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

[Mag40]

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

Playing the arse again. Cabin depressurisation.
1. Venting strikes the pole, the pole support and/or the flag.
2. Unpredictable results based on random vacuum gas motion.
3. Maybe random static attraction with the gas venting against the nylon flag - not even looked into it.
4. The venting could be partially striking the surface around about where the flagpole is - static attraction with the oxygen / nylon.
Pure speculation.

Some "whistleblowing-hero" opening the door in all instances (coincidences in stupid conspiracy theories) and still providing no coherent explanation, doesn't quite work.
Pure bollocks.


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

[ApolloEnthusiast]

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?

All you've provided is a story you've made up with a guide wire and motors, all speculation. Why do you think the rebuttal needs to be held to a higher standard?

I concede that this evidence doesn't mean "we faked the landings". 

What evidence? You don't have any evidence. You have a story you made up out of nothing but your imagination to explain movement you don't understand. That's not evidence of anything.

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."   

Which doesn't seem to match your expectation, which has no value in an objective discussion.

Your point is "it COULD; it's POSSIBLE" -- so we leave it at that.  End of debate.. unless you have more to add.

If you want the debate to end it's your turn to add something. You've presented a fantasy story to explain the movement you don't understand. As long as someone presents a more realistic explanation that is plausible, that is enough to warrant you conceding that your claim has no merit. If you're finally comfortable adding that, please do, it would be a refreshing change.

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.

Don't bait people into the Gish Gallop for you. There is nobody here who doesn't see this tactic for exactly what it is, and it's embarrassing that you think this would pass.

Nobody is afraid of anything you have to say. We're just unsure if we want to bother investing any more time in someone who knows as little as you do, is unaware of his ignorance, and is unwilling to accept any evidence that doesn't confirm his preconceptions.

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

Case in point, the viable explanation has been provided for you over and over again. The LM cabin depressurization is the cause. Your unwillingness to accept this doesn't make it unviable, it simply confirms that you prefer creating an absurd fantasy to accepting any physical evidence that challenges your assumptions.

[najak]

All you've provided is a story you've made up with a guide wire and motors, all speculation. Why do you think the rebuttal needs to be held to a higher standard?

I don't.  I think your explanation is fine.  It's the best I've heard.  This topic is now complete.

Claim:  Dish flings, bounces, then settles out like a pendulum.  This doesn't seem like reasonable behavior to expect from a servo-motor controlled armature.

Apollogy:  There were other reports of 2-3 hz oscillations (that started low then increased up to 10 deg)... so there is SIMILAR behavior being reported, so this behavior seems "POSSIBLE".  So the Apollogy can offer an explanation that seems POSSIBLE.

Nothing else to be said here.  Time to move on, rather than beat a dead horse.

[najak]

Playing the arse again. Cabin depressurisation.

Please post your theory on the associated thread, and I'll apply some scrutiny -- see where it lands.

[ApolloEnthusiast]

All you've provided is a story you've made up with a guide wire and motors, all speculation. Why do you think the rebuttal needs to be held to a higher standard?

I don't.  I think your explanation is fine.  It's the best I've heard.  This topic is now complete.

Then why did you tell Jason his explanation was speculation and ask if he had any more?

Claim:  Dish flings, bounces, then settles out like a pendulum.  This doesn't seem like reasonable behavior to expect from a servo-motor controlled armature.

The claim is faulty from the beginning by relying on what "doesn't seem like reasonable behavior" without providing justification for that expectation. It is much more likely that your expectation is faulty, given that you've provided no compelling reason to believe that your expectation is consistent with reality.

[najak]

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

Right now I have a list of candidates, all shown in my gdoc repository here:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1gbNvzeRY3WfI5aphdi5UJvK0Niq367rg?usp=drive_link

Lots of this comes from the MLH echo chamber.  It's why I came here to see how things stand up against the scrutiny.

Of this list, my current top items I'd like to discuss have to do with:
1. Moon Dust - Sharp/spiked, maybe cancerous.  Not smooth like Graphite as reported by Apollo.
2. Lunar Surface - Ionized (never reported by Apollo), 15' deep unconsolidated regolith.   Dust right next to A11 on landing... ??
3. Sound Transmission in a vacuum (hammering incident, and a few others).
4. Possibly more on the LM - skipping the POC, and having it's "auto-pilot/balancing tech" disappear.  This one deserves it's own thread.

I have more ideas, but need a bit more investigation on my part before I'd submit them here (or decide NOT to submit).

[najak]

1. Then why did you tell Jason his explanation was speculation and ask if he had any more?
2. The claim is faulty from the beginning by relying on what "doesn't seem like reasonable behavior" without providing justification for that expectation. It is much more likely that your expectation is faulty, given that you've provided no compelling reason to believe that your expectation is consistent with reality.

1. Because he said this debate "wasn't done".  I think it is clearly done -- no more new stuff to be said.  Both sides have said all that they want to say.

2. I've explained my rationale for "unreasonable"...  and sure, it's partly subjective, but also fairly well-founded.

a. Why would a tracking algorithm switch suddenly from slow-careful tracking of earth, to flinging wildly off-target...
b. Bouncing around loosely/wildly a couple times.
c. Then hone in, with loose (non rigid) motions that approximate that of a pendulum to a direction that is OFF TARGET.

Is it POSSIBLE it was a bug, and the servo-motor produced this exact unreasonable behavior --  YES, I think that MIGHT BE POSSIBLE.

That's the best Apollogy we've seen here, and I'll capture this argument inside of a living doc.. which can be updated later if a better one is put forth.

Nothing more to be said.   Debate complete.   Debates are NOT supposed to end in Agreement.... they usually don't.  Both sides have been given all the time they wanted to explain their side.  End of debate.   Audience gets to make up their own minds.

[Mag40]

Of this list, my current top items I'd like to discuss have to do with:
1. Moon Dust - Sharp/spiked, maybe cancerous.  Not smooth like Graphite as reported by Apollo.
2. Lunar Surface - Ionized (never reported by Apollo), 15' deep unconsolidated regolith.   Dust right next to A11 on landing... ??
3. Sound Transmission in a vacuum (hammering incident, and a few others).
4. Possibly more on the LM - skipping the POC, and having it's "auto-pilot/balancing tech" disappear.  This one deserves it's own thread.

OMG, it be whack-a-mole time. Hands up anyone who hasn't seen all that bollocks before, about a dozen times at least!

[Mag40]

That's the best Apollogy...

I suggest you quit with the stupid labelling of informed rebuttal.

[najak]

Of this list, my current top items I'd like to discuss have to do with:
1. Moon Dust - Sharp/spiked, maybe cancerous.  Not smooth like Graphite as reported by Apollo.
2. Lunar Surface - Ionized (never reported by Apollo), 15' deep unconsolidated regolith.   Dust right next to A11 on landing... ??
3. Sound Transmission in a vacuum (hammering incident, and a few others).
4. Possibly more on the LM - skipping the POC, and having it's "auto-pilot/balancing tech" disappear.  This one deserves it's own thread.

OMG, it be whack-a-mole time. Hands up anyone who hasn't seen all that bollocks before, about a dozen times at least!

Great, so where are your rebuttals? 

I've seen some non-scrutinized rebuttals, but not in the context of a 2-way debate.   Similarly, I also have seen the 8-flag-motions hand-waved away by a non-viable explanation of "depressurization", and without scrutiny, the TD's just run with this and say "yeah!"... without ever addressing the fully unexplained 5 motions TOWARDS the LM.

Here is a place we can have some 2-way debate, which includes the scrutiny - from both sides.

[Jason Thompson]

1. Because he said this debate "wasn't done".  I think it is clearly done -- no more new stuff to be said.  Both sides have said all that they want to say.

It isn't 'done' because 'well I still think it looks weird' is not a reasonable conclusion to the type of debate you claim to want to have. Let me put this very simply:

-You suggest the movement of the steerable S-band antenna is evidence of gravity.
-You are presented with evidence that the mechanism is capable of generating such movements, and in fact is known and documented to have produced similar ones on every mission.
-Since it is clearly possible for the antenna to behave in that manner in space, the movement can no longer be considered evidence of gravity.
-Additionally, but not so significantly once the movement can be explained by existing mechanical and electronic systems, your proposed mechanisms have no evidence they even exist, and you are unable to provide any other than the movements you are trying to explain, which is backward reasoning.

Arguing whether it would (based on nothing but your personal incredulity) is superfluous. Your assertion is entirely unsupported once it is shown that the movement can be explained by things other than gravity. Your assertion it is 'unlike other servo motor driven actions is absurd, and I'd be willing to bet you have indeed seen servo motor activity that doesn't behave in the way you expect because you simply don't recognise it as such. I've seen servo motors used to simulate, very effectively, a breathing creature as an animatronic for a movie. It didn't look even remotely mechanical. That's one of the many many fun things about fine control of such motors.

a. Why would a tracking algorithm switch suddenly from slow-careful tracking of earth, to flinging wildly off-target...

Line of sight blockage by the vehicle during pitchover, or spurious input, or a glitch.

c. Then hone in, with loose (non rigid) motions that approximate that of a pendulum to a direction that is OFF TARGET.

Because it is no longer being used.

Is it POSSIBLE it was a bug, and the servo-motor produced this exact unreasonable behavior --  YES, I think that MIGHT BE POSSIBLE.

Then no further argument is needed. If it is possible for it to happen due to the existing mechanics of the system it is NOT evidence of gravity.

Debates are NOT supposed to end in Agreement.... they usually don't.

Not when the debate is between reality and fallacy. There are complex issues that can be debated that don't have obvious right or wrong answers. This is not one of them. Either Apollo happened or it didn't. Either this event is evidence of fakery or it isn't. There isn't an 'agree to disagree' outcome here.

[Mag40]

Great, so where are your rebuttals?

Oooer missus.  Nice try though. Here's a quickie - when filming in a a vacuum, what moron would use live microphones if they intended to fake and overdub the sound? Don't reply, it won't be logical.

Here is a place we can have some 2-way debate, which includes the scrutiny - from both sides.

Oh, is that what you call your replies?

[ApolloEnthusiast]

I've seen some non-scrutinized rebuttals, but not in the context of a 2-way debate.   Similarly, I also have seen the 8-flag-motions hand-waved away by a non-viable explanation of "depressurization", and without scrutiny, the TD's just run with this and say "yeah!"... without ever addressing the fully unexplained 5 motions TOWARDS the LM.

Here is a place we can have some 2-way debate, which includes the scrutiny - from both sides.

Why do you think a rebuttal needs more rigor than the initial claim? You've suggested the flag was moved by air currents in a studio that you fabricated from nothing, despite requiring a laughable coincidence of the drafts only happening at the same time the LM was depressurizing. When confronted with this absurdity, you created a person who intentionally did it to make a problem, but not so big a problem for it to be noticed by some of the smartest people in the world.

Despite your ridiculous assertion that it's non-viable, the explanation that the movements are explained by the LM depressurization is not only viable, it is much more viable than the fantasy you've concocted. Nothing needs to be imagined. We have an LM documented to be on the Moon, a flag documented to be on the Moon, and flag movements that coincide with a documented LM depressurization. This is open and shut, with the only question being, "how did the air from the LM move the flag in exactly that way?", which ultimately, is a point of trivia that doesn't affect at all the reason for the movement.

[najak]

Despite your ridiculous assertion that it's non-viable... with the only question being, "how did the air from the LM move the flag in exactly that way?"

This is a SIMPLE LUNAR CONTEXT.  Shouldn't be hard to determine the cause of these 5 motions TOWARDS the LM.  The fact that so far, no one has come up with a viable explanation is my only claim here.  This claim is accurate, not ridiculous.

[ApolloEnthusiast]

Despite your ridiculous assertion that it's non-viable... with the only question being, "how did the air from the LM move the flag in exactly that way?"

This is a SIMPLE LUNAR CONTEXT.  Shouldn't be hard to determine the cause of these 5 motions TOWARDS the LM.  The fact that so far, no one has come up with a viable explanation is my only claim here.  This claim is accurate, not ridiculous.

The cause is the LM depressurization. This is without question. Claiming that the actual cause is a nonviable explanation is ridiculous.

The only question you can reasonably maintain, as I mentioned above, is ,"How did the LM depressurization move the flag exactly the way we observe?" I don't know the answer to that question, and I don't care. If you do care, then by all means, do some research and see if you can find an answer. Maybe you could model it in a vacuum chamber with a visible gas and see if something happens that resembles what is observed. Seems like a lot of effort for an inconsequential question, but maybe that would help you find the answer you're looking for.

But make no mistake, the LM depressurization moved the flag.