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

[najak]

In the end the only argument you are left with in this thread is that it isn't really mentioned in the flight journals, that's it.

So you think the loose flinging about followed by pendulum pattern - is explainable by "this was motorized control" ??   Why would the motor employ this algorithm -- when it was TRACKING EARTH as it was SUPPOSED TO...   Then the Motor itself runs this pendulum pattern on purpose?

I'm not sure what you've got riding on Apollo, or why you'd make this defense.

[JayUtah]

...and claim he's discrediting me as incompetent.

That's not hard to do when you keep making really stupid, glaring errors and ignoring the corrections.

[Miss Vocalcord]

So you think the loose flinging about followed by pendulum pattern - is explainable by "this was motorized control" ??   Why would the motor employ this algorithm -- when it was TRACKING EARTH as it was SUPPOSED TO...   Then the Motor itself runs this pendulum pattern on purpose?

No I showed you're earlier claim about all other motions as being expected to be incorrect. Right at that time you start moving the goalposts again. It shows how weak your argument is.

I'm not sure what you've got riding on Apollo, or why you'd make this defense.

I didn't say such a thing, don't put words in my mouth or make any stupid assumptions.

[onebigmonkey]

So you think the loose flinging about followed by pendulum pattern - is explainable by "this was motorized control" ??   Why would the motor employ this algorithm -- when it was TRACKING EARTH as it was SUPPOSED TO...   Then the Motor itself runs this pendulum pattern on purpose?

No I showed you're earlier claim about all other motions as being expected to be incorrect. Right at that time you start moving the goalposts again. It shows how weak your argument is.

I'm not sure what you've got riding on Apollo, or why you'd make this defense.

I didn't say such a thing, don't put words in my mouth or make any stupid assumptions.

Yeah apparently we're only defending apollo because we might faint or have some sort of existential crisis if our world view is shattered 🙄

In another thought, the board software should have word replacement functions. Can I suggest it be made to swap out "Apollogist" for something less childish? It's right up there with "astronot" for its annoying passive aggressive insinuations.

[Miss Vocalcord]

Yeah apparently we're only defending apollo because we might faint or have some sort of existential crisis if our world view is shattered

Yep, it would be the end of the world as we now it

It is funny he claimed to be aware of this Apollo 16 oscillation because you had pointed it out to him on the metabunk thread a week ago already ( https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2022.msg57972#msg57972 )

To which his response was:

I read this other thread, to make sure my analysis covers everything.

.....

[najak]

It is funny he claimed to be aware of this Apollo 16 oscillation because you had pointed it out to him on the metabunk thread a week ago already ( https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2022.msg57972#msg57972 )

I can only keep up with so much.  So it's funny to you that "I missed something said in the plethora of comments from a dozen different people"?  I'd call that normative.  I'm rushed - I have a life too.  So I'm trying to lessen how much I spend in these banters -- especially for the threads where I've completed my statements, and some folks simply want to beat a dead horse, until I submit to what I believe is "bad logic".

So when you brought it up, I looked it up -- and saw that it was a long-lasting occurrence, which was talked about and addressed - and never filmed.  For a couple reasons, this seems to be apples to oranges, and doesn't provide any support to justify the "loose wild flinging, followed by a pendulum motion indicating gravity" of Apollo 12.

I digest all of YOUR comments, because your comments are brief, and non-repetitive.

[Mag40]

What a time waster - gets handed his arse and runs away!

Maybe we'll get the HB bollocks about how far ahead the Soviets were. Finger poised on the button:
https://i.ibb.co/JCRFxYT/Bingo-bongo.jpg

[LunarOrbit]

In another thought, the board software should have word replacement functions. Can I suggest it be made to swap out "Apollogist" for something less childish? It's right up there with "astronot" for its annoying passive aggressive insinuations.

The forum does have that ability, and I've done it jokingly in the past when a hoax believer was overusing "astronot". But I generally don't like to use it to alter the posts made by the members of the forum, and only use it to censor obscenities and unsafe spam links.

[Ranb]

Maybe we'll get the HB bollocks about how far ahead the Soviets were. Finger poised on the button:
https://i.ibb.co/JCRFxYT/Bingo-bongo.jpg

Good one.  Reminds me of the Trump anti-gun agenda Bingo card I made a few years ago. 

[najak]

Pushing now for Official conclusion of this thread.

I have summarized my findings within this document:

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

In short, it appears to me that there are no viable Apollogies for the following:

1. What could explain this unexpected uncontrolled flinging away from a steady-tracking-of-earth, to out-of-control flip-flopping about in a pendulum-like fashion?
2. Why was this complete failure of the S-Band Tracking not mentioned in the journal transcript or mission report?
3. Why was this failure not accompanied by a loss-of-signal, followed by a manual switchover to the Unidirectional antenna?

As a representative of Moon Landing Skeptics, I posit the following possible explanation:
1. AM could have been the real AM (manipulated by large machine), or a smaller model, with motorized S-Band, that could also be placed in "neutral".
2. S-Band antenna was attached to thin wire maintaining it's directional aim at a theoretical earth.   It was placed in "neutral" during this maneuver.
3. As the Pitch maneuver occurred, too much strain against the hinge extremes, the guide wire snapped it, thus releasing the dish to fling about freely.
4. In earth's gravity, the dish swings back-and-forth like a pendulum, until it settles to a stop.  These types of motion reversals are a sign of gravity.
5. The motor was then re-engaged to prevent further motion.
6. This failure was NOT mentioned in transcript or reports, in hopes that nobody would notice or make an issue of it, as there exists no viable explanation for it.  If they could have made a viable excuse for it, they would have created that excuse within the texts.  With no viable excuse, their best bet was to minimize visibility in hopes of avoiding notice.

===
We can discuss this more, to achieve the best stated Apollogist response, and I'll document it as such within my document.

[Jason Thompson]

In short, it appears to me that there are no viable Apollogies for the following:

And until you learn the difference between 'viable' and 'within your understanding' there never will be. So long as you remain the arbiter of what explanation is acceptable there can be no discussion. You already include statements like 'this should have happened' and 'they would have included this', which are based only on your expectations. The people actually doing the missions are under no obligations to meet the expectations of a layman decades after the fact.

[najak]

So long as you remain the arbiter of what explanation is acceptable there can be no discussion. You already include statements like 'this should have happened' and 'they would have included this', which are based only on your expectations.

We are ALL arbiters.  At the end of debates, there are still divisions on beliefs among the audience, as each viewer is an arbiter.

You are an arbiter who believes we landed on the moon because of your reasons that are limited by your own understanding and expectations.

My aim here is to determine which of the Hoax claims can be viably debunked.  Which is why I come to this forum, where people are experienced and motivated to debunk such claims.

I'll NEVER see these debunked within the context of a Moon Hoax Echo Chamber -- so I come here... and then am silenced.

I don't mind being berated/insulted, but silenced is the part that demonstrates the fear factor involved with the Apollogy.  If Apollo really landed men on the moon, why is there this fear?

I am willing and eager to document in my conclusions the "best debunk attempts" for this A12 Dish Flinging incident.

[Jason Thompson]

My aim here is to determine which of the Hoax claims can be viably debunked.

All of them. Literally. Because they are, without fail, based on lack of understanding.

Which is why I come to this forum, where people are experienced and motivated to debunk such claims.

And yet you dismiss that experience and motivation all the time it disagrees with you.

I don't mind being berated/insulted, but silenced is the part that demonstrates the fear factor involved with the Apollogy.  If Apollo really landed men on the moon, why is there this fear?

Oh, the tedium of this 'what are you afraid of?' argument is beyond description. There is no fear here. You are not being silenced, you are being held to reasonable standards of polite discussion, which is not to flood the place with endless arguments, not to throw more crap at the wall while other points remain open, etc.

I will say this again, we have DECADES (literally) of experience of hoax believers just like you coming on and hurling out large numbers of arguments and then complaining about how they are treated rather than dealing with the substance. We have had people throw out large numbers of arguments so they can find the one that gets less response and claim it's because no-one has an answer. We've had people basically do EXACTLY as you are doing, and it's boring. I am happy to discuss Apollo, but not with someone who does not engage in good faith. And you are absolutely not engaging in good faith, despite your protestations to the contrary.

[Jason Thompson]

1. What could explain this unexpected uncontrolled flinging away from a steady-tracking-of-earth, to out-of-control flip-flopping about in a pendulum-like fashion?

Many things, but inventing a whole 'it had a neutral setting' makes no sense at all. It has no need to ever be disengaged from the driving gears.

2. Why was this complete failure of the S-Band Tracking not mentioned in the journal transcript or mission report?

Seconds before it occurs, Conrad says 'Okay, I'm going Omni aft, Houston.' Guess where the omnidirectional S-band antenna was on the LM. That leads me to suppose it was not a failure but an anticipated problem during the manoeuvre due to the relative positions of the spacecraft and Earth perhaps causing tracking issues.

3. Why was this failure not accompanied by a loss-of-signal, followed by a manual switchover to the Unidirectional antenna?

On that video you linked to there is a very significant increase in interference that coincides with te entire event. Do you not think that had something to do with it?

As a representative of Moon Landing Skeptics, I posit the following possible explanation:
1. AM could have been the real AM (manipulated by large machine), or a smaller model, with motorized S-Band, that could also be placed in "neutral".

There is literally no reason for a steerable antenna to have a 'neutral' setting. You have simply invented that (as with your weighted feather or fabricated documents) to explain something with no supporting evidence.

2. S-Band antenna was attached to thin wire maintaining it's directional aim at a theoretical earth.   It was placed in "neutral" during this maneuver.

There is literally no reason to do this either. Once again, you are making up scenarios that have to exist for your theory to work but make no sense in any other context.

3. As the Pitch maneuver occurred, too much strain against the hinge extremes, the guide wire snapped it, thus releasing the dish to fling about freely.
4. In earth's gravity, the dish swings back-and-forth like a pendulum, until it settles to a stop.  These types of motion reversals are a sign of gravity.
5. The motor was then re-engaged to prevent further motion.

Again, this makes no sense. If the thing had a motor there is absolutely no reason for it ever to need to be disengaged to allow it to move freely.

6. This failure was NOT mentioned in transcript or reports, in hopes that nobody would notice or make an issue of it,

Or see above. It's not an issue, and there is an explicit mention of switching to another antenna before the pitchover and loss of tracking of the steerable antenna.

[dwight]

From the Mission transcripts, this interaction, as the crew is performing their checklist operations, takes place right before the radar antenna moves:

145:30:02 Conrad: All right, let me stop my radar - have you got it?
145:30:04 Gordon: I've got it.
145:30:05 Conrad: You've got it.
145:30:06 Bean: Okay, you need to pull both rendezvous circuit breakers.
145:30:08 Conrad: Okay, wait just a second. Is the rendezvous radar in the right place?
145:30:13 Gordon: It's 320, 320, which is where it should be.
145:30:16 Conrad: Okay. Got those out. Rendezvous radar breakers are pulled from the Verb 44.

Right after the antenna moves there is this statement made:
145:31:56 Bean: My antenna's okay.

I was using the TV transmission, which had NAT SOT audio. Additionally the 16mm DAC footage was properly synched to this TV feed.

This to me looks like the in-built auto-correction capability of the steerable antenna which is during the time where Conrad engages -both-circuit breakers. it also corresponds to Bean stating "My antenna's OK" once the procedure has been completed.