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

[najak]

#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).

Thank you for the kindness in your tone.  This seems to be in short-supply here.  I feel the warmth.

#1 - I'm not seeing any hypothesis yet that explains the 5 Critical issues.  Can you direct me to this singular hypothesis?

#2 - Yes, would love to look at MORE.  I've seen some, but am actually looking for the "repository of LM documents"..  what all is Left of these?  The MLH claim is that the vast majority of them were thrown out.  As of yet, I cannot find a single Apollogist who will guide me to finding MORE... If you'll do this -- I would be grateful.   Does such a centralized repository exist?

My sincere goal here is 100% integrity.  I don't want to make any claims that are False or unsubstantiated - and so when I do, I appreciate the corrections.

I see the fore/aft S BAND mini-antennas...  but unsure of their purpose or reason for existence, nor their SNR range/effectiveness.  They appear to be "omni-directional" which is WAY worse than the directional/steerable Dish, which can send it's FULL signal specifically with a narrow beam  (0.5 deg wide? -- this is where LM design docs would come in handy - where are they?)

SNR for a Dish vs. omni-antenna differs by up to 100,000 : 1, depending upon the narrowness of the Dish beam.

[Mag40]

Thank you for the kindness in your tone.  This seems to be in short-supply here.  I feel the warmth.

Would you like me to compile your petty jibes made upon your noisy arrival?

#1 - I'm not seeing any hypothesis yet that explains the 5 Critical issues.  Can you direct me to this singular hypothesis?

There are no critical issues. The LM is rotating, the dish motion is not tied to it in any discernible fashion. The LM contines moving after the dish stops.

My sincere goal here is 100% integrity.  I don't want to make any claims that are False or unsubstantiated - and so when I do, I appreciate the corrections.

Which absolutely doesn't involve insulting people when you don't understand the subject yourself.
"Again, it seems I'm dealing with people here who do not understand basic simple high school physics.
@Allen F - you promised me "smart scientific minds" here.  Please summon them, ASAP. "

[najak]

I've been told by the Master Overseers of this forum that I haven't sufficiently addressed the objections to my thesis.

To be clear, my thesis here is ONLY THIS:
I believe there has been no fully viable hypothesis presented here that can explain all 5 critical issues that I've identified for this Apollo 12 Rendezvous clip.

If I've missed such a hypothesis, please tell me what it is.

If you'd like to present such a hypothesis, please do so now.  Be complete.

Otherwise, what else is there to do with this thread?   It's time to pause it, until someone steps forward to propose a viable hypothesis.

[onebigmonkey]

As with your other threads, you have had perfectly reasonable explanations for the behaviour you've identified.

Not hypothesis, explanation.

The problem isn't that those explanations aren't correct, it's that you don't like them. In expressing your disagreement you've also exposed your lack of knowledge and understanding about Apollo hardware and processes, and displayed an attitude that us really not likely to persuade anyone in charge of the forum to do you any favours.


 

[TimberWolfAu]

I see the fore/aft S BAND mini-antennas...  but unsure of their purpose or reason for existence,

Ahh, you mean the S-band inflight antennae. Guess when they were used?

[Mag40]

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.

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.

24 seconds from event beginning:

Next 24 seconds:


It stops moving even as the LM continues to rotate. And another of these stupid threads bites the dust. Should we "agree to disagree"?

This actually proves they are in space, the dish comes loose, flops about on its mounting , unaffected by the LM moving and stops completely even when the LM continues moving. The LM after it completes its rotation then yaws left and the dish doesn't move even a tiny bit.

[najak]

displayed an attitude that us really not likely to persuade anyone in charge of the forum to do you any favours.

That's an issue.  Why do I need "favors" from the Forum Overseers?  I don't want favors... just the semblance of equal treatment.  I am EQUALLY opposed to MLH forums treating Apollogists in this fashion, and almost got banned by the MLH'ers for being to empathetic towards Apollogists.   I consider Apollogists who are willing to venture into MLH dens as rare/goldmines.  But the MLH forum overseers just consider them Lying Trolls.  They can't imagine how these Apollogists could genuinely believe the Apollo Lie.

This is how humans are wired.  Confirmation Bias and Tribalism..  And viewing as evil/bad anyone who challenges their tightly held worldviews.

I'm glad for this forum, because at least here, my opposition isn't treated like crap.   On MLH forums, I have to try and take people offline into private chat for more meaningful discussions, to avoid the "crap that is thrown at them from the side viewers".

I believe I'm making some points here that are uncomfortable for Apollogists.. and the response I'm seeing is "normative" for human wiring.   I can't blame people for being "human"... although I do hope to see better.

[najak]

Ahh, you mean the S-band inflight antennae. Guess when they were used?

Got any info on these antennas?  SNR/range?  And if they were good enough for use, why was the Apollo 12 S-Band dish trying to track earth, before the "fling incident"?

The SNR (signal-to-noise) ratios for a Non-Directional antenna (typical 3-10 dB gain), and depends upon reception angle), vs. a Dish (30-40dB gain) - 500 to 5,000 times better signal.

If you can find any information on the SNR/specs for these other two mostly undiscussed antenna, that might be news to the world.   I wouldn't be surprised if these specs were destroyed with the other docs on the LM design that were destroyed.

[najak]

This actually proves they are in space, the dish comes loose, flops about on its mounting , unaffected by the LM moving and stops completely even when the LM continues moving. The LM after it completes its rotation then yaws left and the dish doesn't move even a tiny bit.

Here are the 5 Critical Issues I've identified.  Can you describe a Hypothesis that covers all 5?

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


If not, then my statement stands:
I believe there has been no fully viable hypothesis presented here that can explain all 5 critical issues that I've identified for this Apollo 12 Rendezvous clip.

Or if you'd like to just address a subset of these -- please do, and be specific about which claim you are refuting.

[Mag40]

Here are the 5 Critical Issues I've identified.

Bollocks, your claim they are critical doesn't make it so.

Can you describe a Hypothesis that covers all 5?

I can describe  one that creates them, obfuscation and inability to concede the obvious.

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

A pathetic and irrelevant observation. The cause of the event is not suspicious in any way. Any perceived "flaw" by you can automatically be dismissed as confirmation bias.

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

Asked and answered!

#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.

Asked and answered.

#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.

Your assessment of it being a "big deal" is irrelevant. The "if I ran the zoo" bollocks again. No evidence of any hoax.

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

No idea, don't care. I'm sure JayUtah and a few others know this. You have stop acting the goat and maybe you'l get an answer. Not evidence of a hoax!

If not, then my statement stands:
I believe there has been no fully viable hypothesis presented here that can explain all 5 critical issues that I've identified for this Apollo 12 Rendezvous clip.

Strawman irrelevance.

How about you address my post - which answers the ridiculous claims in the first place!

It stops moving even as the LM continues to rotate. And another of these stupid threads bites the dust. Should we "agree to disagree"?

This actually proves they are in space, the dish comes loose, flops about on its mounting , unaffected by the LM moving and stops completely even when the LM continues moving. The LM after it completes its rotation then yaws left and the dish doesn't move even a tiny bit.

[najak]

This actually proves they are in space, the dish comes loose, flops about on its mounting , unaffected by the LM moving and stops completely even when the LM continues moving. The LM after it completes its rotation then yaws left and the dish doesn't move even a tiny bit.[/b]

If you'd like to write up your response in a more comprehensive fashion, I'll include this in my document as your claim that you've adequately handled all 5 of my Critical issues.

Currently your response is on page 8 of the document - I'll give you a whole section here, how do you want it to look?:

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

[TimberWolfAu]

Here are the 5 Critical Issues I've identified.  Can you describe a Hypothesis that covers all 5?

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

#1 - This isn't a "critical" issue, it's nothing more than you hand waving away any explanation with nothing more than you don't like it.

#2 - And you have the working knowledge and details on how the S-band steerable moved? What resistances were included in the mechanisms? Was there a neutral position for the equipment, that it could return to when unpowered? Was it powered or unpowered at the time?

#3 - Demonstrate that they were using the S-band steerable during the docking procedures, rather than the S-band inflight antennae.

#4 - Bean wasn't referring to the S-band steerable, how could he be? He couldn't see it, so he wouldn't know of it's movement, and Gordon doesn't mention it either, being the only person who could see it. I'd recommend going back a few minutes in the transcript to get the context of the conversation, perhaps look at what Conrad was doing at the time (hint: it might have something to do with those pesky inflight antennae)

#5 - If the steerable was tracking the Earth during the docking procedures, why can't we see it move? Have you established where the Earth was at the time? From what I can tell, the S-band steerable is pointing in the wrong direction, it's pointing at the moon.

There we go, turns out you don't have 5 critical points, you only have a list of personal incredulity.

[najak]

...

OK, pasted your rebuttal onto page 9.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/17wJ8O6-RMlPyQyJa2OZ6VBVuce3fyTrKZonCX6XxZL8/edit?usp=sharing

I may make a counter-rebuttal, at which point you can adjust your FIRST rebuttal as you deem fit, to invalidate/pre-address my counter rebuttal.  What I won't have in this document is more than one back-and-forth.   I Claim, you Rebut, then I counter-rebut...  and then you get to revise your rebuttal in retrospect, until you are done with revisions.  So that in the end, the reader will see:  "Claim, Rebuttal, Counter-Rebuttal"... 

And yes, this whole KB is designed to highlight Apollo from MLH perspective, but NOT WITHIN AN MLH VACUUM.... nor done in a fashion whereby I'll be slimy and highlight "but the FIRST TIME YOU SAID XYZ.... you have no credibility, look at you changing your story!"...   Nope, we're on the same team here.  I won't disrespect you in that way.

[TimberWolfAu]

OK, pasted your rebuttal onto page 9.

Mom!! Look Mom, I'm famous!!!

So that in the end, the reader will see:  "Claim, Rebuttal, Counter-Rebuttal"... 

You've missed a very important step there; Claim, Evidence that supports claim...

[Mag40]

OK, pasted your rebuttal onto page 9.

Mom!! Look Mom, I'm famous!!!

So that in the end, the reader will see:  "Claim, Rebuttal, Counter-Rebuttal"... 

You've missed a very important step there; Claim, Evidence that supports claim...

He's also apparently missed the bloody point of this thread - the title - post 80 clearly shows that any diminishing movement is not changed as the LM rotates, well past the point it stops. It then yaws 180 degrees and the "loose" dish doesn't move a single bit.

Now why would anyone think gravity is in play when the movement shows no correlation with any of the position changes?