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

[najak]

#1: Released tension, subsequent inertia and Newton's 3rd law. My use of the words "pendulum effect" are not saying this is a pendulum!
#2: Nope and you ignored how NASA must have been morons to do this.
#3: I said if they can be bothered.

#1: Each of the 6 changes in direction are lesser magnitude -- so the big dirty question is "what causes them to change direction at decreasing amplitudes??" - only the presence of Gravity supplies the needed answer.     In no gravity -- if they haven't reached the "further rotational extent... then there is nothing to bounce off of!"...    If you watch these rotations in slow motion (which I have), you'll see it moving "like a pendulum with gravity"... it slows down at the end of each move, before changing direction ... very parabolic.

This is a slam dunk win for MLH.

Now I see why the Debunking sites pretend this issue doesn't exist (and omit it from debunking).   And why NASA site no longer shows (hasn't for years).

==
#2: NASAX, not NASA.   NASAX has a lot more military men, pragmatic - and guess what, "they were right"  -- even with all of these subtle (but provable/damning) mistakes -- EVERYONE BOUGHT IT.    They didn't need to waste their time fixing it all.

Antenna breaks??   "have Bean simply say, My Antenna is OK" and move on like nothing is wrong.    IT WORKED.  They weren't morons.  They're all dead now -- and STILL most of the world still swallows the Apollo lie.

Verdict:  NASAX knows their audience.  NASAX succeeded.  So, not morons.

==
#3: Please "bother them" - it's a quick answer -- "how did Apollo 11 communicate with Houston" for the first few minutes, and why didn't they have their S-Band dish set to "Track earth" - as did Apollo 12 (until it snapped).

[Mag40]

#1: Each of the 6 changes in direction are lesser magnitude -- so the big dirty question is "what causes them to change direction at decreasing amplitudes??" - only the presence of Gravity supplies the needed answer.     In no gravity -- if they haven't reached the "further rotational extent... then there is nothing to bounce off of!"...    If you watch these rotations in slow motion (which I have), you'll see it moving "like a pendulum with gravity"... it slows down at the end of each move, before changing direction ... very parabolic.

The dish is still held in place, it is oscillating between extremes of what is holding it, one side to the other. Impacts lessen inertia.

This is a slam dunk win for MLH.

And NASA were that stupid that they scripted it, transmitted it live and filmed it on 16mm. Then chatted about it.

Not for them the bloody obvious "CUT, someone tape that damn dish up"!

Now I see why the Debunking sites pretend this issue doesn't exist (and omit it from debunking).   And why NASA site no longer shows (hasn't for years).

Yep, that's what's happening - NASA release box-sets, DVDS and still do so, the internet is replete with versions of this and because the ALSJ doesn't have a link to the DAC footage - we get this stupid statement. You people act like clones, devoid of logic or reason and making the same old claims as you stumble upon them.

[bknight]

You still haven't answered my question please note a time stamp when the dish falls away with gravity?

[najak]

#1: The dish is still held in place, it is oscillating between extremes of what is holding it, one side to the other. Impacts lessen inertia.
#2: And NASA were that stupid that they scripted it, transmitted it live and filmed it on 16mm. Then chatted about it.

#1: If you watch it, and look at the frame caps... or just watch it, because it's obvious -- each time it oscillates, it's LESS.   If this were in no-gravity - it would ONLY "slow down" while the amplitude of each oscillation would remain the SAME..   But when you see a pendulum effect that has decreasing amplitude of the oscillations - here is your sign of Gravity.   

#2: NASAX is who perpetrated this upon us - a military operation of deception.   They aren't the smartest -- but that's OK - -they only need to be smarter than "Group Think"... so long as they are presenting a narrative that APPEALS TO EVERYONE -- many many mistakes will be forgiven... even for 55 years.    Christianity is 2000 years old, and Islam 1200 years (approx) -- one (or both) of them are critically wrong -- and thus are "hoaxes" -- but it appeals to these believers -- and they will never forsake their Holy Book,  and the Heaven that it promises them.

Apollo tells us "wow, Mankind is awesome -- which includes you"...  A Universalist religion.

[najak]

You still haven't answered my question please note a time stamp when the dish falls away with gravity?

Answered above -- I RETRACTED this statement.  It does not "FALL away" -- it is being pulled/stressed by a guiding cable, trying to create the effect of "Tracking Earth" - -when the cable breaks, the dish "flings" with force... then oscillates like a pendulum ONLY would with Gravity...

[Miss Vocalcord]

You still haven't answered my question please note a time stamp when the dish falls away with gravity?

Answered above -- I RETRACTED this statement.  It does not "FALL away" -- it is being pulled/stressed by a guiding cable, trying to create the effect of "Tracking Earth" - -when the cable breaks, the dish "flings" with force... then oscillates like a pendulum ONLY would with Gravity...

But seconds later the dish is magically again attached to your 'guiding cable'? Because it no longer follows your gravity, but stays steadily in one place.

[najak]

But seconds later the dish is magically again attached to your 'guiding cable'? Because it no longer follows your gravity, but stays steadily in one place.

Watch the FINAL oscillation of the dish - it "hardens up" - if it remained loose, it would have gone on for a bit longer... so maybe static fiction holds it steady... or it could have a motorized capability that they engaged to stop it -- to lock it in place.   The "tracking cable remains snapped" - as it doesn't attempt to "Track Earth" either after this.

It oscillates slowly and easily, with decreasing amplitude-- until it "sticks at the end" -- 7 bounces total.. then "sticks".  I can only call it like I see it.

This particular case is one of the easier "slam dunks" to prove fakery, as there are 6 critical points that I've highlighted here (see the doc):

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17wJ8O6-RMlPyQyJa2OZ6VBVuce3fyTrKZonCX6XxZL8/edit?usp=sharing

===
#1: No legitimate Apollogist explanation exists for this Dish Flinging.  The attempted explanations they make are all critically flawed.

#2: The dish bounces less with each oscillation (like a pendulum coming to rest). This behavior definitively indicates the presence of Gravity.

#3: 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.

#4: “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.

#5: 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.

#6: Apollo 12’s S-Band Tracked Earth, but they forgot to do this at all for Apollo 11.  Does this make sense?

[Miss Vocalcord]

But seconds later the dish is magically again attached to your 'guiding cable'? Because it no longer follows your gravity, but stays steadily in one place.

so maybe static fiction holds it steady... or it could have a motorized capability that they engaged to stop it -- to lock it in place.   

Wait, besides an external wire they now also put a motor inside to make it stop in case the wire broke?

[najak]

Wait, besides an external wire they now also put a motor inside to make it stop in case the wire broke?

There are multiple ways they could have faked this.  They did have Simulation facilities able to Lift/rotate the LM and CSM in any direction (used it once to try and shake broken glass out of an LM).  So this AM that we're looking at could be "real" - the MLH theory is that NASAX made use of the simulation facilities/capabilities that were funded by NASA for the "real deal".   In parallel, NASAX used them for creating footage.

So the dish could have been put in "neutral" as it was "tracking earth" and then engaged the motors when that failed.

Or if it's a model -- it might not make sense to have just a "fully loose dish armature" - having a why to just "lock it up" (make it rigid) might be all they had to do.

You see, when you are proposing a "magic show" -- there can be many ways to "perform the trick".

When you are proposing "this is real" -- but it turns out how this one did for Apollo 12 -- it can leave you in an indefensible position.  I think you are cornered on this one.

[Miss Vocalcord]

Wait, besides an external wire they now also put a motor inside to make it stop in case the wire broke?

There are multiple ways they could have faked this.  They did have Simulation facilities able to Lift/rotate the LM and CSM in any direction (used it once to try and shake broken glass out of an LM).  So this AM that we're looking at could be "real" - the MLH theory is that NASAX made use of the simulation facilities/capabilities that were funded by NASA for the "real deal".   In parallel, NASAX used them for creating footage.

So the dish could have been put in "neutral" as it was "tracking earth" and then engaged the motors when that failed.

Show the "Simulation facilities able to Lift/rotate the LM and CSM in any direction" and explain how they made that imagery, with all the rotations seen, without showing any of the simulation devices.

Or if it's a model -- it might not make sense to have just a "fully loose dish armature" - having a why to just "lock it up" (make it rigid) might be all they had to do.

Why how/would they do it? If it was pre-recorded they would simply start over.

You see, when you are proposing a "magic show" -- the story you try to tell becomes move absurd with every line you write.

[najak]

#1: Show the "Simulation facilities able to Lift/rotate the LM and CSM in any direction" and explain how they made that imagery, with all the rotations seen, without showing any of the simulation devices.
#2: Why how/would they do it? If it was pre-recorded they would simply start over.

#1 - I'll retract this statement, as it was based on something I read months ago, but I can't find it... and it's not vital.  So I'll concede that I can't prove it exists, and it might not.

#2 - They didn't need to... as you can see, they succeeded big time, "as is".  They correctly judged the gullibility of group think, when you are feeding a whole society a message that they all love to believe.
If I had been working for NASAX, I'd be saying "we MUST redo this to get it right" - and my boss would say "nope, it's good enough, let's move on"... and I'd be throwing a FIT... but in the end, my boss would be right -- it really was "Good enough"... 55 years -- all those responsible for NASAX are dead or feebly old. 

This will be revealed within the next few years, IMO.  It's finally "time".

===
How did they fake it, we may never know.   But it's like this - if you see a magic show and they are levitating a person -- you're going to assume fakery here, even if you have no idea how they did the trick.

My primary job here is to show the areas where "NASA Broke Physics" -- therefore there is fakery involved.

I've identified 6 things about this Apollo 12 footage, where some of these are impossible, or very highly improbable, and not feasible to explain from your standpoint.

[Miss Vocalcord]

#2 - They didn't need to... as you can see, they succeeded big time, "as is".  They correctly judged the gullibility of group think, when you are feeding a whole society a message that they all love to believe.
If I had been working for NASAX, I'd be saying "we MUST redo this to get it right" probable, and not feasible to explain from your standpoint.

And now you realise how absurd your previous story was

having a why to just "lock it up" (make it rigid) might be all they had to do.

you come up with this next, maybe even more absurd, story they took the gamble "it was good enough"

[najak]

you come up with this next, maybe even more absurd, story they took the gamble "it was good enough"

That's how the world works.  It wasn't much of a gamble -- people are very gullible.   Half of Americans think the USA 2020 Election was Rigged, and half do not -- At least half of all Americans were Hoaxed into believing a lie... it is really that easy.    When you tell a lie that "appeals to ALL" (like "look at how awesome we are") - it's a win-win-win.  Nixon sold this off as the focal point for "World Peace and Unity".

Back then, individuals had no real "reach" - unless the media sponsored you.  But if you were going "Anti-Apollo" - if they let you be seen at all, it would be to make fun of you.

Most of Apollo was real - in my mind.  Just not the part where we "did the impossible" and landed men on the moon.

How do you reoncile this footage of Apollo 12 with your current Apollogetic beliefs?

[Miss Vocalcord]

That's how the world works.  It wasn't much of a gamble -- people are very gullible.

But then again; you're story doesn't match up with your other story where they didn't take the gamble.

The static was inserted into the audio feed 2-3 seconds too soon.

Would have been much easier to just record it again. Your story simply doesn't make any sense at all.

[najak]

Would have been much easier to just record it again. Your story simply doesn't make any sense at all.

Apparently they understood psychology well enough -- making mistakes in plain site, if you simply pretend their real -- simply works.   Look at your response to them -- "they can't be mistakes, or they would have just redone them."   When you want to believe something, these types of mistakes will never hinder you.

The key to their success was "good enough" and mostly "Make sure you are selling something people REALLY want to believe." -- and it generally works.  As we all are witnessing now.

How do you reconcile these critical issues with your current Apollogist beliefs?