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

[najak]

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. 

[najak]

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?).

[LunarOrbit]

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.

[najak]

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.

[najak]

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.

[dwight]

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."?

[Mag40]

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.

[Mag40]

We should be on the same team, unless you are under some contract with NASA to help protect them.

What a troll.

[Jason Thompson]

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.

[najak]

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?

[Jason Thompson]

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?

[Mag40]

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.

[najak]

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?

[Jason Thompson]

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.

[najak]

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.