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

[najak]

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.

If MLH is true - then my beliefs about this scenario make a LOT more sense than yours, at least with regard to it being GRAVITY causing the pendulum.

Therefore the other evidence makes a difference.  It's cumulative.

This is one piece of the big puzzle -- and if MLH is false - then it's just a "singular very-weird occurrence".

[najak]

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.

A14  8-flag movements.   Still standing strong.

This Flinging Dish Pendulum - is also still standing.  There's no "reasonable TD explanation" --only an unlikely "possible" one.  So this incident, for many, will work against Apollo, even after pages of scrutiny, and your counter explanation.   They can decide.  Are you comfy with that?

[Jason Thompson]

If MLH is true - then my beliefs about this scenario make a LOT more sense than yours, at least with regard to it being GRAVITY causing the pendulum.

Look up 'affirming the consequent' as a logical fallacy.

To convince us MLH is true you have to present the evidence that it is true. That means explaining how your hypothetical guide wire works and providing evidence that this was in fact done. You can't make up a load of stuff and then say it works best as evidence if the thing it is evidence of is true. That's not how reasoned debate works.

And in any case, your argument doesn't make any more sense if MLH is true, because even if that is all being filmed in a studio, the motors in the steerable antenna assembly are STILL capable of making it move like that in the manner described. And that still is a simpler argument than attaching a guidewire for some reason that then snaps.

[Mag40]

A14  8-flag movements.   Still standing strong.

Strong as what? You refuse every single time to rectify the absurd coincidence factor that for the depressurisations, these are the only times the flag moves. You think some pillock opened the door in those instances?

You have failed to rectify this absurdity about your claim.

[najak]

You have failed to rectify this absurdity about your claim.

I'm trying to guess "human trickery" here... so there are a LOT of options.   My newest guess is that one or more people on set weren't enthused about faking things, and are trying to be whistleblowers "accidently on purpose" -- subtle enough that it makes it into production... an easter egg for discovery -- as it's being discovered now.   If I were working this set, bound by Oath to keep national secrets under penalty of treason -- I might also be looking for ways to deliberately "accidently mess-up".  It's feasible, maybe even likely -- in the realm of MLH where they are faking it, with a measure of resentment/reluctance.

The "faking employees" may be stuck faking it, in that they signed these oaths before knowing what they signed up for -- this is how the military works.  Breaking these military oaths to reveal national secrets is treason, and you become an enemy of the nation.

They left us some clues -- "accidentally on purpose".  I like this theory a lot.

[ApolloEnthusiast]

I like this theory a lot.

Of course you do. It requires no effort on your part and sounds plausible to other people who lack critical thinking skills. I'm assuming your evidence for this hypothesis is as robust as everything else you've provided...

[Luke Pemberton]

They left us some clues -- "accidentally on purpose".  I like this theory a lot.

Employee 1: What shall we label this rock?
Employee 2: A
Employee 1: What shall we label this rock?
Employee 2: B
Employee 1: And this one? C?
Employee 2: Yeah, but make sure you have the C exposed so we can give clues that we are on a film set.
Employee 1: Er, we have another 20000 rocks. What happens when we get to Z?
Employee 2: Not sure. Eh, don't walk over that cement, you'll leave footprints.

Cue Mitchell and Webb.

[Jason Thompson]

I'm trying to guess "human trickery" here... so there are a LOT of options.

Usual hoax believer nonsense of putting motivation ahead of evidence. You need to first prove there IS trickery, which so far you have failed to do.

My newest guess is that one or more people on set weren't enthused about faking things, and are trying to be whistleblowers "accidently on purpose"

'Newest'? Good grief this idea has been around forever. Once again, your relentless predictability fails to amaze me.

Do you really, truly believe you are bringing anything actually new here?

as it's being discovered now.

Ah, the 'new to you, therefore new to everyone' fallacy....

We have been through literally everything you bring here before. Several times.

[onebigmonkey]

Ah yes, NASA, simultaneously capable of simulating a lunar mission perfectly but incapable of controlling some idiot with a broom walking on set at the wrong time.

[Jason Thompson]

Even najak's 'I'm just trying to separate out the poor hoax arguments from the good ones' has been done before here. Though at least the last person to try that line had the good grace to start with that position, rather than bring it in after a few rounds of 'I know I'm right and here are irrefutable proofs it was faked but oh dear actually you have a point some of them are maybe not so good but really that was what I was trying to ascertain all along'.

[najak]

Usual hoax believer nonsense of putting motivation ahead of evidence. You need to first prove there IS trickery, which so far you have failed to do.

I have a list of "trickery evidence", but this forum is afraid to hear it in a well-presented "one thread per topic" manner.

So far, "5 flag motions towards the LM" is the most bullet-proof single piece of evidence presented.  For this SIMPLE LUNAR CONTEXT, there is no viable explanation.

This "A12 Dish Flings to Pendulum" incident is also compelling to me, as from how I see it (and maybe many might see it), no "reasonable explanation" seems to exist for the loose flopping around of the dish like a pendulum.

I have more.  But you'd rather say "I have no evidence" than to provide a thread for me expressing it.

These 4 starting threads are dead -- nothing more to discuss.  You've made your explanation(s) and I've made mine.   Debates are wrapped up.  Time for the next ones.  But if I were you, I'd be scared to hear them too.

[Jason Thompson]

This "A12 Dish Flings to Pendulum" incident is also compelling to me, as from how I see it (and maybe many might see it), no "reasonable explanation" seems to exist for the loose flopping around of the dish like a pendulum.

I literally explained that to you very clearly. It is a motorised assembly KNOWN to oscillate when tracking is lost, being seen oscillating when tracking is lost.

But you'd rather say "I have no evidence" than to provide a thread for me expressing it.

No, I said you have no evidence for any of the things you suggested might explain this behaviour, such as a guidewire and an edit in the film and TV footage, or indeed any other way they might have done it. And this is perfectly true. This is the very thread for you to provide that evidence because it directly relates to this claim. But you don't have it. You have unsupported speculation that it was done in a certain way.

You've made your explanation(s) and I've made mine.

No, you have not 'explained' anything. You have speculated. IF your theory is true then there are things you MUST explain to support it.

Debates are wrapped up.

No, you are just running away from having to concede another argument.

But if I were you, I'd be scared to hear them too.

Yawn. I have absolutely zero fear of anything you may bring to this discussion. And the reasons for your being restricted have been explained to you very very clearly.

[Mag40]

I have a list of "trickery evidence", but this forum is afraid to hear it in a well-presented "one thread per topic" manner.

Boohoo. Publish a list by topic on an external document - I bet absolutely nothing new - are you afraid to do that?

So far, "5 flag motions towards the LM" is the most bullet-proof single piece of evidence presented.  For this SIMPLE LUNAR CONTEXT, there is no viable explanation.

I strongly suggest you stop repeating this bullshit and ignoring a far simpler explanation than leaving the door open, coincidence-like with the whistleblowing shite.

This "A12 Dish Flings to Pendulum" incident is also compelling to me, as from how I see it (and maybe many might see it), no "reasonable explanation" seems to exist for the loose flopping around of the dish like a pendulum.

Listen to this guy! He makes up crap about how it works and ignores completely how it comes to a complete standstill even as the LM rolls and yaws for some time after! Clearly no gravity.

[najak]

No, you are just running away from having to concede another argument.

What else would you like to say here then?  You've given your best explanation (speculation only).  Got more?

I concede that this evidence doesn't mean "we faked the landings".  It only means that we've got "dish behavior that flings wildly, then mimics a pendulum, which doesn't seem to match the expectation of how a servo-motor would control it."   Your point is "it COULD; it's POSSIBLE" -- so we leave it at that.  End of debate.. unless you have more to add.

We have more such material to cover.  If you aren't afraid to discuss, I'll feed you a topic and YOU START THE THREAD... so we can discuss it.  I'm not allowed to do such a horrid thing.

[najak]

So far, "5 flag motions towards the LM" is the most bullet-proof single piece of evidence presented.  For this SIMPLE LUNAR CONTEXT, there is no viable explanation.

I strongly suggest you stop repeating this bullshit and ignoring a far simpler explanation than leaving the door open, coincidence-like with the whistleblowing shite.

"Far simpler explanation" -- perhaps you can be the first provide this viable explanation.