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

[Zakalwe]

".
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.

5. The motor was then re-engaged to prevent further motion.

If it had a motor to move it, then why would it need a wire? Or, if it had a wire to move it, then why would it need a motor?

Do you actually read the guff that you write? Or do you just trash around building fantastical nonsense as you desperately try to maintain the illusion in your head?

[Jason Thompson]

Do you actually read the guff that you write? Or do you just trash around building fantastical nonsense as you desperately try to maintain the illusion in your head?

That's exactly what he does. When confronted with something that doesn't meet his understanding he fabricates entire scenarios to explain them because making that stuff up is far easier than doing the actual research to properly understand the thing he's looking at. As with so many hoax believers 'it doesn't look how I expect it to' is the ultimate argument as far as he's concerned.

See another discussion, in which he claims not to be able to 'see' the rocket motors on the LLTV (that emit hydrogen and water as exhaust products, and that he didn't even know were there until they were pointed out to him) generating any lift because they're not emitting any visible exhaust, but he does claim to 'see' the jet engine in the centre (that emits CO₂ and water as exhaust) generating lift, even though it is not generating any visible exhaust.

[bknight]

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.

I point out a glaring error in your thesis concerning A14 and all you can do is rant about bias.  You are really terrible at this.  Point blank do you believe that A14 was not on Earth?

[Zakalwe]

Do you actually read the guff that you write? Or do you just trash around building fantastical nonsense as you desperately try to maintain the illusion in your head?

That's exactly what he does. When confronted with something that doesn't meet his understanding he fabricates entire scenarios to explain them because making that stuff up is far easier than doing the actual research to properly understand the thing he's looking at. As with so many hoax believers 'it doesn't look how I expect it to' is the ultimate argument as far as he's concerned.

See another discussion, in which he claims not to be able to 'see' the rocket motors on the LLTV (that emit hydrogen and water as exhaust products, and that he didn't even know were there until they were pointed out to him) generating any lift because they're not emitting any visible exhaust, but he does claim to 'see' the jet engine in the centre (that emits CO₂ and water as exhaust) generating lift, even though it is not generating any visible exhaust.

Indeed.
He claimed somewhere else that you coul irradiate meteorites to make them appear exactly like Apollo samples. I'm still waiting for an answer from him on exactly how to carry out this irradiation.

[Jason Thompson]

Oh, and how long was this 'guidewire' and how was it attached? Have you, najak, even looked at the full length of the film to realise the LM starts off a very long way from the camera? How exactly does your scenario fit the entire length of footage we see?

[najak]

Oh, and how long was this 'guidewire' and how was it attached? Have you, najak, even looked at the full length of the film to realise the LM starts off a very long way from the camera? How exactly does your scenario fit the entire length of footage we see?

Two-minutes prior, LM goes "off-screen"... easy camera trick option here.  Non-continuous coverage of the LM, just barely...  So swapping the set, attaching a guide-wire, seems to be feasible.

From MLH standpoint, this was botched damage-control.   And the script of the journal has them not even able to know "up from down" or to maintain fine tuned high fidelity control needed for a rendezvous.   Today's CrewDragon/CST dockings take HOURS from about 400 meters away to docking... very very slowly.... and this is with using 1000x higher fidelity tech/sensors.

In 1969, they weren't so worried about "being caught" because there was no way for people to "get together to discuss skepticism"... and anyone who attempted it, would be treated far worse than the MLH advocates today....  and they'd have far less ability to "prove their theories" - because this footage was "show it once and done".

[najak]

He claimed somewhere else that you coul irradiate meteorites to make them appear exactly like Apollo samples. I'm still waiting for an answer from him on exactly how to carry out this irradiation.

Jarrah White can answer this one better than me.  The "analysis of Moon rocks/samples" has been producing vastly changing results -- now showing a LOT more water than previously reported.   And also the average regolith particle size is now about 1/11th the mass as what was reporting in 1970's.  (< 45% the average diameter -- cubing this yields 1/11th the mass).

Even NASA geologist spokesmen have admitted that Moon samples look like Earth samples, and requires special tests to find a difference.

The science regarding rocks/regolith seems very suspect, overall.  This is NOT my topic, but if we want to raise a new thread on this -- perhaps Jarrah White can join us for the discussion... if you really want to know more.

[najak]

I point out a glaring error in your thesis concerning A14 and all you can do is rant about bias.  You are really terrible at this.  Point blank do you believe that A14 was not on Earth?

"glaring error" - can you be more specific?

Point blank, I don't think we landed humans on the moon... yet.

[dwight]

I’m sorry Najak, but youre taking a pretty big leap to state that in a live TV feed, a cable swap took place. What purpose does this serve? Where is your 3rd party evidence that such an event took place? Suggesting something could have happened doesnt mean it did. Also why are you suddenly concluding the TV signal had the swap, when you have been using the 16mm DAC footage to cast doubt on the event. The 16mm footage does not break and the LM is fully in shot the entire time. So where does this then take place in that footage?

Also, what is your claim of the static not happening when it should? What source footage did you use to determine this?

[Jason Thompson]

Two-minutes prior, LM goes "off-screen"... easy camera trick option here.  Non-continuous coverage of the LM, just barely...  So swapping the set, attaching a guide-wire, seems to be feasible.

Oh dear lord, how many times will you just make up any old shit like this? Where is the EVIDENCE that such a change occurs, and what is the REASON for making such a change (especially given that we have prior examples of continuous footage to docking in which the LM does not go off screen at all)? How was this change done given that this was not only captured on the DAC film but was actually transmitted via the TV camera on the CSM as well, providing live TV coverage of the rendezvous and docking in mission control? And again, why is a guidewire necessary AT ALL?

Your arguments fail for reasons of sense. You are literally just making up scenarios to account for things you see, regardless of any actual sense in the scenario.

And the script of the journal has them not even able to know "up from down"

No it doesn't, it has them asking for clarification of what they mean by 'down' given the orientation of the LM. 'Down towards the Moon', as requested, is not 'down' in terms of the orientation of the LM at the time. Up and down are not simple terms in spaceflight, ever.

or to maintain fine tuned high fidelity control needed for a rendezvous.

Well since they successfully docked that's clearly not the case. Once again, it just doesn't look the way you expect so it's a problem.

In 1969, they weren't so worried about "being caught" because there was no way for people to "get together to discuss skepticism"... and anyone who attempted it, would be treated far worse than the MLH advocates today....  and they'd have far less ability to "prove their theories" - because this footage was "show it once and done".

Cobblers. If the footage has such obvious evidence of fakery that you seem to think there is no reason to show it at all.

[theteacher]

Point blank do you believe that A14 was not on Earth?

Point blank, I don't think we landed humans on the moon... yet.

You didn't answer the question.

[najak]

If it had a motor to move it, then why would it need a wire? Or, if it had a wire to move it, then why would it need a motor?

Perhaps it only had a "locking mechanism" or perhaps the motorized unit was unable to "track the supposed earth location" adequately.   So they decided to rig up a guide wire to keep it's aim constant.

The Pendulum behavior for the settling out is a key point here.   This indicates gravity.  If weightless, it would continue at the SAME AMPLITUDE, only slower.   But this settling out shows 7 oscillations, each with decreasing amplitude.   Why did the dish reverse directions before hitting the hinge-constraint?

[najak]

You didn't answer the question.

Not only did I answer the question, but also answered it for all other missions as well.  I believe all footage and photos taken on the "lunar surface" were actually created here on earth.

But as for here, I'm only talking about narrow pieces of evidence, to see how well each supports the MLH theory.

[najak]

I’m sorry Najak, but youre taking a pretty big leap to state that in a live TV feed, a cable swap took place. What purpose does this serve? Where is your 3rd party evidence that such an event took place? Suggesting something could have happened doesnt mean it did. Also why are you suddenly concluding the TV signal had the swap, when you have been using the 16mm DAC footage to cast doubt on the event. The 16mm footage does not break and the LM is fully in shot the entire time. So where does this then take place in that footage?

Also, what is your claim of the static not happening when it should? What source footage did you use to determine this?

I believe it was all (or almost all?) pre-filmed, not live.  Allowing them time between clips to change things around.

In the footage reference in my doc, they have static showing up in the audio feed 4 sec after the dish flings.   If he was switched to Aft Omni-- why say "my antenna is OK"... and if the Dish was tracking earth and continued having a good view of earth - why switch to the -100 dB SNR Omni?

These aren't my MAIN POINTS... but just more "noise to discuss" as this, to me, just looks like haphazard poorly thought out damage control.

The pendulum motion showing gravity - is probably the most non-debunkable aspect of this whole incident.

[Jason Thompson]

Perhaps it only had a "locking mechanism" or perhaps the motorized unit was unable to "track the supposed earth location" adequately.   So they decided to rig up a guide wire to keep it's aim constant.

More baseless speculation. No actual evidence.