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

[najak]

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.

Thanks for this.  THIS is the reason I come here.  I hadn't noticed this through my biased eyes.

Of course to me, this appears as "damage control", and is not aligned with the increase in static.  But it DOES provide NASA with another "out".   I'm going to see what specs/info there is on the S-Band Gimballed dish, and see if this explanation can make good sense or not.

I believe this is designed as a 2-hinge/axis gimbal...  The dish can rotate, and the arm can rotate.

However, before this "snap", we see the armature itself being "contorted away from the body of the LM"...  I don't think the armature has 2-hinges like this... if not -- it's a sign of being "pulled by the guide wire" (hoax theory) in a direction that was not designed.

Thank you for making this note about "switching to Omni Aft" (although it appears to me that Omni-Fore might have been a better choice if not able to use the Dish).

[najak]

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

145:30:06 Bean: Okay, you need to pull both rendezvous circuit breakers.
....
145:30:16 Conrad: Okay. Got those out. Rendezvous radar breakers are pulled from the Verb 44.

Thank you for this post.

One note is that these breakers are for the Rendezvous breakers, not S-Band.  So should be fully unrelated.   I believe this marks the point where they simply stop using the Rendezvous Breaker, and switch to eyeballing it, right?

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

This to me looks like part of the "damage control", to say something about the antenna.

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

Can you please clarify what you mean here, maybe provide some links/time-stamps if applicable?

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.

The uncontrolled pendulum like motion looks like "auto-correction"?   The orientation of the S-Band for the first 30 degrees of the Pitch rotation is correct (confirmed it)... it's pointing to where the earth should be.   As it rotates, we see what looks to me as "strain" on the armature as it starts to come away from the LM body (which it's not designed to do)...  What it snaps, it behaves unlike a server motor is involved at all -- hitting the hinge extremes and bouncing off of them, then it settles into a pendulum behavior, decreasing each time... not of this looks like servo-motor operation which is slower and rigid.   Not loose.

During this flailing, it goes from being "aimed at earth" to being aimed Not-at-earth--- and then freezes up and doesn't move again.

So if this was "auto-correction to find earth" - it would make no sense that it didn't then CONTINUE to track earth steadily for the remaining 55 degrees of the pitch maneuver.

===
For me the most damning aspects of this incident are:

1. The misalignment of static with "changing over to omni aft" antenna.  What exactly was supposed to be the action or incident that caused this static? (the flinging of the Dish, or the switchover to Omni Aft?) 

2. The strain on the armature moving in a direction without a hinge for it.

3. The flip flopping about - doesn't look like anything this servo-motor controlled device should ever do.

4. The settling out in pendulum fashion (continuously decreasing amplitudes - no longer bouncing off of the hinge extremes, but being pulled back by "something else").

[bknight]

....
Thanks for this.  THIS is the reason I come here. I hadn't noticed this through my biased eyes.
....

Therin lies your main problem, because of your biased eyes/conviction no amount of proof will be good enough for you.  You have been shown that A14 was not on the Earth, yet you hand wave all of this away with comments such as the pendulum is too fast.  But under all cases it is slower than one Earth.  Further you continue to attempt to shift the goal posts by saying the amplitude of the pendulum decreases with time.  No, it doesn't to every observer except yourself.  The amplitude decreases once it interferes with some other piece of structure on the descent module of the LM.

[najak]

Therin lies your main problem, because of your biased eyes/conviction no amount of proof will be good enough for you.  You have been shown that A14 was not on the Earth, yet you hand wave all of this away with comments such as the pendulum is too fast.  But under all cases it is slower than one Earth.  Further you continue to attempt to shift the goal posts by saying the amplitude of the pendulum decreases with time.  No, it doesn't to every observer except yourself.  The amplitude decreases once it interferes with some other piece of structure on the descent module of the LM.

So you don't have any bias?  Does having bias mean no one can be convinced?   As of 2016 I believed the Moon Landing was real, and never questioned it.  That was my bias.  I grew up atheist too - that was my bias.   Then became a fundamentalist Christian for 6 years -- during that time, this was my bias.   Then turned back to Atheism -- and again, this was my bias.  Now I'm a Universalist -- and now this is my bias.

I believed the Lunar Launches were 2.5x too fast -- THIS was my bias.   Now it's not.

We're ALL biased towards what we currently believe -- it's called Confirmation Bias, and is part of the human wiring.  And we're all wired to think "our team doesn't have bias; it's always the other guys"... because believing in your own confirmation bias, dispels it.

I believe in mine.  I know that I have it.  And because of it, my eyes miss things I shouldn't miss.  Thus I come here -- for the opposing bias, to obtain a more complete view of things.

I need the people of this site, for serious investigations.   I want to dig to the bottom of what I currently find to be the most compelling MLH claims.   If you show them to be truly debunkable, I will eagerly and thankfully accept these corrections.  The last thing I want to be doing is promoting things that are flawed/wrong.

ATM, I still firmly lean in the direction of MLH.   Having only had the opportunity to explore 4 threads to completion - stunts the purpose of this forum.... which I would assume is for the purposes of free thought and meaningful debate/discussions.

[JayUtah]

So you don't have any bias?

Do you have any evidence of bias against you that rises any higher than the fact that others dispute your claims?

As of 2016 I believed the Moon Landing was real, and never questioned it.

Literally every hoax claimant says he used to be a firm believer in the authenticity of Apollo, but was then dragged to the opposing view by the strength of the evidence. That claim never holds up to scrutiny.

I believed the Lunar Launches were 2.5x too fast -- THIS was my bias.   Now it's not.

Now your bias is the firm belief that you are a physics genius who answered your own question, no thanks to all the people who had to correct your many misconceptions along the way and are still attempting to do so.

I need the people of this site, for serious investigations.

You are not a serious investigator. You are a self-important claimant who has nothing to offer that hasn't already been tried. You've relied upon others to recite to you the old claims, and you think that you can breathe new life into them by sheer fiat.

Having only had the opportunity to explore 4 threads to completion - stunts the purpose of this forum.... which I would assume is for the purposes of free thought and meaningful debate/discussions.

You've demonstrated marked disinterest in meaningful debate.

[najak]

1. ...firm belief that you are a physics genius who answered your own question...
2. You are not a serious investigator. ...you think that you can breathe new life into them by sheer fiat.
3. You've demonstrated marked disinterest in meaningful debate.

1. My claim is that this sufficient-enough approximation was SIMPLE, and does NOT require a physics genius to assess.  Even though the accurate answers require more complexity, the "ballpark estimations" can be simplified to show that "Static Pressure Thrust" is likely "in the ballpark of providing enough early thrust".

2. I've shown seriousness here, and that I follow the evidence.  I have compiled enough materials to start a book, or produce a video.  I'd like to see if any of my remaining ideas hold water.  I also have a few original ideas that I haven't heard presented yet.

3. 8 flag motions was meaningful debate.  It has shown there to be no available explanations for such movements.

[JayUtah]

My claim is that this sufficient-enough approximation was SIMPLE, and does NOT require a physics genius to assess.

Your model is not wrong because it's simple. It's wrong because it's wrong.

I've shown seriousness here, and that I follow the evidence.

Except for all those times when your explanation for why the evidence doesn't work for you amounts to accusing everyone of being paid shills or religious fanatics, and all those times you exhibit sick personal fixations. I don't think you've spent enough time doing actual research to understand just how abjectly weird your behavior is.

It has shown there to be no available explanations for such movements.

According to you.

[najak]

It has shown there to be no available explanations for such movements.

According to you.

According to everyone here.  Nobody here will make a claim and stand by it, after scrutiny.  There are no intelligible viable explanations that stand up to the scrutiny according to ALL here.  Show me one person who has made a viable claim, and then stood by it through the scrutiny.

This particular claim is troublesome for the TD's here (Truth Defenders as Lunar Orbit mandates that I call you).

[Jason Thompson]

Of course to me, this appears as "damage control",

And there we have the entirely predictable response. You have no basis for assuming that apart from it must be in order for your scenario to be true. However, it may also be a genuine procedural step. What you are doing here is the equivalent of the 'that's exactly what a guilty person would say' argument applied to a protestation of innocence. That fails because protesting innocence is also exactly what an innocent person would do because it happens to be true.

Sorry, but when having a reasoned debate, which you claim to want here, you don't get to simply cast aside every counter with the statement 'it could be faked too'.

I'm going to see what specs/info there is on the S-Band Gimballed dish, and see if this explanation can make good sense or not.

I believe this is designed as a 2-hinge/axis gimbal...  The dish can rotate, and the arm can rotate.

And you really don't see the problem with doing thing this way round? You are only now going to look up specs for the thing, then tell us your entire argument is based on how you believe it worked?

However, before this "snap", we see the armature itself being "contorted away from the body of the LM"...

That's your interpretation, but you have already said you haven't looked at the specs for the antenna to know how it should or could actually move.

it's a sign of being "pulled by the guide wire"

A guide wire you have no evidence ever existed, nor can provide any reason for it being used if the antenna was in fact steerable. This is just you seeing something you don't understand at first glance and coming up with some random explanation for it that is easier than doing the actual research required to understand exactly how that component works and what its limitations are.

[Jason Thompson]

3. The flip flopping about - doesn't look like anything this servo-motor controlled device should ever do.

Says who? Why do you (and so many other hoax believers) think you can just look at a complex bit of engineering and decide it's operating in a suspect fashion?

[najak]

1. Sorry, but when having a reasoned debate, which you claim to want here, you don't get to simply cast aside every counter with the statement 'it could be faked too'.
2. And you really don't see the problem with doing thing this way round? You are only now going to look up specs for the thing, then tell us your entire argument is based on how you believe it worked?
3. A guide wire you have no evidence ever existed, nor can provide any reason for it being used if the antenna was in fact steerable. This is just you seeing something you don't understand at first glance and coming up with some random explanation for it that is easier than doing the actual research required to understand exactly how that component works and what its limitations are.

1. The chief evidence here is the snap/flip-flop/settling-out-like-a-loose-pendulum - when it was tracking the earth just fine, and the earth was always visible from the S-Band antenna for the entire rendezvous.  It was closely tracking the earth up to the second it "snapped".  THIS is the evidence.
So of course when we see them inserting something into the journal script to account for this messup, it looks like "damage control".  Why on earth would he changeover to the Omni-antenna with 1/100th the SNR, when the S-Band remained in clear view of the earth?  It looks like botched Damage control, because then they ALSO insert "static" 4 seconds after the dish cuts loose.

Which event are we supposed to believe caused this static?  Switching over to to the Omni, or the flinging of this dish?

2. Once you "see it" (the hoax), you have different lenses, through which you interpret what you see.  This is confirmation bias -- which YOU HAVE TOO... in your view, you are ALWAYS VIEWING IT AS REAL, and then finding ways to justify it.  This is the value of debate -- the battle between confirmation biases.   So just as you'll look for ways to validate the realness, I'll be looking for ways to validate the fakery.   If one of us hits a stumbling block -- that becomes meaningful.

3. Guide wire -- the evidence is in how the dish rotates to maintain a constant aiming angle for the first 30 deg of Pitch -- and AS IT DOES THIS -- the dish armature angle INCREASES... From what I can see of the specs, I don't see a hinge for moving in that direction.  This is a 2-hinge armature, from what I can tell.  And IF SO -- then this means the "increasing angle is unexplainable by the TD's (i.e. Truth Defenders)".

There is a host of things wrong with this whole incident.   Which seems to me why they minimized the "damage control", because it was SO-BAD, that if it drew attention, their "explanation would simply not work" -- so they minimized the wording, and hoped nobody noticed.   Looks like they were right - -at least for MANY MANY DECADES, which is all they needed.   Even today, folks can see this huge mess-up and find a way to justify it no-matter-what --  Confirmation Bias in action.  You have it too.

[najak]

Says who? Why do you (and so many other hoax believers) think you can just look at a complex bit of engineering and decide it's operating in a suspect fashion?

Servo-motor controlled armatures isn't rocket science.   We see how they work, not only in Apollo clips, but in other applications.   Servo motors for this application are designed for precision tracking -- not for fast-flipping-around -- which LOOKS NOTHING LIKE ALL OTHER SERVO-MOTOR MOTIONS....  This is what it would look like in "neutral" (disengaged from the motors/gears) -- but still begs the question -- "What threw it into this frenzy?"   And "why was the armature contorting away from the LM?"

And why would they switch over to the Omni Aft when the Uni-dish maintained a clear view of the Earth?

[TimberWolfAu]

Thanks for this.  THIS is the reason I come here.  I hadn't noticed this through my biased eyes.

Too much schnapps over Christmas, perhaps? The S-band omni's were discussed back on 2 December.

And why would they switch over to the Omni Aft when the Uni-dish maintained a clear view of the Earth?

Please provide the verification you have done to ascertain the location of the ascent stage, CSM, and Earth, to be able to claim the steerable had a "clear view" of Earth.

While you're at it, how about you provide some evidence for the wire you keep claiming "snapped".

[Jason Thompson]

1. The chief evidence here is the snap/flip-flop/settling-out-like-a-loose-pendulum - when it was tracking the earth just fine, and the earth was always visible from the S-Band antenna for the entire rendezvous.

Was it? And at no point during the movements could anything possibly have interrupted this at all? You know this for a fact do you?

So of course when we see them inserting something into the journal script to account for this messup,

But h said 'switching to omni-aft' before the dish moves. How does it make any sense to insert a line as 'damage control' before the event occurs?

Why on earth would he changeover to the Omni-antenna with 1/100th the SNR, when the S-Band remained in clear view of the earth?

Because they knew that during this manoeuvre it was possible or likely that the S-band would lose its lock on the Earth due to the rotation. Perhaps something on the spacecraft obscured the Earth.

Which event are we supposed to believe caused this static?  Switching over to to the Omni, or the flinging of this dish?

Why tie it specifically to either? The LM is rotating. Everyone who's ever waved a radio or TV antenna around to get a decent signal knows that even for a so-called 'omni-directional' antenna its position has an effect on signal quality.

3. Guide wire -- the evidence is in how the dish rotates to maintain a constant aiming angle for the first 30 deg of Pitch -- and AS IT DOES THIS -- the dish armature angle INCREASES... From what I can see of the specs, I don't see a hinge for moving in that direction.  This is a 2-hinge armature, from what I can tell.  And IF SO -- then this means the "increasing angle is unexplainable by the TD's (i.e. Truth Defenders)".

The apparent angle may increase (I am not at all convinced), but this is an angled armature which is moving with a rotating spacecraft. How precisely have you determined that what you're calling a pulling on the armature is not simply a line of sight effect of the angles involved?

There is a host of things wrong with this whole incident.   Which seems to me why they minimized the "damage control", because it was SO-BAD, that if it drew attention, their "explanation would simply not work" -- so they minimized the wording, and hoped nobody noticed.

But that makes literally NO sense. 'Damage control' for a snapping guidewire, inserted into a script before that incident occurs, requires them to know it was going to happen. And if they knew it would happen why would they not just avoid it in the first place?

And here's some even easier damage control: the steerable S-band was not visible on the TV transmission of the docking manoeuvre during this event. It was ONLY captured by the DAC film recording. If I was doing 'damage control' I'd destroy or otherwise hide that bit of film and not make it available for all and sundry to look at if I thought there was something on there that gives away the hoax. But now of course you'll just say they included it to 'add realism' or 'because they thought no-one would notice'.

[Jason Thompson]

which LOOKS NOTHING LIKE ALL OTHER SERVO-MOTOR MOTIONS....

That is a claim that requires you to have examined literally ALL other such motions. It may not look like anything you've seen, but that's not the same thing, and is a logical fallacy.