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

[najak]

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

It's also good to keep in mind the context.  This was a "one show and done", no replays, no rewatch analyses, nor forums/groups online where you could find hundreds of others to rewatch and analyze.  It was a much lower bar to clear, back then.

Please address the points I raised as critical issues for Apollogists, to reconcile this Apollo 12 footage as Real.

[Miss Vocalcord]

Look at your response to them -- "they can't be mistakes, or they would have just redone them."

It is not my response; its yours; You keep redoing your story every time you are confronted with a mistake.

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

Regarding your first two 'critical issues':

No legitimate Apollogist explanation exists for this Dish Flinging.

The steerable s-band antenna was controlled by a knob, it could have been switched. (not saying this happened, but it happened before). Also it is possible the automatic control "lost it". There had been more problems with this antenna.

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

Not necessarily, any resistance would have done it. Also if you look at the movement and the abrupt stop of it on one axe this is can't be explained from gravity.

[najak]

#1: The steerable s-band antenna was controlled by a knob, it could have been switched. (not saying this happened, but it happened before). Also it is possible the automatic control "lost it". There had been more problems with this antenna.

#2: Not necessarily, any resistance would have done it. Also if you look at the movement and the abrupt stop of it on one axe this is can't be explained from gravity.

#1 - Your explanation must explain the others, else it's not a "legitimate explanation" -- for example, they simply added "STATIC" rather than cutting the signal.  And never mentioned this issue.... only said "My Antenna is OK" -- none of this makes sense, and therefore your #1 explanation fails.   Also, when it's "tracking earth" in a rotation like this -- it would also make no sense to ever "use the knob", to do something that is far better done automatically.... as WAS BEING DONE, when the guide cable broke.

#2: Learn more about this physics.  For a hinge joint, there are extremes of rotation... if you hit the extreme, then you will BOUNCE off of this extreme, and reverse directions.   If you are oscillating to the opposite direction before hitting the extreme....  this then is the real problem.    In no gravity, it would ALWAYS go to the "Extreme" then bounce off...  But with gravity.. the gravity pulls it back, and so it reverses direction BEFORE hitting the extreme.

For example, if the extreme is 20 degrees... the first few oscillations hit this 20 degrees, but the 3rd/4th one did not, the 5th, 6th, 7th ones got less and less -- yet continued to reverse directions without hitting that 20 degree extreme.

Also -- pendulums in gravity last longer, than does "bounce-based oscillations" because more energy is lost in bouncing.

So with no gravity -- every swing would go to the extreme... bounced, then reverse directions... until friction and elastic-bounce-loss absorbed all of the kinetic energy.

In a Pendulum, you do NOT have the loss from "poorly elastic bounces" -- and so it lasts longer..

Just spelling it out -- as it seemed you didn't have a clear grasp of pendulum science, versus the "no gravity oscillations on a constrained hinge joint".

The "reducing amplitude pendulum motion" is difficult to contend with for Apollogists.

[Miss Vocalcord]

#1 - Your explanation must explain the others

Ah, the famous moving goal posts.

#2: Learn more about this physics. 
...
But with gravity.. the gravity pulls it back, and so it reverses direction BEFORE hitting the extreme.

Incorrect

So with no gravity -- every swing would go to the extreme... bounced, then reverse directions... until friction and elastic-bounce-loss absorbed all of the kinetic energy.

Incorrect

And again also complete ignoring it was a steerable antenna, the movement you see can even be caused by the automatic mode.

Regarding the following mistake in your story:

This was a "one show and done", no replays, no rewatch analyses,

The only reason we are having this discussion is because NASA released so many detailed information about the missions, and that is not only the imagery.

[LunarOrbit]

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.

There are multiple ways for you to misinterpret what is happening.

[Mag40]

#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.   

You don't know what you are doing. You ignored the reply:
Released tension, subsequent inertia and Newton's 3rd law. My use of the words "pendulum effect" are not saying this is a pendulum! Basically it's simply wobbling between the extremes of that which is holding it in place.


I'm seeing the same rhetoric from you as TBFDU uses.

[Mag40]

#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. 

You don't know what you are doing. The whole crux is that NASA deliberately staged this, filmed it, videoed it and scripted dialog discussing it. But on footage in space instead of redoing it, they chose to leave this supposedly telling item up?

Luckily, out of the entire community of people who understand physics, we have you, who is the only one able to see this to crow about how smart you are - demonstrating the logic of a toaster.

[TimberWolfAu]

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

Wrong way round. No legitmate hoaxer explanation exists for the S-band dish's movement. All attempted explanations have no supporting evidence, requiring the existence of the greatest conspiracy of all time, in order to work.

#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.

You're assuming they were communication via the steerable S-band antenna. Did you know there were three S-band antennae on the LM?

#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.

Why would it show up in a briefing? Bean's not referring to the steerable antenna, especially since neither Bean or Conrad could see it, and Gordon didn't comment on it. Don't cherry pick the section from the transcript, you need to read the whole section for the context on what is occurring.

#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.

Sure it can be reconciled; the footage being watched has the audio out of sync, since they were recorded separately and were joined at a later date. There we go, reconciled, and no crazy conspiracy required.

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

If Intrepid was tracking Earth with the steerable during the ascent, don't you think we should see the steerable move during the docking footage? The only movement is the one in question. It looks like the steerable was pointing at the moon for most of the video in question. Flicking through the various missions, for the returning LM, the majority have the steerable 'hanging' down the side of the LM, with only 17 having it in the same position as 12 as they approached (before 12 moved to the 'hanging' position).

On the side, does anyone know which way the "P" axis was for the steerable? Just looking in the flight plan, and it looks like the steerable is supposed to go to P=+90 Y=0 when the MFSN is out of line of sight.

[bknight]

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...

Hogwash, a pendulum effect is in action here and the motion.  At each end some of the inertia is dissipated until none exists, and it stops, you are so bad at this.

[najak]

There are multiple ways for you to misinterpret what is happening.

Given that the Apollogist explanation (i.e. "it was real") has 5 identified critical issues that make it seemingly "impossible" - this forces us to hypothesize about "well then, what did really happen with this footage?"

I'd like to hear one legitimate explanation from the Apollogists for this one.

I modified my article page 2 to degrade the "2 second audio skew" to "supplemental", because this will consume more time than it's worth.  We can stick with the remaining 5.

[najak]

I'm seeing the same rhetoric from you as TBFDU uses.

Granted Jarrah White and I appear to be cut from similar stones.

And I'm seeing the same form of posturing from YOU specifically that I've seen many times from Fundamentalist Christians defending their Book.

[najak]

#1: Wrong way round. No legitmate hoaxer explanation exists for the S-band dish's movement. All attempted explanations have no supporting evidence, requiring the existence of the greatest conspiracy of all time, in order to work.
#2: You're assuming they were communication via the steerable S-band antenna. Did you know there were three S-band antennae on the LM?

#1: When you go to a magic show and they cut the woman in half, and you say "It's true until PROVEN WRONG".  I'm making the point that "this impossible claim requires great evidence to support it."
This footage of Apollo 12 falls completely apart for Apollogists.  The onus on them is to provide "just one legitimate explanation" - but for this, they cannot.  If it really happened, this should be an easy chore.

#2: "3 S-Band Antennas...." - well the documents and Google AI say "there was ONE" that was used for communications with earth, and that this one is the one that flopped around madly, without causing a loss of signal.

For those who say "it was routed through the CSM" -- why then did they insert a massive amount of static at the point of the incident? (but with 2 second skew mistake)   If it was routed through the CSM, then why the sudden surge in static?

This footage is a slam dunk for MLH theory.  They're cutting a woman in half, and Apollogists are claiming it's real, but with no viable explanation for it.

[Mag40]

And I'm seeing the same form of posturing from YOU specifically that I've seen many times from Fundamentalist Christians defending their Book.

Bollocks. I'm defending what I understand with things that form part of my understanding. You are just refusing to address the ones that prove you are wrong.

[najak]

Bollocks. I'm defending what I understand with things that form part of my understanding. You are just refusing to address the ones that prove you are wrong.

As were they.

[TimberWolfAu]

#1: When you go to a magic show and they cut the woman in half, and you say "It's true until PROVEN WRONG".  I'm making the point that "this impossible claim requires great evidence to support it."
This footage of Apollo 12 falls completely apart for Apollogists.  The onus on them is to provide "just one legitimate explanation" - but for this, they cannot.  If it really happened, this should be an easy chore.

#2: "3 S-Band Antennas...." - well the documents and Google AI say "there was ONE" that was used for communications with earth, and that this one is the one that flopped around madly, without causing a loss of signal.

#1 - This has been provided, with a few potential ideas, none of which require a massively complicated conspiracy to achieve (a conspiracy that has yet to be demonstrated)

#2 - You should probably look at some actual Apollo documents. I have several on the LM, all of which show three S-band antennae (even shots of the LM control panels refer to the different antenna).