Hoax? - Apollo 12 Lunar Rendezvous, Dish Falls with Gravity

[Jason Thompson]

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.

[theteacher]

I believe it was all (or almost all?) pre-filmed, not live.

Was it filmed in space?

[najak]

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.

[Jason Thompson]

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?

[najak]

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?

[najak]

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.

[Mag40]

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!

[Jason Thompson]

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.

[Jason Thompson]

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.

[najak]

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.

[najak]

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.

[najak]

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

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.

[Jason Thompson]

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.

[Jason Thompson]

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.

[najak]

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.