some random explanation for it that is easier than doing the actual research required to understand exactly how that component works and what its limitations are.
1. The chief evidence here is the snap/flip-flop/settling-out-like-a-loose-pendulum - when it was tracking the earth just fine, and the earth was always visible from the S-Band antenna for the entire rendezvous. It was closely tracking the earth up to the second it "snapped". THIS is the evidence.
So of course when we see them inserting something into the journal script to account for this messup, it looks like "damage control". Why on earth would he changeover to the Omni-antenna with 1/100th the SNR, when the S-Band remained in clear view of the earth? It looks like botched Damage control, because then they ALSO insert "static" 4 seconds after the dish cuts loose.
Which event are we supposed to believe caused this static? Switching over to to the Omni, or the flinging of this dish?
2. Once you "see it" (the hoax), you have different lenses, through which you interpret what you see. This is confirmation bias -- which YOU HAVE TOO... in your view, you are ALWAYS VIEWING IT AS REAL, and then finding ways to justify it. This is the value of debate -- the battle between confirmation biases. So just as you'll look for ways to validate the realness, I'll be looking for ways to validate the fakery. If one of us hits a stumbling block -- that becomes meaningful.
3. Guide wire -- the evidence is in how the dish rotates to maintain a constant aiming angle for the first 30 deg of Pitch -- and AS IT DOES THIS -- the dish armature angle INCREASES... From what I can see of the specs, I don't see a hinge for moving in that direction. This is a 2-hinge armature, from what I can tell. And IF SO -- then this means the "increasing angle is unexplainable by the TD's (i.e. Truth Defenders)".
There is a host of things wrong with this whole incident. Which seems to me why they minimized the "damage control", because it was SO-BAD, that if it drew attention, their "explanation would simply not work" -- so they minimized the wording, and hoped nobody noticed. Looks like they were right - -at least for MANY MANY DECADES, which is all they needed. Even today, folks can see this huge mess-up and find a way to justify it no-matter-what -- Confirmation Bias in action. You have it too.
-
Says who? Why do you (and so many other hoax believers) think you can just look at a complex bit of engineering and decide it's operating in a suspect fashion?
Servo-motor controlled armatures isn't rocket science. We see how they work, not only in Apollo clips, but in other applications. Servo motors for this application are designed for precision tracking -- not for fast-flipping-around -- which LOOKS NOTHING LIKE ALL OTHER SERVO-MOTOR MOTIONS.... This is what it would look like in "neutral" (disengaged from the motors/gears) -- but still begs the question -- "What threw it into this frenzy?" And "why was the armature contorting away from the LM?"
And why would they switch over to the Omni Aft when the Uni-dish maintained a clear view of the Earth?
-
Thanks for this. THIS is the reason I come here. I hadn't noticed this through my biased eyes.
Too much schnapps over Christmas, perhaps? The S-band omni's were discussed back on 2 December.
And why would they switch over to the Omni Aft when the Uni-dish maintained a clear view of the Earth?
Please provide the verification you have done to ascertain the location of the ascent stage, CSM, and Earth, to be able to claim the steerable had a "clear view" of Earth.
While you're at it, how about you provide some evidence for the wire you keep claiming "snapped".
-
1. The chief evidence here is the snap/flip-flop/settling-out-like-a-loose-pendulum - when it was tracking the earth just fine, and the earth was always visible from the S-Band antenna for the entire rendezvous.
Was it? And at no point during the movements could anything possibly have interrupted this at all? You know this for a fact do you?
So of course when we see them inserting something into the journal script to account for this messup,
But h said 'switching to omni-aft' before the dish moves. How does it make any sense to insert a line as 'damage control' before the event occurs?
Why on earth would he changeover to the Omni-antenna with 1/100th the SNR, when the S-Band remained in clear view of the earth?
Because they knew that during this manoeuvre it was possible or likely that the S-band would lose its lock on the Earth due to the rotation. Perhaps something on the spacecraft obscured the Earth.
Which event are we supposed to believe caused this static? Switching over to to the Omni, or the flinging of this dish?
Why tie it specifically to either? The LM is rotating. Everyone who's ever waved a radio or TV antenna around to get a decent signal knows that even for a so-called 'omni-directional' antenna its position has an effect on signal quality.
3. Guide wire -- the evidence is in how the dish rotates to maintain a constant aiming angle for the first 30 deg of Pitch -- and AS IT DOES THIS -- the dish armature angle INCREASES... From what I can see of the specs, I don't see a hinge for moving in that direction. This is a 2-hinge armature, from what I can tell. And IF SO -- then this means the "increasing angle is unexplainable by the TD's (i.e. Truth Defenders)".
The apparent angle may increase (I am not at all convinced), but this is an angled armature which is moving with a rotating spacecraft. How precisely have you determined that what you're calling a pulling on the armature is not simply a line of sight effect of the angles involved?
There is a host of things wrong with this whole incident. Which seems to me why they minimized the "damage control", because it was SO-BAD, that if it drew attention, their "explanation would simply not work" -- so they minimized the wording, and hoped nobody noticed.
But that makes literally NO sense. 'Damage control' for a snapping guidewire, inserted into a script before that incident occurs, requires them to know it was going to happen. And if they knew it would happen why would they not just avoid it in the first place?
And here's some even easier damage control: the steerable S-band was not visible on the TV transmission of the docking manoeuvre during this event. It was ONLY captured by the DAC film recording. If I was doing 'damage control' I'd destroy or otherwise hide that bit of film and not make it available for all and sundry to look at if I thought there was something on there that gives away the hoax. But now of course you'll just say they included it to 'add realism' or 'because they thought no-one would notice'.
-
which LOOKS NOTHING LIKE ALL OTHER SERVO-MOTOR MOTIONS....
That is a claim that requires you to have examined literally ALL other such motions. It may not look like anything you've seen, but that's not the same thing, and is a logical fallacy.
-
".
2. S-Band antenna was attached to thin wire maintaining it's directional aim at a theoretical earth. It was placed in "neutral" during this maneuver.
5. The motor was then re-engaged to prevent further motion.
If it had a motor to move it, then why would it need a wire? Or, if it had a wire to move it, then why would it need a motor?
Do you actually read the guff that you write? Or do you just trash around building fantastical nonsense as you desperately try to maintain the illusion in your head?
-
Do you actually read the guff that you write? Or do you just trash around building fantastical nonsense as you desperately try to maintain the illusion in your head?
That's exactly what he does. When confronted with something that doesn't meet his understanding he fabricates entire scenarios to explain them because making that stuff up is far easier than doing the actual research to properly understand the thing he's looking at. As with so many hoax believers 'it doesn't look how I expect it to' is the ultimate argument as far as he's concerned.
See another discussion, in which he claims not to be able to 'see' the rocket motors on the LLTV (that emit hydrogen and water as exhaust products, and that he didn't even know were there until they were pointed out to him) generating any lift because they're not emitting any visible exhaust, but he does claim to 'see' the jet engine in the centre (that emits CO2 and water as exhaust) generating lift, even though it is not generating any visible exhaust.
-
Therin lies your main problem, because of your biased eyes/conviction no amount of proof will be good enough for you. You have been shown that A14 was not on the Earth, yet you hand wave all of this away with comments such as the pendulum is too fast. But under all cases it is slower than one Earth. Further you continue to attempt to shift the goal posts by saying the amplitude of the pendulum decreases with time. No, it doesn't to every observer except yourself. The amplitude decreases once it interferes with some other piece of structure on the descent module of the LM.
So you don't have any bias? Does having bias mean no one can be convinced? As of 2016 I believed the Moon Landing was real, and never questioned it. That was my bias. I grew up atheist too - that was my bias. Then became a fundamentalist Christian for 6 years -- during that time, this was my bias. Then turned back to Atheism -- and again, this was my bias. Now I'm a Universalist -- and now this is my bias.
I believed the Lunar Launches were 2.5x too fast -- THIS was my bias. Now it's not.
We're ALL biased towards what we currently believe -- it's called Confirmation Bias, and is part of the human wiring. And we're all wired to think "our team doesn't have bias; it's always the other guys"... because believing in your own confirmation bias, dispels it.
I believe in mine. I know that I have it. And because of it, my eyes miss things I shouldn't miss. Thus I come here -- for the opposing bias, to obtain a more complete view of things.
I need the people of this site, for serious investigations. I want to dig to the bottom of what I currently find to be the most compelling MLH claims. If you show them to be truly debunkable, I will eagerly and thankfully accept these corrections. The last thing I want to be doing is promoting things that are flawed/wrong.
ATM, I still firmly lean in the direction of MLH. Having only had the opportunity to explore 4 threads to completion - stunts the purpose of this forum.... which I would assume is for the purposes of free thought and meaningful debate/discussions.
I point out a glaring error in your thesis concerning A14 and all you can do is rant about bias. You are really terrible at this. Point blank do you believe that A14 was not on Earth?
-
Do you actually read the guff that you write? Or do you just trash around building fantastical nonsense as you desperately try to maintain the illusion in your head?
That's exactly what he does. When confronted with something that doesn't meet his understanding he fabricates entire scenarios to explain them because making that stuff up is far easier than doing the actual research to properly understand the thing he's looking at. As with so many hoax believers 'it doesn't look how I expect it to' is the ultimate argument as far as he's concerned.
See another discussion, in which he claims not to be able to 'see' the rocket motors on the LLTV (that emit hydrogen and water as exhaust products, and that he didn't even know were there until they were pointed out to him) generating any lift because they're not emitting any visible exhaust, but he does claim to 'see' the jet engine in the centre (that emits CO2 and water as exhaust) generating lift, even though it is not generating any visible exhaust.
Indeed.
He claimed somewhere else that you coul irradiate meteorites to make them appear exactly like Apollo samples. I'm still waiting for an answer from him on exactly how to carry out this irradiation.
-
Oh, and how long was this 'guidewire' and how was it attached? Have you, najak, even looked at the full length of the film to realise the LM starts off a very long way from the camera? How exactly does your scenario fit the entire length of footage we see?
-
Oh, and how long was this 'guidewire' and how was it attached? Have you, najak, even looked at the full length of the film to realise the LM starts off a very long way from the camera? How exactly does your scenario fit the entire length of footage we see?
Two-minutes prior, LM goes "off-screen"... easy camera trick option here. Non-continuous coverage of the LM, just barely... So swapping the set, attaching a guide-wire, seems to be feasible.
From MLH standpoint, this was botched damage-control. And the script of the journal has them not even able to know "up from down" or to maintain fine tuned high fidelity control needed for a rendezvous. Today's CrewDragon/CST dockings take HOURS from about 400 meters away to docking... very very slowly.... and this is with using 1000x higher fidelity tech/sensors.
In 1969, they weren't so worried about "being caught" because there was no way for people to "get together to discuss skepticism"... and anyone who attempted it, would be treated far worse than the MLH advocates today.... and they'd have far less ability to "prove their theories" - because this footage was "show it once and done".
-
He claimed somewhere else that you coul irradiate meteorites to make them appear exactly like Apollo samples. I'm still waiting for an answer from him on exactly how to carry out this irradiation.
Jarrah White can answer this one better than me. The "analysis of Moon rocks/samples" has been producing vastly changing results -- now showing a LOT more water than previously reported. And also the average regolith particle size is now about 1/11th the mass as what was reporting in 1970's. (< 45% the average diameter -- cubing this yields 1/11th the mass).
Even NASA geologist spokesmen have admitted that Moon samples look like Earth samples, and requires special tests to find a difference.
The science regarding rocks/regolith seems very suspect, overall. This is NOT my topic, but if we want to raise a new thread on this -- perhaps Jarrah White can join us for the discussion... if you really want to know more.
-
I point out a glaring error in your thesis concerning A14 and all you can do is rant about bias. You are really terrible at this. Point blank do you believe that A14 was not on Earth?
"glaring error" - can you be more specific?
Point blank, I don't think we landed humans on the moon... yet.
-
I’m sorry Najak, but youre taking a pretty big leap to state that in a live TV feed, a cable swap took place. What purpose does this serve? Where is your 3rd party evidence that such an event took place? Suggesting something could have happened doesnt mean it did. Also why are you suddenly concluding the TV signal had the swap, when you have been using the 16mm DAC footage to cast doubt on the event. The 16mm footage does not break and the LM is fully in shot the entire time. So where does this then take place in that footage?
Also, what is your claim of the static not happening when it should? What source footage did you use to determine this?
-
Two-minutes prior, LM goes "off-screen"... easy camera trick option here. Non-continuous coverage of the LM, just barely... So swapping the set, attaching a guide-wire, seems to be feasible.
Oh dear lord, how many times will you just make up any old shit like this? Where is the EVIDENCE that such a change occurs, and what is the REASON for making such a change (especially given that we have prior examples of continuous footage to docking in which the LM does not go off screen at all)? How was this change done given that this was not only captured on the DAC film but was actually transmitted via the TV camera on the CSM as well, providing live TV coverage of the rendezvous and docking in mission control? And again, why is a guidewire necessary AT ALL?
Your arguments fail for reasons of sense. You are literally just making up scenarios to account for things you see, regardless of any actual sense in the scenario.
And the script of the journal has them not even able to know "up from down"
No it doesn't, it has them asking for clarification of what they mean by 'down' given the orientation of the LM. 'Down towards the Moon', as requested, is not 'down' in terms of the orientation of the LM at the time. Up and down are not simple terms in spaceflight, ever.
or to maintain fine tuned high fidelity control needed for a rendezvous.
Well since they successfully docked that's clearly not the case. Once again, it just doesn't look the way you expect so it's a problem.
In 1969, they weren't so worried about "being caught" because there was no way for people to "get together to discuss skepticism"... and anyone who attempted it, would be treated far worse than the MLH advocates today.... and they'd have far less ability to "prove their theories" - because this footage was "show it once and done".
Cobblers. If the footage has such obvious evidence of fakery that you seem to think there is no reason to show it at all.
-
Point blank do you believe that A14 was not on Earth?
Point blank, I don't think we landed humans on the moon... yet.
You didn't answer the question.
-
If it had a motor to move it, then why would it need a wire? Or, if it had a wire to move it, then why would it need a motor?
Perhaps it only had a "locking mechanism" or perhaps the motorized unit was unable to "track the supposed earth location" adequately. So they decided to rig up a guide wire to keep it's aim constant.
The Pendulum behavior for the settling out is a key point here. This indicates gravity. If weightless, it would continue at the SAME AMPLITUDE, only slower. But this settling out shows 7 oscillations, each with decreasing amplitude. Why did the dish reverse directions before hitting the hinge-constraint?
-
You didn't answer the question.
Not only did I answer the question, but also answered it for all other missions as well. I believe all footage and photos taken on the "lunar surface" were actually created here on earth.
But as for here, I'm only talking about narrow pieces of evidence, to see how well each supports the MLH theory.
-
I’m sorry Najak, but youre taking a pretty big leap to state that in a live TV feed, a cable swap took place. What purpose does this serve? Where is your 3rd party evidence that such an event took place? Suggesting something could have happened doesnt mean it did. Also why are you suddenly concluding the TV signal had the swap, when you have been using the 16mm DAC footage to cast doubt on the event. The 16mm footage does not break and the LM is fully in shot the entire time. So where does this then take place in that footage?
Also, what is your claim of the static not happening when it should? What source footage did you use to determine this?
I believe it was all (or almost all?) pre-filmed, not live. Allowing them time between clips to change things around.
In the footage reference in my doc, they have static showing up in the audio feed 4 sec after the dish flings. If he was switched to Aft Omni-- why say "my antenna is OK"... and if the Dish was tracking earth and continued having a good view of earth - why switch to the -100 dB SNR Omni?
These aren't my MAIN POINTS... but just more "noise to discuss" as this, to me, just looks like haphazard poorly thought out damage control.
The pendulum motion showing gravity - is probably the most non-debunkable aspect of this whole incident.
-
Perhaps it only had a "locking mechanism" or perhaps the motorized unit was unable to "track the supposed earth location" adequately. So they decided to rig up a guide wire to keep it's aim constant.
More baseless speculation. No actual evidence.
-
I believe it was all (or almost all?) pre-filmed, not live. Allowing them time between clips to change things around.
Well that just betrays an ignorance of the record.
In the footage reference in my doc, they have static showing up in the audio feed 4 sec after the dish flings. If he was switched to Aft Omni-- why say "my antenna is OK"... and if the Dish was tracking earth and continued having a good view of earth - why switch to the -100 dB SNR Omni?
Asked and answered. Address it.
The pendulum motion showing gravity - is probably the most non-debunkable aspect of this whole incident.
You have yet to prove the motion is indicative of gravity and not anything else. 'Because it looks like it to you' is not proof.
-
I believe it was all (or almost all?) pre-filmed, not live.
Was it filmed in space?
-
Was it filmed in space?
Different parts, perhaps. I'm purposefully avoiding making claims that "we never left LOE" or even that "the astronauts used the escape slide and stayed on earth". My only proposed belief right now is that "we didn't land men on the moon" -- at minimum, I believe the Lunar Surface human activities were faked. And so I currently believe that the Lunar Surface video/photos were all produced here on Earth.
-
And so I currently believe that the Lunar Surface video/photos were all produced here on Earth.
Then you must find explanations for exactly how that was achieved given the evidence of low gravity and vacuum that is seen in several cases, and where they were filmed given the landscapes demonstrated. My guess is you haven't even seen all the TV and film footage of the surface activities so have no idea what would actually be involved.
But since we are specifically talking about the Apollo 12 rendezvous here, where exactly are you proposing this was filmed and how?
-
The pendulum motion showing gravity - is probably the most non-debunkable aspect of this whole incident.
You have yet to prove the motion is indicative of gravity and not anything else. 'Because it looks like it to you' is not proof.
I have proven the pendulum style motion via KRITA/frame-captures, showing a constant oscillation period with decreasing amplitudes. So it "moves like a pendulum" has been sufficiently proven, and pendulums REQUIRE GRAVITY.
We have other servo-motor setups on this LM, and they are smooth/slow/rigid - as are ALL servo-motors where precision is the main function.
Even if for some reason this servo-motor were designed to emulate "loose fast flailing to emulate a pendulum" - there is not justification for the control algorithm to purposefully conduct these movements.
So your implication/belief is that this servo-motor was "designed to allow this fast of movement", PLUS that the "tracking algorithm purposefully CAUSED this motion" ???
The Pendulum settling is perhaps the most non-debunkable aspect of the whole thing. Does anyone have a viable explanation for it?
-
But since we are specifically talking about the Apollo 12 rendezvous here, where exactly are you proposing this was filmed and how?
I do not know. It would be like asking a kid to explain how the magician cut the woman in half -- otherwise mandating that he believe she was REALLY cut in half.
When it comes to MLH -- we're dealing with expert/specialist humans with a big budget, not telling anyone their secrets. There's MANY ways for these teams of experts/specialists to produce their end product. All we can hope to do, is to spot where they've "messed up" by breaking physics -- as with the 8 Flag motions, and with this Dish settling like a Pendulum.
But when it comes to TD's - we're only dealing with "normalcy" - there is "no human TRYING TO FOOL YOU".... so gives you fewer options to explain things. For example, this dish flings, then settles out like a pendulum (a sign of gravity). Your options for explaining this "highly abnormal" behavior is limited.
My only aim here is to figure out which MLH claims do NOT have a viable known TD explanation. This A12 incident appears to be one of them.
-
I have proven the pendulum style motion via KRITA/frame-captures, showing a constant oscillation period with decreasing amplitudes. So it "moves like a pendulum" has been sufficiently proven, and pendulums REQUIRE GRAVITY.
The Pendulum settling is perhaps the most non-debunkable aspect of the whole thing. Does anyone have a viable explanation for it?
BUllshit! You are looking at it with biased objectives. The dish appears to cut loose from its restraints. It impacts one side of its mooring, then the other. This is energy dissipation.
Basic physics. You see a stupid pendulum that ceases completely, even as the LM continues to rotate on its axis and then yaw to the side.
You keep ignoring where I raise these points. You are making the absurd claim that the dish cuts loose suddenly then just as it stops moving it suddenly acquires magic stability as the LM changes orientation!
-
So it "moves like a pendulum" has been sufficiently proven, and pendulums REQUIRE GRAVITY.
'Moves like' is not the same as 'is'. A true pendulum does indeed require gravity, but all that translates to in physics terms is that there is a balance between momentum and a force that eventually acts to bring the freely moving object to a position of rest. It doesn't have to be gravity.
So your implication/belief is that this servo-motor was "designed to allow this fast of movement", PLUS that the "tracking algorithm purposefully CAUSED this motion" ???
My thought is that it is entirely possible that when a mechanism designed to track an object loses the lock it may well start searching around for it again in order to get it back, or that if it receives spurious input (such as a reflection off a nearby reflective object) this may confuse the system and cause unusual motions.
All of which makes more sense than your entirely invented scenario of a motorised system being switched for one with a guide wire during an edit (leaving no evidence in the simultaneous film and TV footage of the exact same event) that for some reason failed to remain attached during the, according to you, entirely pre-planned and executed movements of the LM (which would themselves be hard to achieve if not actually in space). That is not only a purely speculative scenario, it is a wildly inept one.
-
I do not know. It would be like asking a kid to explain how the magician cut the woman in half -- otherwise mandating that he believe she was REALLY cut in half.
No, it really wouldn't. You come here claiming to be able to bring detailed analysis of physics to these arguments, then shy away when you have to admit to having no evidence for a necessary consequent of your proposal.
When it comes to MLH -- we're dealing with expert/specialist humans with a big budget, not telling anyone their secrets. There's MANY ways for these teams of experts/specialists to produce their end product.
One of which, if they had such huge budget and resources, was to actually go to the Moon and shoot it all there as they claim.
All we can hope to do, is to spot where they've "messed up" by breaking physics -- as with the 8 Flag motions, and with this Dish settling like a Pendulum.
Once more, what you have to do is prove that they have broken physics, not just done something in ways you don't understand. You keep putting yourself up as this physics expert and are not willing to entertain the possibility that it is you who are in error.
-
1. It impacts one side of its mooring, then the other. This is energy dissipation.
2. You are making the absurd claim that the dish cuts loose suddenly then just as it stops moving it suddenly acquires magic stability as the LM changes orientation!
1. If weightless, each oscillation would have SAME AMPLITUDE, bouncing against the same hinge-limits each time. As energy dissipates, it would randomly come to a stop somewhere along the path between the two extremes... not favoring the center.
But what we see here is DECREASING AMPLITUDE... meaning that after the first 2 "bounces" - now it reverses motion without hitting a hinge limit... meaning something is pulling it back. This is how a pendulum works in the presence of gravity.
All of this is provable via High school physics. How well did you do in high school Physics?
2. My claim is that it becomes rigid at the very end, after 7 oscillations. Which could be a sign of any of the following:
(a) motor re-engaged, from 'neutral'.
(b) Brake mechanism applied.
(c) static friction sets in.
-
My thought is that it is entirely possible that when a mechanism designed to track an object loses the lock it may well start searching around for it again in order to get it back, or that if it receives spurious input (such as a reflection off a nearby reflective object) this may confuse the system and cause unusual motions.
It *was* tracking earth for the first 30 degrees of the pitch. I've overlaid dish frame comparisons in KRITA to establish that for these 30 degrees, the dish does not change shape at all... it is NOT ROTATING while the LM pitches.... So when it snaps free and flings -- the "down position" it ends up with is more than 30 degrees off target.
Also the way this was designed is that the astronauts first get it "aimed towards the earth", then the control mechanism of the dish from there can "fine tune it and track"... It would a sign of awful tracking software to "experience a glitch" and then respond with fast haphazard "searching" - as it flip-flops back and forth just like a pendulum.... ending up facing AWAY from earth.
==
My understanding of the complexity involved with the Landing/Ascent part of this mission isn't the same as yours. Faking it may have been a bit costly, but it was a guaranteed "slam dunk" (which was supposedly LBJ's code name for this covert military operation). Two years prior, they couldn't even communicate between 2 buildings on the ground, before they smoked Gus Grissom and crew. But after that incident, the "magic started to happen" (accelerated development by 50%, while adding MORE to the list of things to do, now that they had to redesign/build the CSM from scratch while dealing with a complete breakdown in QA/QC). Then both Seamans and Webb resigned prior to A7.... and didn't attend anymore launches. I smell fish. And believe we have justification to question our govt.
-
I do not know. It would be like asking a kid to explain how the magician cut the woman in half -- otherwise mandating that he believe she was REALLY cut in half.
No, it really wouldn't. You come here claiming to be able to bring detailed analysis of physics to these arguments, then shy away when you have to admit to having no evidence for a necessary consequent of your proposal.
I'm the kid who saw the lady cut-in-half, and am saying "hey, where's the blood"? And everyone else, having believed this was all real is saying "if you can't tell us how he tricked us, then you have no right to think it was faked." I see signs of fakery, from a regime/era of the 1960's where corruption seemed to be at a PEAK. (JFK, Gulf Tonkin, Vietnam, Daniel Ellsberg, RFK, MLK, ... Apollo).
The missing 500-page Baron Report that neither NASA nor NA even MENTION... missing without a statement. And the NASA site STILL declares that it NEVER existed!...
https://www.nasa.gov/history/Apollo204/barron.html (https://www.nasa.gov/history/Apollo204/barron.html)
All we can hope to do, is to spot where they've "messed up" by breaking physics -- as with the 8 Flag motions, and with this Dish settling like a Pendulum.
Once more, what you have to do is prove that they have broken physics, not just done something in ways you don't understand. You keep putting yourself up as this physics expert and are not willing to entertain the possibility that it is you who are in error.
Nope. Not "Physics Expert". But I was always good at Physics, and have done a considerable amount professionally with 3D simulations.
I purposefully ONLY deal with BASIC PHYSICS. Stuff they teach in High School Physics. Like Pendulums, and Newton's foundational laws.
Even the most expert of the expert physicists aren't proving these foundational principles to be "invalid"... at least not for "closed-slow-moving-systems".
You don't have to be a "math expert" to declare "2 + 2 = 4". Nor do you need to be a Physics Expert to do Pendulum analysis, or basic dynamics.
-
It *was* tracking earth for the first 30 degrees of the pitch.
I'm not arguing that at all.
the "down position" it ends up with is more than 30 degrees off target.
And since it's not in use any more (and won't be needed again anyway) why does this matter?
It would a sign of awful tracking software to "experience a glitch" and then respond with fast haphazard "searching" - as it flip-flops back and forth just like a pendulum.... ending up facing AWAY from earth.
The whole point of a 'glitch' is it does something unexpected or otherwise not correct. And a good solution is for it to come to rest in a particular position where it can be reset from if it can't relocate the object it is tracking.
My understanding of the complexity involved with the Landing/Ascent part of this mission isn't the same as yours.
That much has been made abundantly clear.
Faking it may have been a bit costly, but it was a guaranteed "slam dunk"
No, it wasn't. And doing it more and more with ever-increasing complexity is an insane thing to do if you want to avoid getting caught faking.
Two years prior, they couldn't even communicate between 2 buildings on the ground, before they smoked Gus Grissom and crew.
Communications difficulties on Earth between buildings have no bearing on communications in space.
But after that incident, the "magic started to happen" (accelerated development by 50%, while adding MORE to the list of things to do, now that they had to redesign/build the CSM from scratch while dealing with a complete breakdown in QA/QC).
They did not 'redesign the CSM from scratch'. Block II was already well underway in the design development stage by the time of Apollo 1. Your research into this time is very seriously deficient.
-
I'm the kid who saw the lady cut-in-half, and am saying "hey, where's the blood"? And everyone else, having believed this was all real is saying "if you can't tell us how he tricked us, then you have no right to think it was faked."
What a ludicrous analogy. A magician on stage is not trying to convince the audience he has really sawn someone in half, he is seeking applause for trickery and making it appear he has achieved something impossible. Nobody in the audience demands explanations or thinks it was real, they appreciate the showmanship and trickery because that's what they went in for. It's not even remotely comparable to the situation under discussion.
-
It would a sign of awful tracking software to "experience a glitch" and then respond with fast haphazard "searching" - as it flip-flops back and forth just like a pendulum.... ending up facing AWAY from earth.
1. And a good solution is for it to come to rest in a particular position where it can be reset from if it can't relocate the object it is tracking.
Faking it may have been a bit costly, but it was a guaranteed "slam dunk"
2. They did not 'redesign the CSM from scratch'. Block II was already well underway in the design development stage by the time of Apollo 1. Your research into this time is very seriously deficient.
1. "come to rest" - that's the whole issue. It came-to-rest like a pendulum. Without gravity, this motion is hard to explain, unless you think the "programmed response" to a lost track is to fling about 9 times against the hinge-constraints (first 2 times) -- in order to "come to rest". If you are tracking something, and then "lose that track for a second", your best bet is clearly to "continue the previous angular velocity" (best) or "maintain current position"(2nd best) -- but NEVER to fling-off-tracking by 30+ degrees... and then settle out 3 seconds later pointing 30 degrees off-track.
But, so far -- this seems to be the BEST the TD's can offer. If you think of something better, please show it.
2. GOOD POINT. This part of my research is not-so-good, and is flavored heavily by MLH echo chambers.. It's why I hate the echo chambers -- it makes fools out of everyone involved, but they'll never know it. Saying "from scratch" was clearly an over-statement.
The trend from 1964, to 65, to 66, from Webb was that with each passing year, they're getting further behind... as should be expected, especially from a 400K size team, spread across 50 states, managed with Paper specs, Paper designs, Paper reports, and Gaant Charts all on paper... paper, paper, paper... run by the government. But then in 1967, they "accelerate plans" and then accomplish the most difficult things to date -- milestone after milestone after milestone.... no more significant slips. While Webb/Seamans BOTH resign and won't attend another launch. Smells to me like NASA switched over to "Plan B - Slam Dunk" in 1967, and Webb/Seamans didn't want any more part with it.... leaving JUST BEFORE they achieve the crowning victories. Fishy, fishy fish fish fish.
-
1. It impacts one side of its mooring, then the other. This is energy dissipation.
2. You are making the absurd claim that the dish cuts loose suddenly then just as it stops moving it suddenly acquires magic stability as the LM changes orientation!
1. If weightless, each oscillation would have SAME AMPLITUDE
No! Impacts either side reduce amplitude. Energy absorption.
bouncing against the same hinge-limits each time.
Ok, show where you've proven that is what it is doing.
As energy dissipates, it would randomly come to a stop somewhere along the path between the two extremes... not favoring the center.
You seem to be a professor of bullshit and a master of evasion. I wonder why you only partially quoted me? See bolded below.
But what we see here is DECREASING AMPLITUDE
Well derrr, each impact reduces the inertia.
meaning that after the first 2 "bounces" - now it reverses motion without hitting a hinge limit... meaning something is pulling it back. This is how a pendulum works in the presence of gravity.
Complete bollocks.
All of this is provable via High school physics. How well did you do in high school Physics?
Shutup
Your claim is a pathetic hoax-blinkered assessment that ignores fundamental issues:
Basic physics. You see a stupid pendulum that ceases completely, even as the LM continues to rotate on its axis and then yaw to the side.
You keep ignoring where I raise these points. You are making the absurd claim that the dish cuts loose suddenly then just as it stops moving it suddenly acquires magic stability as the LM changes orientation!
-
What a ludicrous analogy. A magician on stage is not trying to convince the audience he has really sawn someone in half, he is seeking applause for trickery and making it appear he has achieved something impossible. Nobody in the audience demands explanations or thinks it was real, they appreciate the showmanship and trickery because that's what they went in for. It's not even remotely comparable to the situation under discussion.
How about this -- many TD's for Apollo, are skeptical (at best) about the JFK (and RFK?) assassination(s). Even though they do NOT KNOW who did it, or how it was organized... and the mainstream media says it was not a govt/institutional conspiracy... just one-man acting alone.... Yet we have enough evidence to suspect conspiracy with institutions.
Baron's missing 500-page report - never mentioned by NASA or NA... now claimed by NASA as "never existed". Even though we don't KNOW what happened to it, we have grounds to suspect some foul play.
I believe with Apollo, we have plenty of grounds to suspect some fakery. My goal is to separate the "good evidence" from the "not good" and the "crap/lying evidence".
"Lunar Launches too Fast" == Crap evidence.
"Sand Falls too Fast" == Not Good Evidence
"8 Flag motions" == Undebunked Evidence.
"A12 Dish Flinging - to Pendulum motion" == Looks good so far.
"Baron's 500-page report gone missing after his freak family death 6 days later - no one mentions it; NASA site denies it existed" == seems good so far.
More to be explored.
-
1. It impacts one side of its mooring, then the other. This is energy dissipation.
2. You are making the absurd claim that the dish cuts loose suddenly then just as it stops moving it suddenly acquires magic stability as the LM changes orientation!
1. If weightless, each oscillation would have SAME AMPLITUDE, bouncing against the same hinge-limits each time.
No, it certainly wouldn't. And that is where you get this all wrong.
But what we see here is DECREASING AMPLITUDE... meaning that after the first 2 "bounces" - now it reverses motion without hitting a hinge limit... meaning something is pulling it back. This is how a pendulum works in the presence of gravity.
A pendulum is a special case of an oscillating system, where the force is gravity. It could be anything else though.
All of this is provable via High school physics. How well did you do in high school Physics?
Please...
-
But what we see here is DECREASING AMPLITUDE
1. Well derrr, each impact reduces the inertia.
2. How well did you do in high school Physics? - Shutup
3. Basic physics. You see a stupid pendulum that ceases completely, even as the LM continues to rotate on its axis and then yaw to the side.
1. Derrr? Without gravity, it would have continued to move the FULL RANGE OF MOTION allowed by the hinge, only changing direction from the rebound off of the limit. But with gravity, before it can reach the extreme, the gravity pulls it back to center... thus the AMPLITUDE DECREASES, but only with this gravity. That's the point here - there is gravity, or SOMETHING acting on it to reverse direction before it reaches the hinge constraint.
2. So this means "no"? Or "not well"? It shows. It's OK - most haven't taken Physics. So please know your limits here.
3. "Ceases completely" - yes, with explanation that this LM wasn't just a "total fake" -- the dish either engaged it's motor, or had brakes applied -- or possibly static friction (which is often more than dynamic friction).
How many times do I have to say the same basic things to you?
@LunarOrbit - surely you recognize the illegitimacy of Mag40's mode of arguing here? I am addressing all legitimate arguments, but many of Mag40's simply do not qualify as legitimate. He doesn't even understand basic physics, it appears.
-
A pendulum is a special case of an oscillating system, where the force is gravity. It could be anything else though.
Please name "something". One TD has proposed it was the servo-motor tracking algorithm gone wild, not a loose pendulum.
Do you have any other options to propose?
-
1. "come to rest" - that's the whole issue. It came-to-rest like a pendulum.
Once again 'like' is not the same as 'is'.
unless you think the "programmed response" to a lost track is to fling about 9 times against the hinge-constraints (first 2 times) -- in order to "come to rest".
No, I don't think that was a programmed response, necessarily. Could be an erratic response to spurious input such as part of one of the space craft entering the tracking field or some other thing.
If you are tracking something, and then "lose that track for a second", your best bet is clearly to "continue the previous angular velocity" (best) or "maintain current position"(2nd best) -- but NEVER to fling-off-tracking by 30+ degrees... and then settle out 3 seconds later pointing 30 degrees off-track.
Like I said, it may not have been a simple loss of tracking, there could have been other spurious inputs that confused the system. And if that happens a good solution is to reset to a base position and allow manual reacquisition of the target if required. Allof which makes a darn sight more sense than anything you are proposing involving a guide wire, a 'neutral' setting, an invisible edit in two different simultaneous media captures of the event, etc.
But then in 1967, they "accelerate plans" and then accomplish the most difficult things to date -- milestone after milestone after milestone....
That tends to happen when the basic development is advanced. Things accelerate.
no more significant slips.
Another baseless and ignorant claim. Apollo 4 was plagued by delays and launched months later than planned. Apollo 6 suffered structural problems during flight that saw parts of the SLA fall off. Apollo 8 was a hasty alteration because the LM was not ready for the planned mission. Apollo 13 is its own story. Every mission had problems. There was no 'slam dunk'.
-
How about this -- many TD's for Apollo, are skeptical (at best) about the JFK (and RFK?) assassination(s). Even though they do NOT KNOW who did it, or how it was organized... and the mainstream media says it was not a govt/institutional conspiracy... just one-man acting alone.... Yet we have enough evidence to suspect conspiracy with institutions.
Oh do shut up.
Baron's missing 500-page report - never mentioned by NASA or NA... now claimed by NASA as "never existed". Even though we don't KNOW what happened to it, we have grounds to suspect some foul play.
Total bollocks. The CM worked in space - proven. Your ability to employ red herrings is not impressive.
I believe with Apollo, we have plenty of grounds to suspect some fakery.
Nobody cares what you believe.
My goal is to separate the "good evidence" from the "not good" and the "crap/lying evidence".
Nobody cares about your goal or how you think it is achievable.
"Lunar Launches too Fast" == Crap evidence.
Ignoring yet again, footage aligned with Apollo 16 and 17 launches that is ludicrously hard to fake in the seventies. Astronauts in situ with the same identical scenario.
"Sand Falls too Fast" == Not Good Evidence
Au contraire, there is good evidence but in the opposite direction.
"8 Flag motions" == Undebunked Evidence.
Cowardly evading observations relating to coincidence and lack of explanation from you.
"A12 Dish Flinging - to Pendulum motion" == Looks good so far.
Bollocks.
"Baron's 500-page report gone missing after his freak family death 6 days later - no one mentions it; NASA site denies it existed" == seems good so far.
The CM flew successfully in space and all occupants returned to Earth. Seems shite.
More to be explored.
Really? You think you've got some new crap do you?
-
What a ludicrous analogy. A magician on stage is not trying to convince the audience he has really sawn someone in half, he is seeking applause for trickery and making it appear he has achieved something impossible. Nobody in the audience demands explanations or thinks it was real, they appreciate the showmanship and trickery because that's what they went in for. It's not even remotely comparable to the situation under discussion.
How about this -- many TD's for Apollo, are skeptical (at best) about the JFK (and RFK?) assassination(s).
THIS IS OFF TOPIC.
-
1. Once again 'like' is not the same as 'is'.
2. No, I don't think that was a programmed response, necessarily. Could be an erratic response to spurious input such as part of one of the space craft entering the tracking field or some other thing.
3. That tends to happen when the basic development is advanced. Things accelerate.
1. Correct. "Moved LIKE a Pendulum" - that's my claim. So coming up with a ways to explain this movement is the task at hand. One explanation is that it "WAS" a pendulum.
2. OK - that's an improvement. Spurious input, although it's clear with how it was facing evermore AWAY from the LM, that it wasn't from "LM blockage". The first reasonable blockage (although I don't think it would be blocked here either) would have happened at the END of the 120 degree yaw (final maneuver a couple minutes later). The earth was on the Dish-side of the LM until the END of the 120 yaw. So need to think more about other "spurious inputs" that might result in a "total reset". This still leaves to-be-explained, "why would a reset operation involve fast/loose pendulum style activity - to a direction 30+ degrees away from the previous known tracking position?"
3. Actually, in product development, its' the END that DRAGS ON, and ON, and ON -- it's common industry joke that when they report "90% done" this means "we've still 50% of the calendar schedule left" (at best)... It's the finish work where rubber-meets-the-road that the new issues pop out, and causes rework. Or new issues.. etc.
And this wasn't just "normal acceleration" - it was "CRAZY" acceleration per Alan Bean and his associates. They ALL thought it was "CRAZY, NO WAY, YOU CAN'T DO THAT!" But they did it anyways, and poof, like magic, it all worked out to make JFK into a prophet, -- landing by 1969. No more casualties. No more whistleblowers. Webb/Seamans Resigned.
-
A pendulum is a special case of an oscillating system, where the force is gravity. It could be anything else though.
Please name "something". One TD has proposed it was the servo-motor tracking algorithm gone wild, not a loose pendulum.
Do you have any other options to propose?
How can someone who claims to be good at physics not be able to envisage alternatives? Haven't you ever seen something swing around and bounce around a few times before coming to rest as the energy from the initial displacement is dissipated? Especially something with moving parts like gears and motors. Something that definitely isn't a pendulum?
-
1. Derrr? Without gravity, it would have continued to move the FULL RANGE OF MOTION allowed by the hinge
Show where you deduced there was a hinge.
, only changing direction from the rebound off of the limit.
Basically what is seen on the footage.
But with gravity, before it can reach the extreme, the gravity pulls it back to center.
Show where you proved it hadn't reached "the limit".
thus the AMPLITUDE DECREASES, but only with this gravity.
Bullshit again. Impacting negates inertia.
That's the point here - there is gravity, or SOMETHING acting on it to reverse direction before it reaches the hinge constraint.
Bullshit. Show where you proved it didn't reach such a "constraint"!
2. So this means "no"? Or "not well"? It shows. It's OK - most haven't taken Physics. So please know your limits here.
It means you continue to be an arse.
3. "Ceases completely" - yes, with explanation that this LM wasn't just a "total fake" -- the dish either engaged it's motor, or had brakes applied -- or possibly static friction (which is often more than dynamic friction).
Bullshit again. If the dish has partial connectivity as indeed it must have, such restriction limits its motion.
How many times do I have to say the same basic things to you?
Bollocks.
@LunarOrbit - surely you recognize the illegitimacy of Mag40's mode of arguing here? I am addressing all legitimate arguments, but many of Mag40's simply do not qualify as legitimate. He doesn't even understand basic physics, it appears.
Once again you ignore the salient part of the footage. Weaselling for moderator support?
Basic physics. You see a stupid pendulum that ceases completely, even as the LM continues to rotate on its axis and then yaw to the side.
You keep ignoring where I raise these points. You are making the absurd claim that the dish cuts loose suddenly then just as it stops moving it suddenly acquires magic stability as the LM changes orientation!
@lunarorbit I urge your continued tolerance of this person, at least until we get him to answer things he is running away from.
-
1. Correct. "Moved LIKE a Pendulum" - that's my claim.
No, your claim is that it is in fact a pendulum being acted upon by gravity.
So coming up with a ways to explain this movement is the task at hand.
No, coming up with ways to explain this movement that make sense and fit with other observed evidence is the task at hand.
One explanation is that it "WAS" a pendulum.
And if you go with that you have to explain every other aspect of that footage, because the weight of evidence presented is very much that it was happening in space. One anomaly does not bring it all down.
This still leaves to-be-explained, "why would a reset operation involve fast/loose pendulum style activity - to a direction 30+ degrees away from the previous known tracking position?"
No, that does not need to be explained. Reset to a base position is a perfectly reasonable step if tracking is lost and must be manually reaccquired.
-
Regarding the antenna. How did you determine its movement is different to the visual record showing its movement during testing and demonstration?
How did you determine the movement visible is not in keeping with the set paramaters of the steerable antenna in eith manual or automatic mode?
Why are you continuing to use the 16mm footage's audio as a reference point for timing when it is best-guess synched to the film? The closest you can get to it being accurate is by using the TV footage as a refence.
Given you believe the footage was shot on earth, how do you account for facilities like Bochum Observatory in Germany being able to acquire the TV signal by pointing their antenna at the moon?
-
A pendulum is a special case of an oscillating system, where the force is gravity. It could be anything else though.
Please name "something". One TD has proposed it was the servo-motor tracking algorithm gone wild, not a loose pendulum.
Do you have any other options to propose?
Yes, I would point to the springiness in the system. But that is a generalized proposition. I don't know anything about the specific construction of the mount.
But you cannot get around energy dissipation whether it is a pendulum or any other oscillating system. It has nothing to do with gravity or not.
-
1. No, your claim is that it is in fact a pendulum being acted upon by gravity.
2. No, that does not need to be explained. Reset to a base position is a perfectly reasonable step if tracking is lost and must be manually reaccquired.
1. My claim here is that it "moved LIKE a pendulum". My current belief is that it WAS a pendulum. I have other evidence to present that I'm not (yet) allowed to present... so we can discuss "other" evidence associated with Apollo, when LO allows it.
2. I'll document your proposal as the TD defense. Do you have a preference on how to word this proposal?
Are you planning to address why this "reset algorithm might behave like a pendulum, instead of just moving direct to the reset position"?
And if you want to make other alternate proposals, I can included those as well.
If there were 20 other anomalies like this one -- would that cause you to smell any hint of fish?
-
1. How did you determine the movement visible is not in keeping with the set parameters of the steerable antenna in eith manual or automatic mode?
2. Why are you continuing to use the 16mm footage's audio as a reference point for timing when it is best-guess synched to the film? The closest you can get to it being accurate is by using the TV footage as a refence.
1. We see the Rendezvous radar controlled by servo-motor, and how it moves. We see the S-Band dish moving slowly as it tracks earth. We've also seen many many other servo-motor controlled arms, and how they move. All are rigid/precise. None swing loosely like a pendulum. But if you'd like to insert the TD explanation that the S-Band Dish armature servo-motor was purposefully designed to move this fast, and that it's tracking algorithm could purposefully explain this motion -- great - we'll document that as one of the TD explanations. It's aligned with Jason Thompson's proposal. Write it up -- I'll include it in the summary/conclusion for this thread and my document.
2. Note, my main claim here is audio-sync independent. Now that Jason Thompson pointed out the "switch to Omni Aft" prior to this incident, the insertion of static timing is now less meaningful. Nobody seems to know why this static suddenly appears, if they were using "Omni Aft"...
In short, the audio-sync dependency of this thread/claim has dropped out. It's no longer a part of the MLH claim I'm establishing.
I'm only establishing now that the Dish contorts away from the LM, then snaps-free- bounces off the hinge constraints twice, then settles out LIKE a pendulum, with 7 more oscillations each with decreasing amplitude, and a similar period.
This behavior appears to me as an unexplained anomaly for the TD's (Truth Defenders).
-
1. My claim here is that it "moved LIKE a pendulum". My current belief is that it WAS a pendulum.
Semantics.
2. I'll document your proposal as the TD defense. Do you have a preference on how to word this proposal?
I have zero interest in your activities beyond this forum.
Are you planning to address why this "reset algorithm might behave like a pendulum, instead of just moving direct to the reset position"?
Not any further than the already presented suggestion that spurious input or loss of tracking may cause unexpected behaviour. Perhaps it had a limited search function that then went to rest if reaccquisition did not occur. Perhaps it's just a random glitch or otherwise unexpected movement associated with loss of tracking. I neither know enough about the system to find out the exact detail nor care enough to try. You wanted alternatives, you have been provided with them.
If there were 20 other anomalies like this one -- would that cause you to smell any hint of fish?
If you present 20 'anomalies' that are then explained will that cause you to abandon the idea that it was faked?
-
I'm only establishing now that the Dish contorts away from the LM, then snaps-free- bounces off the hinge constraints twice, then settles out LIKE a pendulum, with 7 more oscillations each with decreasing amplitude, and a similar period.
You keep using the word 'hinge'. To what 'hinge' are you referring to?
-
And any comment on Bochum being able to receive Apollo TV by pointing their antenna at the moon?
-
Yes, I would point to the springiness in the system. But that is a generalized proposition. I don't know anything about the specific construction of the mount.
But you cannot get around energy dissipation whether it is a pendulum or any other oscillating system. It has nothing to do with gravity or not.
Energy dissipation occurs even in space - agreed.
My issue has to do with the "decreasing amplitude" of each successive oscillation. In Gravity -- THIS is what energy dissipation would look like.
While in space (weightless), it would continue with SAME AMPLITUDE, but a decreasing SPEED.. it would simply "Slow down"... each time going to the SAME hinge constraint and bouncing off of it. Each bounce would reduce the energy, and as it rotates, the hinge itself applies some resistance... But in the end - it would randomly stop ANYWHERE along the path -- with the MOST LIKELY place to stop being just AFTER a bounce... As the bounces would be the thing that reduces energy the most (like a step function).
Instead, it hones in on the center position, reversing direction before hitting a hinge constraint. Therefore, some FORCE has to ACT ON IT to reverse direction. MLH says that this force is gravity.
So far, TD's best proposal is that it was the servo-motor running a reset-algorithm, and instead of just moving straight to "center/default position" it oscillates very quickly/suddenly, 9x before stopping.
I'm open to using whatever wording you like for this.
-
And any comment on Bochum being able to receive Apollo TV by pointing their antenna at the moon?
Off-topic. We could discuss this in a new thread -- start it, and I'll join in. It can cover all 1970's live tracking claims, including Bochum, amateurs, Jodrell, Italy, etc.
-
Why would it continue with the same amplitude if it is oscillating around a final resting position as a result of ‘springiness’ in the system?
-
I'm only establishing now that the Dish contorts away from the LM, then snaps-free- bounces off the hinge constraints twice, then settles out LIKE a pendulum, with 7 more oscillations each with decreasing amplitude, and a similar period.
You keep using the word 'hinge'. To what 'hinge' are you referring to?
This dish is on a dual-hinge armature. From 2-hinge motion (at 90-degree angles to each other), it can point in ANY direction. We see both hinges bounce. The armature hinge bounces around a couple times, and the Dish hinge bounces 9x. The dish-hinge is the one which exhibits the pendulum-like motion.
-
I'm only establishing now that the Dish contorts away from the LM, then snaps-free- bounces off the hinge constraints twice, then settles out LIKE a pendulum, with 7 more oscillations each with decreasing amplitude, and a similar period.
You see a stupid pendulum that ceases completely, even as the LM continues to rotate on its axis and then yaw to the side.
You keep ignoring where I raise these points. You are making the absurd claim that the dish cuts loose suddenly then just as it stops moving it suddenly acquires magic stability as the LM changes orientation!
This behavior appears to me as an unexplained anomaly for the TD's (Truth Defenders).
Nobody cares how anything "appears" to you. You have loaded your mind with a conclusion and defend it with no objectivity or logic.
1. You still haven't provided any accurate data that shows how the dish was connected or how it "disconnected".
2. You seem to be unable to rectify how Newton's 3rd law can cause an object to change direction, given that said object must be constrained.
3. You are definitely preaching to the fools on Facebook with your ego the most precious commodity.
4. Stop being a complete arse and address the bolded part above.
-
Off-topic.
Then why bring up the concept of nothing was shot in space in this thread? Please refrain from doing it in the future.
-
If it had a motor to move it, then why would it need a wire? Or, if it had a wire to move it, then why would it need a motor?
Perhaps it only had a "locking mechanism" or perhaps the motorized unit was unable to "track the supposed earth location" adequately. So they decided to rig up a guide wire to keep it's aim constant.
The Pendulum behavior for the settling out is a key point here. This indicates gravity. If weightless, it would continue at the SAME AMPLITUDE, only slower. But this settling out shows 7 oscillations, each with decreasing amplitude. Why did the dish reverse directions before hitting the hinge-constraint?
Pointless and baseless speculation without a shred of evidence to support it. It doesn't even make sense.
The smell of elderberries and hamsters is eye watering....
-
This dish is on a dual-hinge armature. From 2-hinge motion (at 90-degree angles to each other), it can point in ANY direction. We see both hinges bounce. The armature hinge bounces around a couple times, and the Dish hinge bounces 9x. The dish-hinge is the one which exhibits the pendulum-like motion.
It is not hinged.
-
There has been no addressing of the manual vs automatic movement of the antenna. Why not?
-
And any comment on Bochum being able to receive Apollo TV by pointing their antenna at the moon?
Off-topic.
Nah, I'll allow it. After all, you're saying the antenna in that video was fake... so why was Bochum receiving Apollo TV signals from the Moon? You can't ignore that question, it is directly related to your claim.
-
Why would it continue with the same amplitude if it is oscillating around a final resting position as a result of ‘springiness’ in the system?
When you hit a hinge-constraint, there is springiness to the response.
Are you now suggesting that there are springs inside that are always wanting to return to the default position?
The two hinges have motion limits of 180 degrees vs. 360 degrees.
Here's a performance analysis doc with diagrams for the two-hinge angles.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19720012253/downloads/19720012253.pdf (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19720012253/downloads/19720012253.pdf)
And here's a live picture of one, opened up, high-res:
https://ids.si.edu/ids/deliveryService?id=NASM-A19770614000cp01 (https://ids.si.edu/ids/deliveryService?id=NASM-A19770614000cp01)
-
And any comment on Bochum being able to receive Apollo TV by pointing their antenna at the moon?
Off-topic.
Nah, I'll allow it. After all, you're saying the antenna in that video was fake... so why was Bochum receiving Apollo TV signals from the Moon? You can't ignore that question, it is directly related to your claim.
I'm only claiming that it moves like a pendulum.
Otherwise, you are allowing for the full Gish-Gallop of EVERYTHING pro-Apollo to be brought up here.
So I have limited my CLAIM here to ONLY the that this dish flings free, and then settles down with motion like that of a pendulum. Period.
The OTHER topics all deserve threads... otherwise, you are allowing a mostly UNLIMITED NUMBER of off-topic arguments that have nothing to do with this "Pendulum-like motion" -- while for me, you won't allow me to then explain all of the OTHER reasons I currently believe MLH.
Completely lop-sided refereeing here.
-
There has been no addressing of the manual vs automatic movement of the antenna. Why not?
Both automated and manual use the same servo-motor to control motion. The Claim here has to do with the "fast free flopping pendulum motion" of the dish as it settles out, which doesn't comport with the notion of being "servo-motor controlled" -- because part of the onus for the TD's here is to explain the "decreasing amplitude" reversals that happen... And so the best guess so far seems to be that this was a servo-motor action (otherwise, how did it "reverse" before hitting the motion constraints?).
-
And any comment on Bochum being able to receive Apollo TV by pointing their antenna at the moon?
Off-topic.
Nah, I'll allow it. After all, you're saying the antenna in that video was fake... so why was Bochum receiving Apollo TV signals from the Moon? You can't ignore that question, it is directly related to your claim.
I'm only claiming that it moves like a pendulum.
You are claiming that it is proof that the Moon landings were faked. That leads to questions that you must answer.
If you can't answer WHY Bochum was receiving TV signals from the Moon then it throws into doubt that your interpretation of the antenna movements is correct.
Completely lop-sided refereeing here.
This is how it works. If you can't make your theory jive with all of the other evidence that supports Apollo then it is your theory that is put into doubt, not the authenticity of Apollo.
-
It is not hinged.
Thanks for the image reference, I added this one to the document.
"Hinge joint" is a Physics rigid-body term.... it simply means it's "motion constrained to a single axis", but also does imply that it has constraints (maximum angle).
The docs seem to indicate that the dish itself has a 360 span... and the armature 180 deg. These aren't technically "hinges" though as we traditionally think of hinges.
The first two oscillilations "bounce" off something (as it's immediate and with similar rebound velocity) -- I was calling these "Hinge constraints".
In your current explanation, you are calling them "servo-motor maneuvers"...
You can modify your explanation as many times as you want, without shame. (I won't accuse you of moving goal posts, or making-up-new-shit, etc -- as this is the whole point of this process, to help devise the very best TD explanation for this behavior... which takes iterations.)
I'll document whatever you come up with... hopefully as a collaboration among the group of you.
-
You are claiming that it is proof that the Moon landings were faked. That leads to questions that you must answer.
Not claiming this. Not PROOF of faked moon landings. Only trying to determine the best explanation of this fling, bouncing, then pendulum-like motion from a TD perspective.
And if they have separate questions related to MLH, these are separate threads of thought. The Bochum concept involves a host of other "3rd party validations of flight/landing".
If you allow this, then you allow EVERY OTHER TOPIC to be brought in. While you do the OPPOSITE FOR ME... I cannot explain the OTHER reasons I currently believe MLH is true.
The purpose of this WHOLE FORUM, is to cover TOPICS. The COMMON GLOBAL TOPIC is "Did we really land humans on the Moon?"... So we investigate individual isolated pieces of evidence. It's bad practice to allow every single topic to be polluted with many many many things off-topic.
For example, I believe the corruption exhibited in 1960's due to a variety of other PROOFS of corruption -- all contribute to why I believe this Pendulum motion is best explained by gravity. Can I bring those up, and demand answers? Nope. Those deserve separate threads. We should be on the same team, unless you are under some contract with NASA to help protect them.
-
OK, you just made a point about not posting off-topic. What was your intention with the comment "unless you are under some contract with NASA to help protect them."?
-
Not claiming this. Not PROOF of faked moon landings. Only trying to determine the best explanation of this fling, bouncing, then pendulum-like motion from a TD perspective.
"A12 Dish Flinging - to Pendulum motion" == Looks good so far.
I swear this guy is a bloody comedian. He uses anti-physics as a model for his claims that aren't proving anything but "look good so far".
So the pendulum theory fails when all motion stops, when the LM continues to rotate and yaw for some considerable time afterwards. Notice how najak runs away from this.
-
We should be on the same team, unless you are under some contract with NASA to help protect them.
What a troll.
-
You can modify your explanation as many times as you want, without shame.
I am not modifying anything, nor trying to narrow down to the exact explanation for the observed movements. The point is to show that there are other possibilities besides a pendulum swinging in gravity, and they carry more weight because they don't require the additional elements of guidewires, 'neutral' settings or brakes, or even edits to the film and TV footage to explain everything that is seen.
That is literally all that is required to counter your argument.
-
That is literally all that is required to counter your argument.
If this "stood alone" yes.
I assume you don't want to word something up, because there's no way to word it without exposing the flaws in such a proposal. If you won't word it up, I will, then you can comment on it for corrections/clarification.
If everyone is done providing comments, then this topic can be concluded.
Anyone else?
-
I assume you don't want to word something up, because there's no way to word it without exposing the flaws in such a proposal.
No, you do not get to ascribe motivations to me. I am not interested in providing a watertight proposal as you demand, just in providing possible alternatives. And if you're happy to invent guidewires and edits to the film why should I be held to a higher standard?
-
So the pendulum theory fails when all motion stops, when the LM continues to rotate and yaw for some considerable time afterwards. Notice how najak runs away from this.
-
And if you're happy to invent guidewires and edits to the film why should I be held to a higher standard?
In the context of MLH and fakery, my proposal is "viable". Here we are dealing with "people trying to figure out a way to trick us" - to the opportunities are endless. THIS isn't proof though -- it's just a suggestion.
But for the TD case, you have to deal with a context of "normalcy" -- there are no humans trying to trick you. Whatever explanation a TD can come up with is confined to the realm of "physics, machine mechanics, etc".. normal stuff.
But this behavior appears to me as far from normal. You don't have to agree.
I just wanted to give TD's a fair shot at documenting their best possible explanation(s). If I were in your shoes, I wouldn't want to write it up either, because I'd find myself unable to reasonably provide a viable explanation.
If this stood alone - no problem. It's just a single unexplained anomaly, right?
-
Here we are dealing with "people trying to figure out a way to trick us" - to the opportunities are endless.
No, they really are not, because EVERY possibility introduces something else you need to account for.
But for the TD case, you have to deal with a context of "normalcy" -- there are no humans trying to trick you. Whatever explanation a TD can come up with is confined to the realm of "physics, machine mechanics, etc".. normal stuff.
Your hoax explanations are still bound by physics and 'normalcy'. You don't get to handwave any old explanation without considering its implications.
If I were in your shoes, I wouldn't want to write it up either, because I'd find myself unable to reasonably provide a viable explanation.
Once again, STOP ascribing motivations to me. YOU claim this is abnormal. YOU bear the burden of proof to show that it is what you claim it to be. YOUR explanation has to hold water.
I do not know if the movements are programmed responses to loss of tracking, a glitch caused by spurious input, a system disrupted by a sudden movement settling down to a static position, or what it might be. But any of those suggestions are possible and do not require the invention of external rigs and editing of the footage. You have no evidence for such things beyond 'it looks odd to you so those things must exist to explain it', and that is a common theme of all your arguments so far.
-
Your hoax explanations are still bound by physics and 'normalcy'. You don't get to handwave any old explanation without considering its implications.
Agreed. MLH claims are bound by physics, and feasibility. Implications of all proposals are important too.
-
Agreed. MLH claims are bound by physics, and feasibility. Implications of all proposals are important too.
And since we are talking about a motor driven system with two independent rotational axes it is inherently feasible for it to move the way it does by means other than gravity, whether by computer-driven responses, a system glitch or some other reason. No need for guide wires, no need for edits. No additional implications that mean it can't be a spacecraft in orbit of the moon. Your arguments against have been based on your unwillingness to believe it would have done so, which is a problem of your credulity, not physics or feasibility.
It comes down to this: if we're right then it's a spacecraft orbiting the moon exactly as claimed. If you're right there's a whole set of new circumstances that have to be accounted for, and you are unable or unwilling to consider those implications as counting against your interpretation of what you see.
-
If it had a motor to move it, then why would it need a wire? Or, if it had a wire to move it, then why would it need a motor?
Perhaps it only had a "locking mechanism" or perhaps the motorized unit was unable to "track the supposed earth location" adequately. So they decided to rig up a guide wire to keep it's aim constant.
The Pendulum behavior for the settling out is a key point here. This indicates gravity. If weightless, it would continue at the SAME AMPLITUDE, only slower. But this settling out shows 7 oscillations, each with decreasing amplitude. Why did the dish reverse directions before hitting the hinge-constraint?
Again, do you actually read this nonsense before posting?
So, in your fevered imagination there was a recognition that the pointing of the antennae could be problematic and that it was important enough to design in a redundant method of moving it as well as building in a mythical latching mechanism. Then when they recorded it all, they didn't seem to care that despite all their planing such an important piece had malfunctioned. Was the thinking process "Right lads, we better get the steering of the antennae spot on, so I want a redundant moving mechanism. This will also have to be a co-ordinated system as the motor can't pull against the invisible supporting wire. Better through a latch in there too, just in case".
And then when, despite all this planning, it didn't work they went "Never mind lads. I know that I said that the steering of the antennae was super important. Despite all of that, you still buggered it up. Never mind, no-one will notice. It'll be grand".
Were you drunk when you imagined all of this??? Naturally, you've made this claim without a shred of evidence or research into the steerable antennae. Have you actually looked at one? Researched how it was built and controlled? Actually made enquiries with the makes of the antennae? What actually evidence have you found that lead you to thinking that there was a controlling wire AND a motor AND a latching mechanism?
He claimed somewhere else that you coul irradiate meteorites to make them appear exactly like Apollo samples. I'm still waiting for an answer from him on exactly how to carry out this irradiation.
Jarrah White can answer this one better than me.
No so fast.
You made the claim. What irradiation was needed to make a meteorite look indistinguishable from the Apollo samples? Can you point to any peer-reviewed evidence to show where this has been tried and tested? Back it up or withdraw the claim, please. Perhaps LunarOrbit can add this to the list of questions that you are trying to wriggle away from?
I also note that despite your grand claims to be the smartest guy in the room you have a clear willingness to accept on face value ridiculous claims made by other hoax-believers, yet demand scrutiny of the historical canon. It's almost as if you have a huge confirmation bias that you are unconsicious of. Which, of course, you won't as you are the smartest guy in the room.
/s
-
Again, do you actually read this nonsense before posting?
So, in your fevered imagination there was a recognition that the pointing of the antennae could be problematic and that it was important enough to design in a redundant method of moving it as well as building in a mythical latching mechanism. Then when they recorded it all, they didn't seem to care that despite all their planing such an important piece had malfunctioned. Was the thinking process "Right lads, we better get the steering of the antennae spot on, so I want a redundant moving mechanism. This will also have to be a co-ordinated system as the motor can't pull against the invisible supporting wire. Better through a latch in there too, just in case".
And then when, despite all this planning, it didn't work they went "Never mind lads. I know that I said that the steering of the antennae was super important. Despite all of that, you still buggered it up. Never mind, no-one will notice. It'll be grand".
Yes this is his magic wand he thinks he can use at any time; doesn't it make any sense; "it's good enough, let's move on".
-
Yes this is his magic wand he thinks he can use at any time; doesn't it make any sense; "it's good enough, let's move on".
"Good enough, let's move on." - is Life. As sometimes, schedule/budget constraints, or maybe the people involved were having a bad day, or not feeling too enthused about fooling-the-world -- just decided a few things a little recklessly. This isn't "magic" - it's just life. It's normal. Feasible.
While this dish flinging, bouncing, then settling out like a pendulum in the advertised context, might actually be impossible. But I'm happy to document your explanation(s) however you want.
The "magic" is when you say NASA accelerated development by 50% following a tragic occurrence of blatant failures in QA/QC, and the non-mentioned loss of a 500-page incident report, against everyone's better judgement ("You can't do that! No Way! That's Crazy!") -- as you do the hardest part of the development process ... "the ending" (ask anyone involved in complex bleeding-edge product development)... and magically accomplish the impossible on TV only - where there are few witnesses to confirm. This seems more like actual "magic" to me. In an era where we KNOW the govt was repeatedly lying to the people, and likely even involved (indirectly?) in the assassinations of JFK, and RFK.... the honest men who would dare to defy the system.
-
It comes down to this: if we're right then it's a spacecraft orbiting the moon exactly as claimed. If you're right there's a whole set of new circumstances that have to be accounted for, and you are unable or unwilling to consider those implications as counting against your interpretation of what you see.
I'd be GLAD to have ALL of this discussed - but it's a HUGE undertaking, of MANY TOPICS. Which cannot be addressed in a single thread. Each demands it's own thread. Which would you like to discuss first?
All I can do in this ONE thread is address this ONE topic -- "what is the best explanation TD's have for this Dish motion?" In your world, the explanation doesn't involve "human imagination/trickery" - but rather must be the result of "normal causes".
Is this servo-motor even designed for such fast movements? Was the "tracking software" THAT bad that it's best response would be to "turn away from the previous locked position, very very quickly, bounce hard twice, then settle out like a pendulum?"
I think this incident presents a serious problem for the TD's. If you don't, that's OK. That's what free thought is about.
-
While this dish flinging, bouncing, then settling out like a pendulum in the advertised context, might actually be impossible.
No, you don't get to brush it off as 'maybe impossible'. It is a motorised armature with two rotational degrees of freedom. If it can move at all as it is seen to it can do so as a combination of deliberate or accidental controlled motions, or it can settle from a moving state to rest under any force that would cause that to occur, such as natural elastic energy exchange in the moving parts of the object.
But I'm happy to document your explanation(s) however you want.
No, as you have been told, it is not our burden of proof. It is yours to support your claim that it is, and can only be, a pendulum swing under the influence of gravity. And that includes dealing with all the necessary consequences of that claim.
Once again, if we are right, then the system can be part of a spacecraft operating in space as claimed, with no additional components, wires, braking mechanisms, film edits, procedures, people, sets, or anything required. Your claim requires additional things for which there is no evidence beyond 'this is what you think would be needed to make it do the thing you think it's doing'.
The "magic" is when you say NASA accelerated development by 50% following a tragic occurrence...
Yadda yadda yadda, same old, same old. Nothing 'magic' about it. The entire programme is well documented and has been for half a century. You do not bring any new or special insight here, no matter how much you may wish you did.
-
This isn't "magic" - it's just life. It's normal. Feasible.
No but it contradicts the logic you try to apply before it; First they see a problem, then they go through a lot of trouble of trying to fix it (adding motors, wires, adding a special shot to attach the wire); and then they see it go wrong and all of a sudden they don't care anymore (instead of choosing one of the much more simple solutions (not releasing it at all, redoing the shot.)
Your explanation doesn't make any sense from any point of view.
I've already told you that there are more reports of that antenna not behaving as it should, including even an oscillation event;
-
I'd be GLAD to have ALL of this discussed - but it's a HUGE undertaking, of MANY TOPICS.
No, I am only talking about this specific issue.
Is this servo-motor even designed for such fast movements? Was the "tracking software" THAT bad that it's best response would be to "turn away from the previous locked position, very very quickly, bounce hard twice, then settle out like a pendulum?"
Maybe. I am going to keep saying this until it penetrates your skull (or I get bored, which frankly will probably come first), but it is NOT NECESSARY for me to provide the exact details. The dish absolutely DOES have servo motor control. It absolutely WILL do something when it loses tracking. Your incredulity aside, it is perfectly feasible for the movement to be either a deliberate response, an unexpected sequence caused by a glitch or spurious input, or simply one sudden controlled movement followed by natural settling under forces inherent among the moving parts. And NOT ONE of those possibilities requires any additional elements such as guide wires or film edits that you have proposed in support of yours. THAT ALONE makes these suggestions more plausible than yours.
I think this incident presents a serious problem for the TD's.
No, the problem is that you are artificially inflating your position by saying it can only be debunked by a completely accurate description of the precise sequence of events seen on the film that you completely agree with. That is not how reasoned argument works. Your argument requires a very elaborate setup, for which you have no supporting evidence, to occur. Mine involves only the components known to be present.
-
Read this:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19730005491/downloads/19730005491.pdf (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19730005491/downloads/19730005491.pdf)
Steerable antenna oscillations of 2-3Hz are described in this report, and it is stated that antenna oscillations occurred on all Apollo missions, many of them as a result of loss of tracking. So yes, the motors absolutely could drive the motions seen on Apollo 12.
-
Read this:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19730005491/downloads/19730005491.pdf (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19730005491/downloads/19730005491.pdf)
Steerable antenna oscillations of 2-3Hz are described in this report, and it is stated that antenna oscillations occurred on all Apollo missions, many of them as a result of loss of tracking. So yes, the motors absolutely could drive the motions seen on Apollo 12.
Nice find and thank you for the association. The text reads:
"The response indicates that the antenna "began to experience approximately 2- to 3-hertz mechanical oscillations which became increasingly larger in amplitude with time. "
and
"Similar oscillations occurred during the Apollo 11, 12, and 15 missions, but only Apollo 15 and l6 experienced tracking interruptions."
==
I might argue that the initial "Fling" is out of spec. And that these amplitudes were decreasing not increasing -- so NOT the same software bug.
However, this report does indicate bugs in their software/system, and an oscillation effect, giving some credence to your theory.
The described bug of "increasing amplitude" MAKES SENSE as a bug... because when it "loses tracking" the FIRST thing it should do is "small scans to try and figure out where it went" and then increasing this amplitude to look further around... then giving up as it blows the circuit.
BUT for this A12 case, that doesn't fit this profile of this software bug at all. It starts very fast and large, and bounces back/forth.
I have downloaded this PDF, and saved the link in the gdoc, and will include this into the TD "best explanation" as part of the conclusion for this thread/topic.
-
I might argue that the initial "Fling" is out of spec. And that these amplitudes were decreasing not increasing -- so NOT the same software bug.
Irrelevant. You expressed incredulity that the servo motors would drive the antenna in a rapid oscillation. You suggested this was absurd, bad design, even 'impossible'. The point here is that rapid oscillations driven by the motors ARE a known phenomenon. That is all I was providing evidence for. The fact that this one doesn't exactly match the oscillations described in this specific report (which are themselves the subject of the report because they were anomalous oscillations from non-obvious causes) does not alter the fact that such oscillations ARE possible with the systems described for the spacecraft.
So, on the one hand we have a system that is known to oscillate rapidly when tracking is lost being seen to oscillate rapidly when tracking is lost, an expected and documented sequence of events if the spacecraft is working as advertised. On the other we have your suggestion of a snapping guidewire attached during a seamless film edit causing a gravity-driven drop and oscillation, a sequence of events for which many extra things are required for which there is no supporting evidence at all. It is not my explanation that needs to have credence added at this point.
-
Irrelevant.
All I'm doing is presenting the two sides. Audience decides for themselves. Are you not comfortable with this?
-
Irrelevant.
All I'm doing is presenting the two sides. Audience decides for themselves. Are you not comfortable with this?
Except that would involve presenting some actual evidence for the existence of your "wire".
On the side, have you confirmed that the steerable was being used at all?
-
Irrelevant.
All I'm doing is presenting the two sides. Audience decides for themselves. Are you not comfortable with this?
Another tick on the bingo card. You are strikingly unoriginal in your activity here.
You repeatedly expressed incredulity that a servomotor-driven mechanism would oscillate that rapidly. You now have a primary source document that shows it was not only possible but a known behaviour that occurred in some variation on every single flight. If it is capable of driving a rapid oscillation AT ALL it is capable of driving variations on that theme, such as the one seen on Apollo 12, which does not have to exactly match the type described in this report. Therefore, what is seen on Apollo 12 is not at all anomalous behaviour.
Do you now agree that it is POSSIBLE for the observed motion to be driven by the motors in the steerable antenna assembly?
-
On the side, have you confirmed that the steerable was being used at all?
The journal indicates he switched to Omni Aft before this incident, so it WAS being used. And in this video, we see it tracking the earth for the first 30 degrees, as it pulls away from the LM. So not sure why they included both the "switch to aft Omni" (before) and then inserted static shortly after. And the narrative of switching to Aft Omni at a time when the Aft was being rotated AWAY from the earth, giving the Fore Omni a much better view.
This is just surrounding context, that looks a bit jumbled/haphazard to me. But it's not part of this claim.
My Claim only has to do with the "fling, bounce, then pendulum-like settling out" motion. I wanted to hear the TD's best attempt at explaining it.
-
So not sure why they included both the "switch to aft Omni" (before) and then inserted static shortly after.
Still can't let go of 'they inserted it' rather than the switch being normal procedure and the static just being static that happened for any number of reasons that don't actually have to be tied into the switch, can you?
My Claim only has to do with the "fling, bounce, then pendulum-like settling out" motion. I wanted to hear the TD's best attempt at explaining it.
Do you now agree it was POSSIBLE for the motion to be driven by the motors in the steerable antenna assembly?
-
Do you now agree that it is POSSIBLE for the observed motion to be driven by the motors in the steerable antenna assembly?
I agree that it might be Possible. The initial fling, and it centering itself on a point AWAY from earth, and it's decreasing amplitude - all indicate to me that this is NOT the bug mentioned elsewhere. And the manner of motion (flaccid/loose) - doesn't resemble any servo-motor I've ever witnessed... normally this is rigid/steady.
So the combination of those factors, makes me think it couldn't have been the servo-motor.
But could you purposefully program it to move in this fashion -- I think that's likely POSSIBLE, but would be a weird algorithm (1. Fling hard, 2. Bounce back hard a couple times, 3. now employ slow decelerations like a pendulum for the next 7 oscillations). Not a likely software algorithm, even for a bug.
But this appears to be the best TD's have to offer for explanation.
-
Today's CrewDragon/CST dockings take HOURS from about 400 meters away to docking... very very slowly....
Please cite a source for this claim of multiple hours of docking from 400 meters. I've looked at three different mission profiles and found only 1 that was more than an hour from Waypoint 0, and it was barely more than hour. I suspect that you're repeating unvetted information as fact again...
-
Please cite a source for this claim of multiple hours of docking from 400 meters. I've looked at three different mission profiles and found only 1 that was more than an hour from Waypoint 0, and it was barely more than hour. I suspect that you're repeating unvetted information as fact again...
"unvetted" - Probably so. But you'll see once I am offered correction, I accept it. I don't keep repeating something that has been corrected.
What links are you looking at? (and I'll reference these moving forward)
-
Please cite a source for this claim of multiple hours of docking from 400 meters. I've looked at three different mission profiles and found only 1 that was more than an hour from Waypoint 0, and it was barely more than hour. I suspect that you're repeating unvetted information as fact again...
"unvetted" - Probably so.
Don't you get tired of constantly embarrassing yourself? Maybe you should start to question more of your beliefs before sharing them with others.
But you'll see once I am offered correction, I accept it. I don't keep repeating something that has been corrected.
;D ;D ;D
(https://i.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExbmt3ZWdyazg4MnZ3enoxbnhseXBiNzNqcmIxdHAweDE3ZTJwZW5oYiZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/1AIeYgwnqeBUxh6juu/giphy.gif)
-
I agree that it might be Possible.
Thank you.
The initial fling, and it centering itself on a point AWAY from earth, and it's decreasing amplitude - all indicate to me that this is NOT the bug mentioned elsewhere.
Straw man argument. I never suggested it WAS the oscillation described in the report. Only that there is documented evidence of oscillation behaviour of the Lunar Module steerable S-band antenna.
And the manner of motion (flaccid/loose) - doesn't resemble any servo-motor I've ever witnessed... normally this is rigid/steady.
Irrelevant. The servo motor is documented to be capable of oscillating the steerable antenna around the frequency observed on the Apollo 12 docking film. Something you thought not possible at all before. Now confronted with the evidence it is you naturally move the goalposts to the exact details of the movement not matching your expectations.
So the combination of those factors, makes me think it couldn't have been the servo-motor.
But it is still a million times more likely to be the existing hardware than your invented guidewires and film edits.
But could you purposefully program it to move in this fashion -- I think that's likely POSSIBLE, but would be a weird algorithm
Yes, you could. And even leaving aside your idea of it being weird, it is also possibly NOT purposeful but an unexpected pattern of behaviour in a specific circumstance. Computer controlled electronics do unexpected things all the time.
Not a likely software algorithm, even for a bug.
By definition a bug is an unplanned sequence of events, so ascribing likelihood to it based on a notion of wat a person would program it to do is ridiculous.
But this appears to be the best TD's have to offer for explanation.
And, as already explained, it does away with ANY need for additional elements such as guidewires, film sets, edits, etc. that your scenario absolutely requires. Occam's razor applies.
-
Don't you get tired of constantly embarrassing yourself? Maybe you should start to question more of your beliefs before sharing them with others.
It breaks-the-ice. I view this as what should be a friendly work-group. As you are aware, there is a TON of misinformation out there, so it's often difficult to categorize in our heads the sources of various "tidbits of knowledge"... I don't always have them labeled as such. And I don't think it's embarrassing when others make mistakes either. Safe White boarding; safe work group.
The issue here is that I believe people here take offense at the notion of evidences that support MLH. They prefer to live in with the worldview that "all MLH claims have been easily debunked".
We are One. Stronger together. I like being corrected, and taking correction - because it emphasizes the collaborative aspect of the group.
I realize I have confirmation bias. Most don't realize the power of this force within themselves, and how it shapes how you consume new evidence/input and categorize it in your mind. I KNOW that a lot of what I've got in my brain is misinformation.... but most others don't seem to realize this about themselves.
If it were to become evident that MLH is true -- I'd want the path from TD to MLH to be as smooth/friendly and shameless as possible.
-
And, as already explained, it does away with ANY need for additional elements such as guidewires, film sets, edits, etc. that your scenario absolutely requires. Occam's razor applies.
GREAT! It sounds like your counter-analysis is now concluded. I'm glad you are satisfied with it.
-
And, as already explained, it does away with ANY need for additional elements such as guidewires, film sets, edits, etc. that your scenario absolutely requires. Occam's razor applies.
GREAT! It sounds like your counter-analysis is now concluded. I'm glad you are satisfied with it.
The question is not if I am satisfied, but if you will continue to cling on absurdly to the idea that this movement is evidence of fakery. The title of this thread is 'Dish Falls with Gravity', and your arguments have been that this movement can ONLY be explained by gravity. Do you still hold to that position?
-
The issue here is that I believe people here take offense at the notion of evidences that support MLH.
Wouldn't you be offended if someone accused you of lying about your greatest achievement? You're accusing all of the people who worked on Apollo of either lying or being an idiot who didn't realize they were part of a hoax. I'm offended on their behalf.
They prefer to live in with the worldview that "all MLH claims have been easily debunked
I wouldn't say it is always easy. If you are sensing a bit of hostility towards you it might be because people have put a lot of effort into their replies to you, only for you to casually dismiss or ignore them.
If it were to become evident that MLH is true -- I'd want the path from TD to MLH to be as smooth/friendly and shameless as possible.
You won't achieve that by coming here and behaving arrogantly as if you're the smartest person here, if not the entire planet. That was the first impression you intentionally chose to make when you arrived. You have lost your chance to expect friendliness in return.
-
The question is not if I am satisfied, but if you will continue to cling on absurdly to the idea that this movement is evidence of fakery. The title of this thread is 'Dish Falls with Gravity', and your arguments have been that this movement can ONLY be explained by gravity. Do you still hold to that position?
I personally think it's best explained by Gravity, still. But that's because I'm sitting on a heap of other evidence which "seems good to me".
The process of exploring this thread, "removed some weight from my original beliefs". I started out thinking "this is a slam dunk; smoking gun". Now -- not so much.
I also started out thinking "Lunar Launches Too Fast" is also a smoking gun, slam dunk -- now I think it's a big nothing-burger.
I used to think the Dust-Falls-Too-Fast was an undeniable smoking gun -- now I see the ambiguities involved.
8-Flag Motions -- for me -- remains as strong as ever. So 1 for 4 remained unchanged for me. 2 have dropped out.
I'd like to move on with more and see how they hold up under scrutiny.
-
Don't you get tired of constantly embarrassing yourself? Maybe you should start to question more of your beliefs before sharing them with others.
It breaks-the-ice.
No, it compromises your credibility and establishes that you are someone who can't be trusted to present factual information.
I view this as what should be a friendly work-group.
Please don't. If that was what you wanted then you fantastically missed the mark when you came in with an extraordinary amount of condescension and arrogance. A better way to view this is as a doctoral defense. If you don't know enough about the content to defend it against knowledgeable adversaries who will be trying to take it apart then you will fail. You are currently failing badly.
As you are aware, there is a TON of misinformation out there, so it's often difficult to categorize in our heads the sources of various "tidbits of knowledge"... I don't always have them labeled as such.
Yes, this is the burden of intellectual integrity. Until you accept this responsibility, you have none.
And I don't think it's embarrassing when others make mistakes either.
Mistakes are different. Mistakes are typos, or mixing up the author of a source, or which source you meant to refer to. You are flat out presenting misinformation and insisting it is real until people do your homework for you and show you, with more rigor than you applied when you believed it, that you are factually incorrect. That is not a mistake, that is lazy, careless, dishonest, and rude.
Safe White boarding; safe work group.
Again, no.
The issue here is that I believe people here take offense at the notion of evidences that support MLH. They prefer to live in with the worldview that "all MLH claims have been easily debunked".
I take no offense at people having ideas that are off of the mainstream. I can have civil discourse with flat earth believers and moon hoaxers. I know they're wrong, and I will try to show them why, but no offense will be taken.
I take great offense to the arrogance and condescension you display while be wildly wrong. I take great offense at you stepping all over the protocols and procedures of civil discourse and your insistence on shifting the burden of proof. I take offense at your unwillingness to lift a finger for research beyond Google AI and still attempt to maintain a position of arbiter.
For at least the third time from me alone, your ideas are not offensive; your behavior is the problem.
-
Wouldn't you be offended if someone accused you of lying about your greatest achievement? You're accusing all of the people who worked on Apollo of either lying or being an idiot who didn't realize they were part of a hoax. I'm offended on their behalf.
At least they enjoy super-majority support... that's pretty nice. And if they know it's all true, they have self-confidence/security. The opinion of some whack-o shouldn't make a difference to them.
BUT -- now imagine MLH is true, and you are Thomas Baron, and were murdered with your family... Here the WHOLE SYSTEM is geared to discredit his sacrifice. He is shamed and discredited, and NASA's site even lies about the 500-page report. It went missing (all copies) and now NASA site says it never existed.
Also - if MLH is true -- then I'm offended for EVERYONE (including you) - who were fooled for so long.
Also - I'd be offended for how NASA has corrupted the sacred concept of "Scientific Consensus" which is supposed to the MOST WEIGHT... it's supposed to be sacred.
Also - I'm offended for all of the Vietnam vets and casualties - who were also a victim of govt' lies. If MLH is true - I think they'd all want it uncovered.
===
So I think it's worth getting to the bottom of this. And I can't imagine how the self-secure folks of NASA/Apollo would be offended by the scant few, when they enjoy super-majority support. And if it's all true - -who cares what I think.
But if MLH is true -- that means a lot, no? Would you even WANT to know? I'm not so sure people WANT to live in a world where Apollo was faked... Cognitive Dissonance galore.
-
I personally think it's best explained by Gravity, still. But that's because I'm sitting on a heap of other evidence which "seems good to me".
No, you don't get to tease us with 'other evidence' again. And if you think an argument that requires a mountain of other things for which there is no supporting evidence you can offer (you were asked, for instance, how and where the film and TV were simultaneously edited to allow this hypothetical guidewire to be attached and you said you had no idea, and frankly I'm willing to bet that until someone mentioned it you didn't even know there was both TV and film coverage of the rendezvous and docking) to be explained away is better than 'the machinery was known to do that sort of thing under certain circumstances, not all anticipated or fully understood at the time', which requires nothing else to be added to the scenario, then your reasoning skills are seriously deficient.
-
But if MLH is true -- that means a lot, no? Would you even WANT to know?
Yes, but since no-one has actually presented any evidence that stands up to a bit of scrutiny, I'm comfortable for now that Apollo happened as advertised.
I mean, do you really and genuinely think you're bringing new stuff here? I've been on this forum and its predecessor for over 20 years at this point. You are just boringly familiar in your arguments and the manner in which you present them.
-
No, you don't get to tease us with 'other evidence' again. And if you think an argument that requires a mountain of other things for which there is no supporting evidence you can offer (you were asked, for instance, how and where the film and TV were simultaneously edited to allow this hypothetical guidewire to be attached and you said you had no idea, and frankly I'm willing to bet that until someone mentioned it you didn't even know there was both TV and film coverage of the rendezvous and docking) to be explained away is better than 'the machinery was known to do that sort of thing under certain circumstances, not all anticipated or fully understood at the time', which requires nothing else to be added to the scenario, then your reasoning skills are seriously deficient.
If MLH is true - then my beliefs about this scenario make a LOT more sense than yours, at least with regard to it being GRAVITY causing the pendulum.
Therefore the other evidence makes a difference. It's cumulative.
This is one piece of the big puzzle -- and if MLH is false - then it's just a "singular very-weird occurrence".
-
Yes, but since no-one has actually presented any evidence that stands up to a bit of scrutiny, I'm comfortable for now that Apollo happened as advertised.
A14 8-flag movements. Still standing strong.
This Flinging Dish Pendulum - is also still standing. There's no "reasonable TD explanation" --only an unlikely "possible" one. So this incident, for many, will work against Apollo, even after pages of scrutiny, and your counter explanation. They can decide. Are you comfy with that?
-
If MLH is true - then my beliefs about this scenario make a LOT more sense than yours, at least with regard to it being GRAVITY causing the pendulum.
Look up 'affirming the consequent' as a logical fallacy.
To convince us MLH is true you have to present the evidence that it is true. That means explaining how your hypothetical guide wire works and providing evidence that this was in fact done. You can't make up a load of stuff and then say it works best as evidence if the thing it is evidence of is true. That's not how reasoned debate works.
And in any case, your argument doesn't make any more sense if MLH is true, because even if that is all being filmed in a studio, the motors in the steerable antenna assembly are STILL capable of making it move like that in the manner described. And that still is a simpler argument than attaching a guidewire for some reason that then snaps.
-
A14 8-flag movements. Still standing strong.
Strong as what? You refuse every single time to rectify the absurd coincidence factor that for the depressurisations, these are the only times the flag moves. You think some pillock opened the door in those instances?
You have failed to rectify this absurdity about your claim.
-
You have failed to rectify this absurdity about your claim.
I'm trying to guess "human trickery" here... so there are a LOT of options. My newest guess is that one or more people on set weren't enthused about faking things, and are trying to be whistleblowers "accidently on purpose" -- subtle enough that it makes it into production... an easter egg for discovery -- as it's being discovered now. If I were working this set, bound by Oath to keep national secrets under penalty of treason -- I might also be looking for ways to deliberately "accidently mess-up". It's feasible, maybe even likely -- in the realm of MLH where they are faking it, with a measure of resentment/reluctance.
The "faking employees" may be stuck faking it, in that they signed these oaths before knowing what they signed up for -- this is how the military works. Breaking these military oaths to reveal national secrets is treason, and you become an enemy of the nation.
They left us some clues -- "accidentally on purpose". I like this theory a lot.
-
I like this theory a lot.
Of course you do. It requires no effort on your part and sounds plausible to other people who lack critical thinking skills. I'm assuming your evidence for this hypothesis is as robust as everything else you've provided...
-
They left us some clues -- "accidentally on purpose". I like this theory a lot.
Employee 1: What shall we label this rock?
Employee 2: A
Employee 1: What shall we label this rock?
Employee 2: B
Employee 1: And this one? C?
Employee 2: Yeah, but make sure you have the C exposed so we can give clues that we are on a film set.
Employee 1: Er, we have another 20000 rocks. What happens when we get to Z?
Employee 2: Not sure. Eh, don't walk over that cement, you'll leave footprints.
Cue Mitchell and Webb.
-
I'm trying to guess "human trickery" here... so there are a LOT of options.
Usual hoax believer nonsense of putting motivation ahead of evidence. You need to first prove there IS trickery, which so far you have failed to do.
My newest guess is that one or more people on set weren't enthused about faking things, and are trying to be whistleblowers "accidently on purpose"
'Newest'? Good grief this idea has been around forever. Once again, your relentless predictability fails to amaze me.
Do you really, truly believe you are bringing anything actually new here?
as it's being discovered now.
Ah, the 'new to you, therefore new to everyone' fallacy....
We have been through literally everything you bring here before. Several times.
-
Ah yes, NASA, simultaneously capable of simulating a lunar mission perfectly but incapable of controlling some idiot with a broom walking on set at the wrong time.
-
Even najak's 'I'm just trying to separate out the poor hoax arguments from the good ones' has been done before here. Though at least the last person to try that line had the good grace to start with that position, rather than bring it in after a few rounds of 'I know I'm right and here are irrefutable proofs it was faked but oh dear actually you have a point some of them are maybe not so good but really that was what I was trying to ascertain all along'.
-
Usual hoax believer nonsense of putting motivation ahead of evidence. You need to first prove there IS trickery, which so far you have failed to do.
I have a list of "trickery evidence", but this forum is afraid to hear it in a well-presented "one thread per topic" manner.
So far, "5 flag motions towards the LM" is the most bullet-proof single piece of evidence presented. For this SIMPLE LUNAR CONTEXT, there is no viable explanation.
This "A12 Dish Flings to Pendulum" incident is also compelling to me, as from how I see it (and maybe many might see it), no "reasonable explanation" seems to exist for the loose flopping around of the dish like a pendulum.
I have more. But you'd rather say "I have no evidence" than to provide a thread for me expressing it.
These 4 starting threads are dead -- nothing more to discuss. You've made your explanation(s) and I've made mine. Debates are wrapped up. Time for the next ones. But if I were you, I'd be scared to hear them too.
-
This "A12 Dish Flings to Pendulum" incident is also compelling to me, as from how I see it (and maybe many might see it), no "reasonable explanation" seems to exist for the loose flopping around of the dish like a pendulum.
I literally explained that to you very clearly. It is a motorised assembly KNOWN to oscillate when tracking is lost, being seen oscillating when tracking is lost.
But you'd rather say "I have no evidence" than to provide a thread for me expressing it.
No, I said you have no evidence for any of the things you suggested might explain this behaviour, such as a guidewire and an edit in the film and TV footage, or indeed any other way they might have done it. And this is perfectly true. This is the very thread for you to provide that evidence because it directly relates to this claim. But you don't have it. You have unsupported speculation that it was done in a certain way.
You've made your explanation(s) and I've made mine.
No, you have not 'explained' anything. You have speculated. IF your theory is true then there are things you MUST explain to support it.
Debates are wrapped up.
No, you are just running away from having to concede another argument.
But if I were you, I'd be scared to hear them too.
Yawn. I have absolutely zero fear of anything you may bring to this discussion. And the reasons for your being restricted have been explained to you very very clearly.
-
I have a list of "trickery evidence", but this forum is afraid to hear it in a well-presented "one thread per topic" manner.
Boohoo. Publish a list by topic on an external document - I bet absolutely nothing new - are you afraid to do that?
So far, "5 flag motions towards the LM" is the most bullet-proof single piece of evidence presented. For this SIMPLE LUNAR CONTEXT, there is no viable explanation.
I strongly suggest you stop repeating this bullshit and ignoring a far simpler explanation than leaving the door open, coincidence-like with the whistleblowing shite.
This "A12 Dish Flings to Pendulum" incident is also compelling to me, as from how I see it (and maybe many might see it), no "reasonable explanation" seems to exist for the loose flopping around of the dish like a pendulum.
Listen to this guy! He makes up crap about how it works and ignores completely how it comes to a complete standstill even as the LM rolls and yaws for some time after! Clearly no gravity.
-
No, you are just running away from having to concede another argument.
What else would you like to say here then? You've given your best explanation (speculation only). Got more?
I concede that this evidence doesn't mean "we faked the landings". It only means that we've got "dish behavior that flings wildly, then mimics a pendulum, which doesn't seem to match the expectation of how a servo-motor would control it." Your point is "it COULD; it's POSSIBLE" -- so we leave it at that. End of debate.. unless you have more to add.
We have more such material to cover. If you aren't afraid to discuss, I'll feed you a topic and YOU START THE THREAD... so we can discuss it. I'm not allowed to do such a horrid thing.
-
So far, "5 flag motions towards the LM" is the most bullet-proof single piece of evidence presented. For this SIMPLE LUNAR CONTEXT, there is no viable explanation.
I strongly suggest you stop repeating this bullshit and ignoring a far simpler explanation than leaving the door open, coincidence-like with the whistleblowing shite.
"Far simpler explanation" -- perhaps you can be the first provide this viable explanation.
-
"Far simpler explanation" -- perhaps you can be the first provide this viable explanation.
Playing the arse again. Cabin depressurisation.
1. Venting strikes the pole, the pole support and/or the flag.
2. Unpredictable results based on random vacuum gas motion.
3. Maybe random static attraction with the gas venting against the nylon flag - not even looked into it.
4. The venting could be partially striking the surface around about where the flagpole is - static attraction with the oxygen / nylon.
Pure speculation.
Some "whistleblowing-hero" opening the door in all instances (coincidences in stupid conspiracy theories) and still providing no coherent explanation, doesn't quite work.
Pure bollocks.
Publish a list by topic on an external document - I bet absolutely nothing new - are you afraid to do that?
Hmmm, appears you are.
-
No, you are just running away from having to concede another argument.
What else would you like to say here then? You've given your best explanation (speculation only). Got more?
All you've provided is a story you've made up with a guide wire and motors, all speculation. Why do you think the rebuttal needs to be held to a higher standard?
I concede that this evidence doesn't mean "we faked the landings".
What evidence? You don't have any evidence. You have a story you made up out of nothing but your imagination to explain movement you don't understand. That's not evidence of anything.
It only means that we've got "dish behavior that flings wildly, then mimics a pendulum, which doesn't seem to match the expectation of how a servo-motor would control it."
Which doesn't seem to match your expectation, which has no value in an objective discussion.
Your point is "it COULD; it's POSSIBLE" -- so we leave it at that. End of debate.. unless you have more to add.
If you want the debate to end it's your turn to add something. You've presented a fantasy story to explain the movement you don't understand. As long as someone presents a more realistic explanation that is plausible, that is enough to warrant you conceding that your claim has no merit. If you're finally comfortable adding that, please do, it would be a refreshing change.
We have more such material to cover. If you aren't afraid to discuss, I'll feed you a topic and YOU START THE THREAD... so we can discuss it. I'm not allowed to do such a horrid thing.
Don't bait people into the Gish Gallop for you. There is nobody here who doesn't see this tactic for exactly what it is, and it's embarrassing that you think this would pass.
Nobody is afraid of anything you have to say. We're just unsure if we want to bother investing any more time in someone who knows as little as you do, is unaware of his ignorance, and is unwilling to accept any evidence that doesn't confirm his preconceptions.
"Far simpler explanation" -- perhaps you can be the first provide this viable explanation.
Case in point, the viable explanation has been provided for you over and over again. The LM cabin depressurization is the cause. Your unwillingness to accept this doesn't make it unviable, it simply confirms that you prefer creating an absurd fantasy to accepting any physical evidence that challenges your assumptions.
-
All you've provided is a story you've made up with a guide wire and motors, all speculation. Why do you think the rebuttal needs to be held to a higher standard?
I don't. I think your explanation is fine. It's the best I've heard. This topic is now complete.
Claim: Dish flings, bounces, then settles out like a pendulum. This doesn't seem like reasonable behavior to expect from a servo-motor controlled armature.
Apollogy: There were other reports of 2-3 hz oscillations (that started low then increased up to 10 deg)... so there is SIMILAR behavior being reported, so this behavior seems "POSSIBLE". So the Apollogy can offer an explanation that seems POSSIBLE.
Nothing else to be said here. Time to move on, rather than beat a dead horse.
-
Playing the arse again. Cabin depressurisation.
Please post your theory on the associated thread, and I'll apply some scrutiny -- see where it lands.
-
All you've provided is a story you've made up with a guide wire and motors, all speculation. Why do you think the rebuttal needs to be held to a higher standard?
I don't. I think your explanation is fine. It's the best I've heard. This topic is now complete.
Then why did you tell Jason his explanation was speculation and ask if he had any more?
Claim: Dish flings, bounces, then settles out like a pendulum. This doesn't seem like reasonable behavior to expect from a servo-motor controlled armature.
The claim is faulty from the beginning by relying on what "doesn't seem like reasonable behavior" without providing justification for that expectation. It is much more likely that your expectation is faulty, given that you've provided no compelling reason to believe that your expectation is consistent with reality.
-
Publish a list by topic on an external document - I bet absolutely nothing new - are you afraid to do that?
Right now I have a list of candidates, all shown in my gdoc repository here:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1gbNvzeRY3WfI5aphdi5UJvK0Niq367rg?usp=drive_link (https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1gbNvzeRY3WfI5aphdi5UJvK0Niq367rg?usp=drive_link)
Lots of this comes from the MLH echo chamber. It's why I came here to see how things stand up against the scrutiny.
Of this list, my current top items I'd like to discuss have to do with:
1. Moon Dust - Sharp/spiked, maybe cancerous. Not smooth like Graphite as reported by Apollo.
2. Lunar Surface - Ionized (never reported by Apollo), 15' deep unconsolidated regolith. Dust right next to A11 on landing... ??
3. Sound Transmission in a vacuum (hammering incident, and a few others).
4. Possibly more on the LM - skipping the POC, and having it's "auto-pilot/balancing tech" disappear. This one deserves it's own thread.
I have more ideas, but need a bit more investigation on my part before I'd submit them here (or decide NOT to submit).
-
1. Then why did you tell Jason his explanation was speculation and ask if he had any more?
2. The claim is faulty from the beginning by relying on what "doesn't seem like reasonable behavior" without providing justification for that expectation. It is much more likely that your expectation is faulty, given that you've provided no compelling reason to believe that your expectation is consistent with reality.
1. Because he said this debate "wasn't done". I think it is clearly done -- no more new stuff to be said. Both sides have said all that they want to say.
2. I've explained my rationale for "unreasonable"... and sure, it's partly subjective, but also fairly well-founded.
a. Why would a tracking algorithm switch suddenly from slow-careful tracking of earth, to flinging wildly off-target...
b. Bouncing around loosely/wildly a couple times.
c. Then hone in, with loose (non rigid) motions that approximate that of a pendulum to a direction that is OFF TARGET.
Is it POSSIBLE it was a bug, and the servo-motor produced this exact unreasonable behavior -- YES, I think that MIGHT BE POSSIBLE.
That's the best Apollogy we've seen here, and I'll capture this argument inside of a living doc.. which can be updated later if a better one is put forth.
Nothing more to be said. Debate complete. Debates are NOT supposed to end in Agreement.... they usually don't. Both sides have been given all the time they wanted to explain their side. End of debate. Audience gets to make up their own minds.
-
Of this list, my current top items I'd like to discuss have to do with:
1. Moon Dust - Sharp/spiked, maybe cancerous. Not smooth like Graphite as reported by Apollo.
2. Lunar Surface - Ionized (never reported by Apollo), 15' deep unconsolidated regolith. Dust right next to A11 on landing... ??
3. Sound Transmission in a vacuum (hammering incident, and a few others).
4. Possibly more on the LM - skipping the POC, and having it's "auto-pilot/balancing tech" disappear. This one deserves it's own thread.
OMG, it be whack-a-mole time. Hands up anyone who hasn't seen all that bollocks before, about a dozen times at least!
-
That's the best Apollogy...
I suggest you quit with the stupid labelling of informed rebuttal.
-
Of this list, my current top items I'd like to discuss have to do with:
1. Moon Dust - Sharp/spiked, maybe cancerous. Not smooth like Graphite as reported by Apollo.
2. Lunar Surface - Ionized (never reported by Apollo), 15' deep unconsolidated regolith. Dust right next to A11 on landing... ??
3. Sound Transmission in a vacuum (hammering incident, and a few others).
4. Possibly more on the LM - skipping the POC, and having it's "auto-pilot/balancing tech" disappear. This one deserves it's own thread.
OMG, it be whack-a-mole time. Hands up anyone who hasn't seen all that bollocks before, about a dozen times at least!
Great, so where are your rebuttals?
I've seen some non-scrutinized rebuttals, but not in the context of a 2-way debate. Similarly, I also have seen the 8-flag-motions hand-waved away by a non-viable explanation of "depressurization", and without scrutiny, the TD's just run with this and say "yeah!"... without ever addressing the fully unexplained 5 motions TOWARDS the LM.
Here is a place we can have some 2-way debate, which includes the scrutiny - from both sides.
-
1. Because he said this debate "wasn't done". I think it is clearly done -- no more new stuff to be said. Both sides have said all that they want to say.
It isn't 'done' because 'well I still think it looks weird' is not a reasonable conclusion to the type of debate you claim to want to have. Let me put this very simply:
-You suggest the movement of the steerable S-band antenna is evidence of gravity.
-You are presented with evidence that the mechanism is capable of generating such movements, and in fact is known and documented to have produced similar ones on every mission.
-Since it is clearly possible for the antenna to behave in that manner in space, the movement can no longer be considered evidence of gravity.
-Additionally, but not so significantly once the movement can be explained by existing mechanical and electronic systems, your proposed mechanisms have no evidence they even exist, and you are unable to provide any other than the movements you are trying to explain, which is backward reasoning.
Arguing whether it would (based on nothing but your personal incredulity) is superfluous. Your assertion is entirely unsupported once it is shown that the movement can be explained by things other than gravity. Your assertion it is 'unlike other servo motor driven actions is absurd, and I'd be willing to bet you have indeed seen servo motor activity that doesn't behave in the way you expect because you simply don't recognise it as such. I've seen servo motors used to simulate, very effectively, a breathing creature as an animatronic for a movie. It didn't look even remotely mechanical. That's one of the many many fun things about fine control of such motors.
a. Why would a tracking algorithm switch suddenly from slow-careful tracking of earth, to flinging wildly off-target...
Line of sight blockage by the vehicle during pitchover, or spurious input, or a glitch.
c. Then hone in, with loose (non rigid) motions that approximate that of a pendulum to a direction that is OFF TARGET.
Because it is no longer being used.
Is it POSSIBLE it was a bug, and the servo-motor produced this exact unreasonable behavior -- YES, I think that MIGHT BE POSSIBLE.
Then no further argument is needed. If it is possible for it to happen due to the existing mechanics of the system it is NOT evidence of gravity.
Debates are NOT supposed to end in Agreement.... they usually don't.
Not when the debate is between reality and fallacy. There are complex issues that can be debated that don't have obvious right or wrong answers. This is not one of them. Either Apollo happened or it didn't. Either this event is evidence of fakery or it isn't. There isn't an 'agree to disagree' outcome here.
-
Great, so where are your rebuttals?
Oooer missus. Nice try though. Here's a quickie - when filming in a a vacuum, what moron would use live microphones if they intended to fake and overdub the sound? Don't reply, it won't be logical.
Here is a place we can have some 2-way debate, which includes the scrutiny - from both sides.
Oh, is that what you call your replies?
-
I've seen some non-scrutinized rebuttals, but not in the context of a 2-way debate. Similarly, I also have seen the 8-flag-motions hand-waved away by a non-viable explanation of "depressurization", and without scrutiny, the TD's just run with this and say "yeah!"... without ever addressing the fully unexplained 5 motions TOWARDS the LM.
Here is a place we can have some 2-way debate, which includes the scrutiny - from both sides.
Why do you think a rebuttal needs more rigor than the initial claim? You've suggested the flag was moved by air currents in a studio that you fabricated from nothing, despite requiring a laughable coincidence of the drafts only happening at the same time the LM was depressurizing. When confronted with this absurdity, you created a person who intentionally did it to make a problem, but not so big a problem for it to be noticed by some of the smartest people in the world.
Despite your ridiculous assertion that it's non-viable, the explanation that the movements are explained by the LM depressurization is not only viable, it is much more viable than the fantasy you've concocted. Nothing needs to be imagined. We have an LM documented to be on the Moon, a flag documented to be on the Moon, and flag movements that coincide with a documented LM depressurization. This is open and shut, with the only question being, "how did the air from the LM move the flag in exactly that way?", which ultimately, is a point of trivia that doesn't affect at all the reason for the movement.
-
Despite your ridiculous assertion that it's non-viable... with the only question being, "how did the air from the LM move the flag in exactly that way?"
This is a SIMPLE LUNAR CONTEXT. Shouldn't be hard to determine the cause of these 5 motions TOWARDS the LM. The fact that so far, no one has come up with a viable explanation is my only claim here. This claim is accurate, not ridiculous.
-
Despite your ridiculous assertion that it's non-viable... with the only question being, "how did the air from the LM move the flag in exactly that way?"
This is a SIMPLE LUNAR CONTEXT. Shouldn't be hard to determine the cause of these 5 motions TOWARDS the LM. The fact that so far, no one has come up with a viable explanation is my only claim here. This claim is accurate, not ridiculous.
The cause is the LM depressurization. This is without question. Claiming that the actual cause is a nonviable explanation is ridiculous.
The only question you can reasonably maintain, as I mentioned above, is ,"How did the LM depressurization move the flag exactly the way we observe?" I don't know the answer to that question, and I don't care. If you do care, then by all means, do some research and see if you can find an answer. Maybe you could model it in a vacuum chamber with a visible gas and see if something happens that resembles what is observed. Seems like a lot of effort for an inconsequential question, but maybe that would help you find the answer you're looking for.
But make no mistake, the LM depressurization moved the flag.
-
But make no mistake, the LM depressurization moved the flag.
If this stood alone, I could possibly agree. This is what "breaking physics" looks like. We should shop this around to the smartest minds in the world, and see what they can come up with. So far, we got ZILCH.
-
But make no mistake, the LM depressurization moved the flag.
If this stood alone, I could possibly agree. This is what "breaking physics" looks like. We should shop this around to the smartest minds in the world, and see what they can come up with. So far, we got ZILCH.
This isn't what "breaking physics" looks like. The flag was acted on by moving gas from a depressurizing LM. That is physics. The movements only occur during depressurization events, which leaves that as the only viable cause.
Your problem is you assume you know what that should look like, and your faith in your own knowledge is badly misplaced.
I don't know for sure exactly how gas propagates into a vacuum, molecule by molecule, and I'm comfortable asserting that you don't either. What I do know is that the universe doesn't always act the way we expect, and we can observe some very counter intuitive situations in unfamiliar environments. The lunar surface certainly qualifies.
-
This is off topic, but I can't let these go unanswered:
Of this list, my current top items I'd like to discuss have to do with:
1. Moon Dust - Sharp/spiked, maybe cancerous. Not smooth like Graphite as reported by Apollo.
Simply not true.
2. Lunar Surface - Ionized (never reported by Apollo),
Not true, it was reported.
15' deep unconsolidated regolith.
Citation required and (you'll be amazed to hear this}, material depth has been known to vary.
Dust right next to A11 on landing... ??
Yes. There was.
3. Sound Transmission in a vacuum (hammering incident, and a few others).
No sound was transmitted in a vacuum. Plenty of sounds were transmitted via solid objects (including the ground) to the astronaut's suit microphones.
4. Possibly more on the LM - skipping the POC, and having it's "auto-pilot/balancing tech" disappear. This one deserves it's own thread.
I've lost track of what you mean by POC, but you'll need to demonstrate that the 'auto-pilot/balancing tech' disappeared. Apollo guidance technology merely advanced existing techniques for targetting ballistic missiles. It was tested, it worked. It continues to work in its modern descendents.
-
HB Remix Volume XXXXXXXXX
It's like a greatest hits compilation of HB claims, how original our new friend is.
The bit I find interesting, there are plenty of well educated scientists and professors out there, quite happy to discuss their research, especially when it relates to these areas.
On the sound one, I bounced an idea of a professor from the UK (found a paper on theirs about sound in space), which was basically the sound of hammering transmitting via either directly via the glove/suit or through the ground then suit, since sound is a mechanical wave, went a bit like this;
"Essentially, assuming the box is a vacuum (or extremely low pressure, such as space for example), object A would be struck and the vibrations would travel down, across, and back up to B, which could be a pressurised ball containing water for example. I would expect to see a ripple/disturbance on the water, kind of like the scene from Jurassic Park where the water in the cups ripples from the approaching T-Rex footsteps.
If object B contained something that could interpret those vibrations as sound (microphone, actual person's ear or such), then would we expect to hear the sound of object A being struck? I think we would, although I would expect the sound to be muted or changed in some way due to travelling through the other mediums rather than the 'pure' air that might otherwise be there (if this analogy makes sense). Naturally, I imagine the actual composition of the surfaces, the force being used on object A and variables of that sort would impact the final result."
Response;
"It's just standard physics actually. Sound waves travel through objects. So what you describe is correct. You could feel the vibrations of the sound waves by touching the object but to hear them you'd either have to be in contact with the object or there would have to be some sort of atmosphere in the gap."
I'd love to build something like this, but out of my reach though.
-
I don't know for sure exactly how gas propagates into a vacuum, molecule by molecule, and I'm comfortable asserting that you don't either. What I do know is that the universe doesn't always act the way we expect, and we can observe some very counter intuitive situations in unfamiliar environments. The lunar surface certainly qualifies.
@JayUTAH should know this in detail. So if he cannot come up with a viable explanation, then we can just document this as "even a long-standing rocket scientist and champion for Apollo was unable to come up with a viable explanation."
I would GLADLY rely upon the understanding of other scientists with much more experience with these concepts. (thermo and fluid dynamics) Let's shop this issue to the world, agree?
This is SIMPLE CONTEXT - so should take Jay very little time to assess. He only needs to assess the VIABLE possibilities.
-
I don't know for sure exactly how gas propagates into a vacuum, molecule by molecule, and I'm comfortable asserting that you don't either. What I do know is that the universe doesn't always act the way we expect, and we can observe some very counter intuitive situations in unfamiliar environments. The lunar surface certainly qualifies.
@JayUTAH should know this in detail. So if he cannot come up with a viable explanation, then we can just document this as "even a long-standing rocket scientist and champion for Apollo was unable to come up with a viable explanation."
I would GLADLY rely upon the understanding of other scientists with much more experience with these concepts. (thermo and fluid dynamics) Let's shop this issue to the world, agree?
This is SIMPLE CONTEXT - so should take Jay very little time to assess. He only needs to assess the VIABLE possibilities.
Your first problem here is that you have decided that you're the one who gets to dictate what is viable, and you're not.
Your second problem is that it isn't up to you whether Jay bothers to spend his time replying to you. You should not infer that his lack of will to pander to your demands is approval of your stance. It's far more likely that he just can't be arsed with you.
-
@JayUTAH should know this in detail.
Should he? Why?
So if he cannot come up with a viable explanation, then we can just document this as "even a long-standing rocket scientist and champion for Apollo was unable to come up with a viable explanation."
You can but that won't carry any weight. You have singled one out who may or may not be able to answer your question, but that doesn't mean the answer is not known to anyone. And in any case, your ongoing inability to separate what is viable from what you can understand or will accept remains a huge problem in your conclusions.
I would GLADLY rely upon the understanding of other scientists with much more experience with these concepts. (thermo and fluid dynamics)
Except you have argued with such people at every turn. It took you pages upon pages of guff to finally understand that rockets don't balance on their thrust.
This is SIMPLE CONTEXT - so should take Jay very little time to assess. He only needs to assess the VIABLE possibilities.
No, you are not in a position to decide if the problem is simple and what the viable possibilities are that may need to be assessed. You cannot in one post say both that you will accept the responses from those more experienced than you in the subject AND dictate that it must be simple for them. Plenty of people have already told you that the problems you're arguing are not as simple as you want them to be but you continue to argue.
-
I don't know for sure exactly how gas propagates into a vacuum, molecule by molecule, and I'm comfortable asserting that you don't either. What I do know is that the universe doesn't always act the way we expect, and we can observe some very counter intuitive situations in unfamiliar environments. The lunar surface certainly qualifies.
@JayUTAH should know this in detail. So if he cannot come up with a viable explanation, then we can just document this as "even a long-standing rocket scientist and champion for Apollo was unable to come up with a viable explanation."
I would GLADLY rely upon the understanding of other scientists with much more experience with these concepts. (thermo and fluid dynamics) Let's shop this issue to the world, agree?
This is SIMPLE CONTEXT - so should take Jay very little time to assess. He only needs to assess the VIABLE possibilities.
Despite being warned several times, it's clear that you haven't dropped your obsession with Jay.
Also, look up the logical fallacy of Appeal From Authority.
-
I would GLADLY rely upon the understanding of other scientists with much more experience with these concepts. (thermo and fluid dynamics)
Would you though? You're on the record here over and over arguing with rocket scientists about their field. You're on the record here over and over insisting that scientists and engineers with more experience than you have were wrong in the way they developed the LM, for no better reason than it isn't the way you would have done it. There is zero indication that you would rely on someone else's expertise when it contradicts your preconceived notions, gladly or otherwise.
Let's shop this issue to the world, agree?[/b]
Do whatever you want. The question is answered to my satisfaction. Once you accept that the LM depressurization is responsible, the actual mechanics of what happened are inconsequential beyond just satisfying curiosity. But shop it to whoever you want, what's stopping you and why do you think you need other people to be on board with you?