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

[Jason Thompson]

So not sure why they included both the "switch to aft Omni" (before) and then inserted static shortly after.

Still can't let go of 'they inserted it' rather than the switch being normal procedure and the static just being static that happened for any number of reasons that don't actually have to be tied into the switch, can you?

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.

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

[najak]

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

I agree that it might be Possible.  The initial fling, and it centering itself on a point AWAY from earth, and it's decreasing amplitude - all indicate to me that this is NOT the bug mentioned elsewhere.  And the manner of motion (flaccid/loose) - doesn't resemble any servo-motor I've ever witnessed... normally this is rigid/steady.

So the combination of those factors, makes me think it couldn't have been the servo-motor. 

But could you purposefully program it to move in this fashion -- I think that's likely POSSIBLE, but would be a weird algorithm (1. Fling hard, 2. Bounce back hard a couple times, 3. now employ slow decelerations like a pendulum for the next 7 oscillations).   Not a likely software algorithm, even for a bug.

But this appears to be the best TD's have to offer for explanation.

[ApolloEnthusiast]

Today's CrewDragon/CST dockings take HOURS from about 400 meters away to docking... very very slowly....

Please cite a source for this claim of multiple hours of docking from 400 meters. I've looked at three different mission profiles and found only 1 that was more than an hour from Waypoint 0, and it was barely more than hour. I suspect that you're repeating unvetted information as fact again...

[najak]

Please cite a source for this claim of multiple hours of docking from 400 meters. I've looked at three different mission profiles and found only 1 that was more than an hour from Waypoint 0, and it was barely more than hour. I suspect that you're repeating unvetted information as fact again...

"unvetted" - Probably so.  But you'll see once I am offered correction, I accept it.  I don't keep repeating something that has been corrected.

What links are you looking at?  (and I'll reference these moving forward)

[LunarOrbit]

Please cite a source for this claim of multiple hours of docking from 400 meters. I've looked at three different mission profiles and found only 1 that was more than an hour from Waypoint 0, and it was barely more than hour. I suspect that you're repeating unvetted information as fact again...

"unvetted" - Probably so.

Don't you get tired of constantly embarrassing yourself? Maybe you should start to question more of your beliefs before sharing them with others.

But you'll see once I am offered correction, I accept it.  I don't keep repeating something that has been corrected.

 

[Jason Thompson]

I agree that it might be Possible.

Thank you.

The initial fling, and it centering itself on a point AWAY from earth, and it's decreasing amplitude - all indicate to me that this is NOT the bug mentioned elsewhere.

Straw man argument. I never suggested it WAS the oscillation described in the report. Only that there is documented evidence of oscillation behaviour of the Lunar Module steerable S-band antenna.

And the manner of motion (flaccid/loose) - doesn't resemble any servo-motor I've ever witnessed... normally this is rigid/steady.

Irrelevant. The servo motor is documented to be capable of oscillating the steerable antenna around the frequency observed on the Apollo 12 docking film. Something you thought not possible at all before. Now confronted with the evidence it is you naturally move the goalposts to the exact details of the movement not matching your expectations.

So the combination of those factors, makes me think it couldn't have been the servo-motor.

But it is still a million times more likely to be the existing hardware than your invented guidewires and film edits.

But could you purposefully program it to move in this fashion -- I think that's likely POSSIBLE, but would be a weird algorithm

Yes, you could. And even leaving aside your idea of it being weird, it is also possibly NOT purposeful but an unexpected pattern of behaviour in a specific circumstance. Computer controlled electronics do unexpected things all the time.

Not a likely software algorithm, even for a bug.

By definition a bug is an unplanned sequence of events, so ascribing likelihood to it based on a notion of wat a person would program it to do is ridiculous.

But this appears to be the best TD's have to offer for explanation.

And, as already explained, it does away with ANY need for additional elements such as guidewires, film sets, edits, etc. that your scenario absolutely requires. Occam's razor applies.

[najak]

Don't you get tired of constantly embarrassing yourself? Maybe you should start to question more of your beliefs before sharing them with others.

It breaks-the-ice.  I view this as what should be a friendly work-group.  As you are aware, there is a TON of misinformation out there, so it's often difficult to categorize in our heads the sources of various "tidbits of knowledge"... I don't always have them labeled as such.   And I don't think it's embarrassing when others make mistakes either.  Safe White boarding; safe work group.

The issue here is that I believe people here take offense at the notion of evidences that support MLH.  They prefer to live in with the worldview that "all MLH claims have been easily debunked".

We are One.  Stronger together.  I like being corrected, and taking correction - because it emphasizes the collaborative aspect of the group.

I realize I have confirmation bias.  Most don't realize the power of this force within themselves, and how it shapes how you consume new evidence/input and categorize it in your mind.  I KNOW that a lot of what I've got in my brain is misinformation....  but most others don't seem to realize this about themselves.

If it were to become evident that MLH is true -- I'd want the path from TD to MLH to be as smooth/friendly and shameless as possible.

[najak]

And, as already explained, it does away with ANY need for additional elements such as guidewires, film sets, edits, etc. that your scenario absolutely requires. Occam's razor applies.

GREAT!  It sounds like your counter-analysis is now concluded.  I'm glad you are satisfied with it.

[Jason Thompson]

And, as already explained, it does away with ANY need for additional elements such as guidewires, film sets, edits, etc. that your scenario absolutely requires. Occam's razor applies.

GREAT!  It sounds like your counter-analysis is now concluded.  I'm glad you are satisfied with it.

The question is not if I am satisfied, but if you will continue to cling on absurdly to the idea that this movement is evidence of fakery. The title of this thread is 'Dish Falls with Gravity', and your arguments have been that this movement can ONLY be explained by gravity. Do you still hold to that position?

[LunarOrbit]

The issue here is that I believe people here take offense at the notion of evidences that support MLH.

Wouldn't you be offended if someone accused you of lying about your greatest achievement? You're accusing all of the people who worked on Apollo of either lying or being an idiot who didn't realize they were part of a hoax. I'm offended on their behalf.

They prefer to live in with the worldview that "all MLH claims have been easily debunked

I wouldn't say it is always easy. If you are sensing a bit of hostility towards you it might be because people have put a lot of effort into their replies to you, only for you to casually dismiss or ignore them.

If it were to become evident that MLH is true -- I'd want the path from TD to MLH to be as smooth/friendly and shameless as possible.

You won't achieve that by coming here and behaving arrogantly as if you're the smartest person here, if not the entire planet. That was the first impression you intentionally chose to make when you arrived. You have lost your chance to expect friendliness in return.

[najak]

The question is not if I am satisfied, but if you will continue to cling on absurdly to the idea that this movement is evidence of fakery. The title of this thread is 'Dish Falls with Gravity', and your arguments have been that this movement can ONLY be explained by gravity. Do you still hold to that position?

I personally think it's best explained by Gravity, still.  But that's because I'm sitting on a heap of other evidence which "seems good to me".

The process of exploring this thread, "removed some weight from my original beliefs".   I started out thinking "this is a slam dunk; smoking gun".  Now -- not so much.

I also started out thinking "Lunar Launches Too Fast" is also a smoking gun, slam dunk -- now I think it's a big nothing-burger.

I used to think the Dust-Falls-Too-Fast was an undeniable smoking gun -- now I see the ambiguities involved.

8-Flag Motions -- for me -- remains as strong as ever.  So 1 for 4 remained unchanged for me.  2 have dropped out.

I'd like to move on with more and see how they hold up under scrutiny.

[ApolloEnthusiast]

Don't you get tired of constantly embarrassing yourself? Maybe you should start to question more of your beliefs before sharing them with others.

It breaks-the-ice. 

No, it compromises your credibility and establishes that you are someone who can't be trusted to present factual information.

I view this as what should be a friendly work-group. 

Please don't. If that was what you wanted then you fantastically missed the mark when you came in with an extraordinary amount of condescension and arrogance. A better way to view this is as a doctoral defense. If you don't know enough about the content to defend it against knowledgeable adversaries who will be trying to take it apart then you will fail. You are currently failing badly.

As you are aware, there is a TON of misinformation out there, so it's often difficult to categorize in our heads the sources of various "tidbits of knowledge"... I don't always have them labeled as such. 

Yes, this is the burden of intellectual integrity. Until you accept this responsibility, you have none.

And I don't think it's embarrassing when others make mistakes either.

Mistakes are different. Mistakes are typos, or mixing up the author of a source, or which source you meant to refer to. You are flat out presenting misinformation and insisting it is real until people do your homework for you and show you, with more rigor than you applied when you believed it, that you are factually incorrect. That is not a mistake, that is lazy, careless, dishonest, and rude. 

Safe White boarding; safe work group.

Again, no.

The issue here is that I believe people here take offense at the notion of evidences that support MLH.  They prefer to live in with the worldview that "all MLH claims have been easily debunked".

I take no offense at people having ideas that are off of the mainstream. I can have civil discourse with flat earth believers and moon hoaxers. I know they're wrong, and I will try to show them why, but no offense will be taken.

I take great offense to the arrogance and condescension you display while be wildly wrong. I take great offense at you stepping all over the protocols and procedures of civil discourse and your insistence on shifting the burden of proof. I take offense at your unwillingness to lift a finger for research beyond Google AI and still attempt to maintain a position of arbiter.

For at least the third time from me alone, your ideas are not offensive; your behavior is the problem.

[najak]

Wouldn't you be offended if someone accused you of lying about your greatest achievement? You're accusing all of the people who worked on Apollo of either lying or being an idiot who didn't realize they were part of a hoax. I'm offended on their behalf.

At least they enjoy super-majority support... that's pretty nice.   And if they know it's all true, they have self-confidence/security.   The opinion of some whack-o shouldn't make a difference to them.

BUT -- now imagine MLH is true, and you are Thomas Baron, and were murdered with your family...   Here the WHOLE SYSTEM is geared to discredit his sacrifice.  He is shamed and discredited, and NASA's site even lies about the 500-page report.  It went missing (all copies) and now NASA site says it never existed.

Also - if MLH is true -- then I'm offended for EVERYONE (including you) - who were fooled for so long.

Also - I'd be offended for how NASA has corrupted the sacred concept of "Scientific Consensus" which is supposed to the MOST WEIGHT... it's supposed to be sacred.

Also - I'm offended for all of the Vietnam vets and casualties - who were also a victim of govt' lies.   If MLH is true - I think they'd all want it uncovered.

===
So I think it's worth getting to the bottom of this.  And I can't imagine how the self-secure folks of NASA/Apollo would be offended by the scant few, when they enjoy super-majority support.   And if it's all true - -who cares what I think.

But if MLH is true -- that means a lot, no?  Would you even WANT to know?   I'm not so sure people WANT to live in a world where Apollo was faked...   Cognitive Dissonance galore.

[Jason Thompson]

I personally think it's best explained by Gravity, still.  But that's because I'm sitting on a heap of other evidence which "seems good to me".

No, you don't get to tease us with 'other evidence' again. And if you think an argument that requires a mountain of other things for which there is no supporting evidence you can offer (you were asked, for instance, how and where the film and TV were simultaneously edited to allow this hypothetical guidewire to be attached and you said you had no idea, and frankly I'm willing to bet that until someone mentioned it you didn't even know there was both TV and film coverage of the rendezvous and docking) to be explained away is better than 'the machinery was known to do that sort of thing under certain circumstances, not all anticipated or fully understood at the time', which requires nothing else to be added to the scenario, then your reasoning skills are seriously deficient.

[Jason Thompson]

But if MLH is true -- that means a lot, no?  Would you even WANT to know?

Yes, but since no-one has actually presented any evidence that stands up to a bit of scrutiny, I'm comfortable for now that Apollo happened as advertised.

I mean, do you really and genuinely think you're bringing new stuff here? I've been on this forum and its predecessor for over 20 years at this point. You are just boringly familiar in your arguments and the manner in which you present them.