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

[onebigmonkey]

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.

[onebigmonkey]

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/

[Mag40]

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.

[najak]

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

What is your take on this?

[najak]

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.

[onebigmonkey]

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

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.

[najak]

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.

[najak]

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?

[najak]

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.

[najak]

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.

[onebigmonkey]

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.

[Mag40]

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.

[Mag40]

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.

[bknight]

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?

[najak]

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.