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

[Jason Thompson]

Agreed.  MLH claims are bound by physics, and feasibility.  Implications of all proposals are important too.

And since we are talking about a motor driven system with two independent rotational axes it is inherently feasible for it to move the way it does by means other than gravity, whether by computer-driven responses, a system glitch or some other reason. No need for guide wires, no need for edits. No additional implications that mean it can't be a spacecraft in orbit of the moon. Your arguments against have been based on your unwillingness to believe it would have done so, which is a problem of your credulity, not physics or feasibility.

It comes down to this: if we're right then it's a spacecraft orbiting the moon exactly as claimed. If you're right there's a whole set of new circumstances that have to be accounted for, and you are unable or unwilling to consider those implications as counting against your interpretation of what you see.

[Zakalwe]

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?

Again, do you actually read this nonsense before posting?

So, in your fevered imagination there was a recognition that the pointing of the antennae could be problematic and that it was important enough to design in a redundant method of moving it as well as building in a mythical latching mechanism. Then when they recorded it all, they didn't seem to care that despite all their planing such an important piece had malfunctioned. Was the thinking process "Right lads, we better get the steering of the antennae spot on, so I want a redundant moving mechanism. This will also have to be a co-ordinated system as the motor can't pull against the invisible supporting wire. Better through a latch in there too, just in case".
And then when, despite all this planning, it didn't work they went "Never mind lads. I know that I said that the steering of the antennae was super important. Despite all of that, you still buggered it up. Never mind, no-one will notice. It'll be grand".

Were you drunk when you imagined all of this??? Naturally, you've made this claim without a shred of evidence or research into the steerable antennae. Have you actually looked at one? Researched how it was built and controlled? Actually made enquiries with the makes of the antennae? What actually evidence have you found that lead you to thinking that there was a controlling wire AND a motor AND a latching mechanism?

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. 

No so fast.
You made the claim. What irradiation was needed to make a meteorite look indistinguishable from the Apollo samples? Can you point to any peer-reviewed evidence to show where this has been tried and tested?  Back it up or withdraw the claim, please. Perhaps LunarOrbit can add this to the list of questions that you are trying to wriggle away from?

I also note that despite your grand claims to be the smartest guy in the room you have a clear willingness to accept on face value ridiculous claims made by other hoax-believers, yet demand scrutiny of the historical canon. It's almost as if you have a huge confirmation bias that you are unconsicious of. Which, of course, you won't as you are the smartest guy in the room.
/s

[Miss Vocalcord]

Again, do you actually read this nonsense before posting?

So, in your fevered imagination there was a recognition that the pointing of the antennae could be problematic and that it was important enough to design in a redundant method of moving it as well as building in a mythical latching mechanism. Then when they recorded it all, they didn't seem to care that despite all their planing such an important piece had malfunctioned. Was the thinking process "Right lads, we better get the steering of the antennae spot on, so I want a redundant moving mechanism. This will also have to be a co-ordinated system as the motor can't pull against the invisible supporting wire. Better through a latch in there too, just in case".
And then when, despite all this planning, it didn't work they went "Never mind lads. I know that I said that the steering of the antennae was super important. Despite all of that, you still buggered it up. Never mind, no-one will notice. It'll be grand".

Yes this is his magic wand he thinks he can use at any time; doesn't it make any sense; "it's good enough, let's move on".

[najak]

Yes this is his magic wand he thinks he can use at any time; doesn't it make any sense; "it's good enough, let's move on".

"Good enough, let's move on." - is Life.   As sometimes, schedule/budget constraints, or maybe the people involved were having a bad day, or not feeling too enthused about fooling-the-world -- just decided a few things a little recklessly.   This isn't "magic" - it's just life.  It's normal.  Feasible.

While this dish flinging, bouncing, then settling out like a pendulum in the advertised context, might actually be impossible.   But I'm happy to document your explanation(s) however you want.

The "magic" is when you say NASA accelerated development by 50% following a tragic occurrence of blatant failures in QA/QC, and the non-mentioned loss of a 500-page incident report, against everyone's better judgement ("You can't do that!  No Way! That's Crazy!") -- as you do the hardest part of the development process ... "the ending" (ask anyone involved in complex bleeding-edge product development)...  and magically accomplish the impossible on TV only - where there are few witnesses to confirm.    This seems more like actual "magic" to me.   In an era where we KNOW the govt was repeatedly lying to the people, and likely even involved (indirectly?) in the assassinations of JFK, and RFK.... the honest men who would dare to defy the system.

[najak]

It comes down to this: if we're right then it's a spacecraft orbiting the moon exactly as claimed. If you're right there's a whole set of new circumstances that have to be accounted for, and you are unable or unwilling to consider those implications as counting against your interpretation of what you see.

I'd be GLAD to have ALL of this discussed - but it's a HUGE undertaking, of MANY TOPICS.  Which cannot be addressed in a single thread.  Each demands it's own thread.  Which would you like to discuss first?

All I can do in this ONE thread is address this ONE topic -- "what is the best explanation TD's have for this Dish motion?"   In your world, the explanation doesn't involve "human imagination/trickery" - but rather must be the result of "normal causes".

Is this servo-motor even designed for such fast movements?  Was the "tracking software" THAT bad that it's best response would be to "turn away from the previous locked position, very very quickly, bounce hard twice, then settle out like a pendulum?"

I think this incident presents a serious problem for the TD's.   If you don't, that's OK.   That's what free thought is about.

[Jason Thompson]

While this dish flinging, bouncing, then settling out like a pendulum in the advertised context, might actually be impossible.

No, you don't get to brush it off as 'maybe impossible'. It is a motorised armature with two rotational degrees of freedom. If it can move at all as it is seen to it can do so as a combination of deliberate or accidental controlled motions, or it can settle from a moving state to rest under any force that would cause that to occur, such as natural elastic energy exchange in the moving parts of the object.

But I'm happy to document your explanation(s) however you want.

No, as you have been told, it is not our burden of proof. It is yours to support your claim that it is, and can only be, a pendulum swing under the influence of gravity. And that includes dealing with all the necessary consequences of that claim.

Once again, if we are right, then the system can be part of a spacecraft operating in space as claimed, with no additional components, wires, braking mechanisms, film edits, procedures, people, sets, or anything required. Your claim requires additional things for which there is no evidence beyond 'this is what you think would be needed to make it do the thing you think it's doing'.

The "magic" is when you say NASA accelerated development by 50% following a tragic occurrence...

Yadda yadda yadda, same old, same old. Nothing 'magic' about it. The entire programme is well documented and has been for half a century. You do not bring any new or special insight here, no matter how much you may wish you did.

[Miss Vocalcord]

This isn't "magic" - it's just life.  It's normal.  Feasible.

No but it contradicts the logic you try to apply before it; First they see a problem, then they go through a lot of trouble of trying to fix it (adding motors, wires, adding a special shot to attach the wire); and then they see it go wrong and all of a sudden they don't care anymore (instead of choosing one of the much more simple solutions (not releasing it at all, redoing the shot.)
Your explanation doesn't make any sense from any point of view.

I've already told you that there are more reports of that antenna not behaving as it should, including even an oscillation event;

[Jason Thompson]

I'd be GLAD to have ALL of this discussed - but it's a HUGE undertaking, of MANY TOPICS.

No, I am only talking about this specific issue.

Is this servo-motor even designed for such fast movements?  Was the "tracking software" THAT bad that it's best response would be to "turn away from the previous locked position, very very quickly, bounce hard twice, then settle out like a pendulum?"

Maybe. I am going to keep saying this until it penetrates your skull (or I get bored, which frankly will probably come first), but it is NOT NECESSARY for me to provide the exact details. The dish absolutely DOES have servo motor control. It absolutely WILL do something when it loses tracking. Your incredulity aside, it is perfectly feasible for the movement to be either a deliberate response, an unexpected sequence caused by a glitch or spurious input, or simply one sudden controlled movement followed by natural settling under forces inherent among the moving parts. And NOT ONE of those possibilities requires any additional elements such as guide wires or film edits that you have proposed in support of yours. THAT ALONE makes these suggestions more plausible than yours.

I think this incident presents a serious problem for the TD's.

No, the problem is that you are artificially inflating your position by saying it can only be debunked by a completely accurate description of the precise sequence of events seen on the film that you completely agree with. That is not how reasoned argument works. Your argument requires a very elaborate setup, for which you have no supporting evidence, to occur. Mine involves only the components known to be present.

[Jason Thompson]

Read this:

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19730005491/downloads/19730005491.pdf

Steerable antenna oscillations of 2-3Hz are described in this report, and it is stated that antenna oscillations occurred on all Apollo missions, many of them as a result of loss of tracking. So yes, the motors absolutely could drive the motions seen on Apollo 12.

[najak]

Read this:

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19730005491/downloads/19730005491.pdf

Steerable antenna oscillations of 2-3Hz are described in this report, and it is stated that antenna oscillations occurred on all Apollo missions, many of them as a result of loss of tracking. So yes, the motors absolutely could drive the motions seen on Apollo 12.

Nice find and thank you for the association.   The text reads:

"The response indicates that the antenna "began to experience approximately 2- to 3-hertz mechanical oscillations which became increasingly larger in amplitude with time. "

and

"Similar oscillations occurred during the Apollo 11, 12, and 15 missions, but only Apollo 15 and l6 experienced tracking interruptions."

==
I might argue that the initial "Fling" is out of spec.  And that these amplitudes were decreasing not increasing -- so NOT the same software bug.

However, this report does indicate bugs in their software/system, and an oscillation effect, giving some credence to your theory.

The described bug of "increasing amplitude" MAKES SENSE as a bug... because when it "loses tracking" the FIRST thing it should do is "small scans to try and figure out where it went" and then increasing this amplitude to look further around...  then giving up as it blows the circuit.

BUT for this A12 case, that doesn't fit this profile of this software bug at all.   It starts very fast and large, and bounces back/forth.

I have downloaded this PDF, and saved the link in the gdoc, and will include this into the TD "best explanation" as part of the conclusion for this thread/topic.

[Jason Thompson]

I might argue that the initial "Fling" is out of spec.  And that these amplitudes were decreasing not increasing -- so NOT the same software bug.

Irrelevant. You expressed incredulity that the servo motors would drive the antenna in a rapid oscillation. You suggested this was absurd, bad design, even 'impossible'. The point here is that rapid oscillations driven by the motors ARE a known phenomenon. That is all I was providing evidence for. The fact that this one doesn't exactly match the oscillations described in this specific report (which are themselves the subject of the report because they were anomalous oscillations from non-obvious causes) does not alter the fact that such oscillations ARE possible with the systems described for the spacecraft.

So, on the one hand we have a system that is known to oscillate rapidly when tracking is lost being seen to oscillate rapidly when tracking is lost, an expected and documented sequence of events if the spacecraft is working as advertised. On the other we have your suggestion of a snapping guidewire attached during a seamless film edit causing a gravity-driven drop and oscillation, a sequence of events for which many extra things are required for which there is no supporting evidence at all. It is not my explanation that needs to have credence added at this point.

[najak]

Irrelevant.

All I'm doing is presenting the two sides.  Audience decides for themselves.  Are you not comfortable with this?

[TimberWolfAu]

Irrelevant.

All I'm doing is presenting the two sides.  Audience decides for themselves.  Are you not comfortable with this?

Except that would involve presenting some actual evidence for the existence of your "wire".

On the side, have you confirmed that the steerable was being used at all?

[Jason Thompson]

Irrelevant.

All I'm doing is presenting the two sides.  Audience decides for themselves.  Are you not comfortable with this?

Another tick on the bingo card. You are strikingly unoriginal in your activity here.

You repeatedly expressed incredulity that a servomotor-driven mechanism would oscillate that rapidly. You now have a primary source document that shows it was not only possible but a known behaviour that occurred in some variation on every single flight. If it is capable of driving a rapid oscillation AT ALL it is capable of driving variations on that theme, such as the one seen on Apollo 12, which does not have to exactly match the type described in this report. Therefore, what is seen on Apollo 12 is not at all anomalous behaviour.

Do you now agree that it is POSSIBLE for the observed motion to be driven by the motors in the steerable antenna assembly?

[najak]

On the side, have you confirmed that the steerable was being used at all?

The journal indicates he switched to Omni Aft before this incident, so it WAS being used.   And in this video, we see it tracking the earth for the first 30 degrees, as it pulls away from the LM.  So not sure why they included both the "switch to aft Omni" (before) and then inserted static shortly after.   And the narrative of switching to Aft Omni at a time when the Aft was being rotated AWAY from the earth, giving the Fore Omni a much better view.

This is just surrounding context, that looks a bit jumbled/haphazard to me.  But it's not part of this claim.

My Claim only has to do with the "fling, bounce, then pendulum-like settling out" motion.   I wanted to hear the TD's best attempt at explaining it.