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

[najak]

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.

[najak]

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?

[najak]

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.

[Mag40]

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?

[najak]

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).

[najak]

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".

[Mag40]

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.

[Mag40]

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.

[najak]

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.

[onebigmonkey]

You don't need a comms guy, you can see for yourself.

[najak]

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

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.

[najak]

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.

[onebigmonkey]

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

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?

[najak]

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

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".

[Mag40]

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.