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

[Mag40]

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!

[najak]

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.

[theteacher]

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...

[najak]

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.

[najak]

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?

[Jason Thompson]

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'.

[Mag40]

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?

[LunarOrbit]

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.

[najak]

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.

[Jason Thompson]

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?

[Mag40]

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.

[Jason Thompson]

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.

[dwight]

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?

[theteacher]

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.

[najak]

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?