Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quarantine

I suspect, it was during the period of "quarantine" that this type of thing was worked out. How to present the map, meaning how to make it look given what key people knew about it.

If duped flight officers were working with a slightly altered map during the mission, then perps would have to decide what the public face of the map should look like. If they produced a truly accurate lunar map for public consumption, a map that wasn't even used, duped participants would notice it as a map they did not have contact with. They would then realize the map they actually worked with during the mission was fraudulent.

So the perps are stuck, stuck with some vulnerability. They work on it and work on it during quarantine and they come up with what we know as the LAM 2 map.

42 years later, somebody simply shows if one reads the map as labeled, the story as told, Tranquility Base at J .65 / 7.52 , simply cannot be true.

Apollo's fraudulence proven beyond any doubt whatsoever, right there.
 
Last edited:
I've got it! Couldn't be easier!

Take a look at the LAM 2 map.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/LAM2_CMP-flown.jpg

With the coordinates as labeled, one should be able to find Tranquility Base without too much difficulty. 00 41'15" north, 23 26' 00" east.

Now, if one goes through that exercise and finds 00 41'15" north and 23 26' 00" east is fairly close, by that I mean within say tens of feet to J .65 / 7.52, well then I am wrong in my map claims. If on the other hand, independent researchers go through this simple exercise as well, and find given the map as labeled that Tranquility Base, coordinates 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east are located at roughly K .2 and LAM 2 map longitude 5.549, well then I am correct, not only with regard to my claim about Michael Collins map, but with regard to my claim about Collins himself. He is a phony astronaut and Apollo 11 was a phony mission.
 
Last edited:
Patrick1000 said:
Take a look at the LAM 2 map.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/LAM2_CMP-flown.jpg

With the coordinates as labeled, one should be able to find Tranquility Base without too much difficulty. 00 41'15" north, 23 26' 00" east.

Now, if one goes through that exercise and finds 00 41'15" north and 23 26' 00" east is fairly close, by that I mean within say tens of feet to J .65 / 7.52, well then I am wrong in my map claims. If on the other hand, independent researchers go through this simple exercise as well, and find given the map as labeled that Tranquility Base, coordinates 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east are located at roughly K .2 and LAM 2 map longitude 5.549, well then I am correct, not only with regard to my claim about Michael Collins map, but with regard to my claim about Collins himself. He is a phony astronaut and Apollo 11 was a phony mission.
Click to expand...

Heh, you still don't see where you went wrong.
 
"Patrick": I did what matt.tansy did. No math required. Took a simple aviation plotter, scaled the image on my iPad to a convenient size, and plotted it out, just like an aviation sectional. Latitude 0.647/longitude 23.505 (0° 38' 49.2"/23° 30' 17.9994", using the FCC's converter) is right where it's supposed to be.

Even more interesting is that the rendezvous radar-derived position, using the CSM's position as the datum, resulted in a difference of 1,200 feet (1202, according to my numbers, but I think that's starting to play fast and loose with significant digits). Now, that slight error doesn't matter, because the launch window is a timing issue, not a positional one, but it's remarkable how close the radar-derived coordinates came to reality. A reality that was confirmed during post-mission analysis, and not precisely known at the time.

Jay, I'll leave it to a pro like you to really go after this - I'm a rank amateur, so I may be missing something. But if I can find the fallacies in "Patrick's" arguments, anyone can.

"Patrick": there is one thing that I'm good at and that's reading people. I will ask you again: why do you so desperately want to prove we didn't do it in light of all the evidence that we did?
 
Patrick1000 said:
...
Click to expand...

I listened to the voice transcript.

Explain how one listens to a transcript. A transcript is written.

I heard them say Julian abaddon.

Then you heard wrong. Interpreting the evidence, in whatever form, is the major part of the historian's job. And the historian's skill in doing so becomes part of where the strength of his case lies. Therefore when you get a different answer than every other historian, your errors in judgment are not inconsequential. And we have seen that you make many, many errors in judgment. That's a better explanation for the discrepancy between the facts and your expectations, than that the facts were tampered with.

That was enough for me. I withdraw my claim. Is that understood?

Withdrawal or not, you cannot walk away from errors.

Keep in mind that you have insinuated that those who disagree with you are merely sheep, and that you alone (or at least as part of a small group) have the expertise and "open-mindedness" to discover NASA's massive fraud, which you've suggested lie in the gritty details of map-reading and navigational reckoning.

Therefore your skill in reckoning and reading maps not only becomes relevant, it becomes the only thing that's relevant -- because others reading the same maps and reckoning the same waypoints come up with a vastly different answer than you do.

Sorry, but you're trying to style yourself as an expert and on the basis of that expertise draw a controversial and highly disputable conclusion. So when your expertise is shown to be false, you can't expect the conclusion to still matter.

AND , I did study that entire NASA coordeinate manual, and NASA does/did use a Julian dating system as/when appropriate.

Irrelevant to the points at hand. And a properly informed person would have known that.

AND for the most part I understood all of that well.

Clearly not, because you're trying to attribute to nefarious NASA forces what amount to your fumbling first attempts to read a map.
 
Patrick1000 said:
If on the other hand, independent researchers go through this simple exercise as well...
Click to expand...

Independent researchers and experts have been reading these maps for decades and come up with a different answer than you.

Do you have an explanation why the guy who commits elementary map-reading errors must be right, while the host of professional geologists and astronomers are all somehow wrong? Wouldn't the most parsimonious explanation be that the solitary amateur made a mistake?
 
SUSpilot, Matt, Steve Jobs and Their Worthless ipads

SUSpilot said:
"Patrick": I did what matt.tansy did. No math required. Took a simple aviation plotter, scaled the image on my iPad to a convenient size, and plotted it out, just like an aviation sectional. Latitude 0.647/longitude 23.505 (0° 38' 49.2"/23° 30' 17.9994", using the FCC's converter) is right where it's supposed to be.

Even more interesting is that the rendezvous radar-derived position, using the CSM's position as the datum, resulted in a difference of 1,200 feet (1202, according to my numbers, but I think that's starting to play fast and loose with significant digits). Now, that slight error doesn't matter, because the launch window is a timing issue, not a positional one, but it's remarkable how close the radar-derived coordinates came to reality. A reality that was confirmed during post-mission analysis, and not precisely known at the time.

Jay, I'll leave it to a pro like you to really go after this - I'm a rank amateur, so I may be missing something. But if I can find the fallacies in "Patrick's" arguments, anyone can.

"Patrick": there is one thing that I'm good at and that's reading people. I will ask you again: why do you so desperately want to prove we didn't do it in light of all the evidence that we did?
Click to expand...

SUSpilot,

Your ipads, yours, Matt's and Steve Jobs', they're worthless. Get a ruler, a sharp pencil, a protractor, and some eye glasses for God sake. Take that ipad back to the Apple Store and tell Stevie you'd like your money back because it didn't save the dumb astronauts.

You can do this in your head dude. NASA says Tranquility Base is at longitude 23 26' 00" east correct? NASA says that on their LAM 2 Map Tranquility Base is located at longitude line 7.52 correct? The map as marked at the top indicates 23 30' 00" is at LAM 2 map longitude line 7.6 or 7.7 , correct? To make this as favorable for your interpretation as possible, I'll use 7.7, even though 7.6 looks to be a better estimate.

So according to NASA's own map, which they labeled and scaled themselves, Tranquility Base is at east coordinate 23 26' 00" and this is longitude line 7.52 on the LAM 2 map. According to NASA's map as marked, 0.18 map units to the east of 7.52 we have 7.7 which they have clearly marked as longitude line 23 30' 00" correct? But to go from 23 26' 00" to 23 30' 00" is a distance of 4 minutes of arc. According to this map, each longitude line, numbered 1 through 27 across the bottom of the page covers roughly 1.95 minutes of arc. So if 7.52 really were 23 26' 00" east, then given this map's scale, 23 30' 00" would be located 4 minutes of arc divided by 1.95 minutes of arc per LAM 2 longitude line or 2.05 longitude lines to the east of 7.52. That is at LAM 2 Map longitude line 9.57.

But NASA has already labeled LAM 2 map longitude line 7.7 as 23 30' 00" east. According to the LAM 2 map as labeled, longitude line 9.57 then MUST BE 23 33' 39" and very much not 23 30' 00". It cannot have two numbers associated with it. The map would be worthless in that case. It is worthless anyway in a sense, but that is an altogether different story.

So if NASA or anyone else wants to claim that Tranquility Base is located on the LAM 2 Map at longitude line 7.52 which must also be 23 26' 00", the radian measure east coordinate of Tranquility Base, then the map as labeled
shows longitude line 9.57 as BOTH 23 30' 00" AND 23 33' 39". AND EVERY OTHER POINT ANYWHERE AND EVERYWHERE ON THE ENTIRE MAP WILL LIKEWISE HAVE NOT ONE UNIQUE, BUT RATHER INSTEAD, TWO LONGITUDE VALUES.

Of course this is nonsense. The map as originally labeled shows LAM 2 longitude line 7.6 or 7.7 to be 23 30' 00". Look at the top of the map for yourself SUSpilot. SEE IT THERE IN FRONT OF YOUR EYEBALLS! Skewing the numbers as much to favor a best result for you, I'll use 7.7 . 7.52 is 0.18 map units to the west 0f 7.7 . Each of the 27 map longitude lines, 1 through 27 as numbered and scaled by NASA, are separated one from the other by roughly 1.95 minutes of arc. 1.95 X 0.18 gives 0.351 minutes of arc or 21 seconds.

So if NASA wants to label their map with 23 30' 00" at LAM 2 longitude line 7.7 and scale it with each small box roughly 1.95 minutes of arc on a side AS THEY CLEARLY HAVE, then LAM 2 longitude line 7.52 MUST BE 23 29' 49" and NOT NOT NOT 23 26' 00". NASA cannot have it both ways, a phony map and real astronauts. We see if they correct the map to make it real, so each longitude line is associated with a UNIQUE number and each latitude line the same, then in that case, the astronauts POOOF! become phony themselves.

Diagnosis; Worthless ipads

Treatment; SUSpilot, meet Matt out in front of the Apple store. Give your ipads to homeless guys panhandling out in front. They can sell them to the next wave of way way way off base pro Apollo researchers for lunch money and use the meal money balance to party tonight.
 
Last edited:
I didn't make a mistake, the jig is really up this time isn't it?

JayUtah said:
Independent researchers and experts have been reading these maps for decades and come up with a different answer than you.

Do you have an explanation why the guy who commits elementary map-reading errors must be right, while the host of professional geologists and astronomers are all somehow wrong? Wouldn't the most parsimonious explanation be that the solitary amateur made a mistake?
Click to expand...

Edited by LashL: 
Edited for civility.


I didn't make a mistake. Show my work to any professional cartographer and they'll tell you THIS MAP CANNOT POSSIBLY BE ACCURATE IF NASA WANTS TO MAKE THE CLAIM THAT TRANQUILITY BASE 23 26' 00" IS AT LONGITUDE LINE 7.52 AND STILL HOLD THEIR LABELING AND SCALING ACCURATE, THAT IS 23 30' 00" IS AT LAM 2 MAP LONGITUDE LINE 7.7 AND EACH SMALL SQUARE IS ROUGHLY 1.95 MINUTES OF ARC ON A SIDE.

This is such a huge blunder for the perpetrators. It is so obvious, AND SUCH HARD EVIDENCE OF FRAUD. There is no wiggle room here. They are busted!

The need here to do this must be quite deep. Like telling the lie about not seeing stars from the surface of the moon or from cislunar space. Utterly preposterous, an incredibly risky lie. The difference with this map though is that it is objective. We can't really take Neil Armstrong's phony claims from him. He can lie his Apollo 11 Astronaut Endorsed Depends covered heiny off and not much we can do but point out it is all bull feathers. Here, we can do the numbers, hold 'em up to Neil's face and say,

"OH MY MY MY, LOOK AT WHAT WE FOUND HERE A PHONY PHONY MAP!"

Edited by LashL: 
Edited for civility.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My rough calculation 1.3 miles

drewid said:
Pat, how far out are the two sets of figures? roughly?
Click to expand...

My rough calculation 1.3 miles. Too far if you are claiming you can actually determine the ship's landing site accurately. 1.3 miles may as well be a light year, because the claim is the maps are good enough to find the boys based on matching descriptions with detailed topography.
 
Patrick1000 said:
My rough calculation 1.3 miles. Too far if you are claiming you can actually determine the ship's landing site accurately. 1.3 miles may as well be a light year,
Click to expand...

On;y in the parallel universe you inhabit. It's been explained repeatedly why this has no relevance to rendezvous, so what do you hope to gain by repeating the same mistakes?
 
Patrick1000 said:
MORE, FAKE MAP STUFF THAT GOES BEYOND THE ORDINARILY PHONY.


Again, the incredibly fake map;

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/LAM2_CMP-flown.jpg

Consider this, there are 15.2 latitude units running from 00 30' 00" north at D .5, up to 01 00' 00" north at U .7. So by that accounting, 1.97 minutes of arc per small square edge.

Now, assume the map to have coordinates as labeled. Not too much to ask of a map, wouldn't you say? Let's find "Tranquility Base", latitude and longitude wise. Tranquility Base is at 00 41' 15" north. That is 11.25 minutes of arc north of 00 30' 00" at D .5. 11.25/1.97 gives 5.7 latitude lines north of D .5, and this places me on K .2 . I've already done the calculation for the "Tranquility Base" longitude, assuming the map to be "true", that is, assuming we will read the map as labeled. 23 26' 00" in such a case (and what other case should we assume here?, it's only a map) is at 5.549.

So on their LAM 2 Map, my "J MAP", NASA's very own map, the one they labeled themselves, Tranquility Base at 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east would be found not at J .65 / 7.52, but rather at K .2 / 5.549 . So it turns out if one treats both latitude and longitude true to their labeling, "Tranquility Base", assuming it is at 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east would be found at the south west tip of the surfboard shaped LAM 2/ "J Map" landing ellipse.

By this true map rendering, J .65 / 7.52 is actually at coordinates, 00 40' 15" north and 23 29 51 east. This is 1.3 miles from "Tranquility Base" at K .2 / 5.549.

I'll keep going. There is a longish line on the "J Map" beginning at H / 2 and running to a small circle, point of interest, at L .8 / 6.6. In radians on this map that translates to, 00 44' 43" north and 23 28' 03" east. There is also a dot/circle, point of interest, at M .8 / 7.9. In "Jay Map" equivalent radian notation it would be about, 00 46' 40" and 23 30' 35".

What about the targeted landing site of 00 43' 53" north and 23 38' 51" east? This would correspond to roughly L .5 / 12.14. That is pretty much in the middle of the ellipse, just to the north of its center line.

So one can begin to make some sense of this. The point/circle on the map at L .8 / 6.6 is 3.4 miles down range from the targeted site. That's the first place Collins supposedly looked for the Eagle, there at roughly L .8 / 6.6 .


This is beyond fascinating. One of our very best finds gang! If we read the map as labeled, "Tranquility Base" at 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east falls on a point roughly at K .2 / 5.549 . The point on the map that NASA tells us corresponds to Tranquility Base at J .65 / 7.52, is a point corresponding to radian coordinates 00 40' 15" and 23 29' 51". The points on the "J Map" at L .8 /6.6 and M .8 / 7.9 correspond to the 1st and 3rd places Collins allegedly looked for the Eagle during his lunar orbital wild goose chase.

We now have absolute, iron clad, no squirming out of it now PROOF!, of map manipulating FRAUD!. 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east most decidedly does not fall on the corresponding "J Map" point J .65 / 7.52 . It falls at K .2 / 5.549 . We have caught the dreaded "INNUMERATI" dead to rights with their Apollo 11 Astronaut Certified Depends down. No getting out of this one boys. The thing is proven FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE!!!

Now, why do it this way? Well, I suspect we shall find, though I am not certain of it yet, that "Little West Crater" and all of those other bogus landmarks are located at roughly J .65 / 7.52 or equivalently 00 40' 15" north and 23 29 51" east. LOCATED AT THESE POSITIONS AS LABELED ON THIS MAP. It may well indeed be the case, and I assume it is for now, that "Little West Crater" is at roughly 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east on the real moon, in real moon coordinates, as seen when studying an accurate map. The GRID overlaying the LAM 2 Map with which the "INNUMERATI" worked may well have been shifted to the northwest so that the 00 41' 15" north 23 26' 00" east point was made on this shifted grid to overlay K .2 / 5.549 instead of J .65 / 7.52 as it rightly should.

With this method, one has a map with coordinates all askew , allowing one to play fast and loose with numbers. Little West Crater may really be right there at roughly 00 41' 15" and 23 26' 00" east, but on the night of the landing, that position, that point, those coordinates, remain ambiguous because the overlying grid has been shifted. It is not until just before lift off that Tranquility Base is announced to be at more or less J .5 / 7.7, at which point it's all over. Remove the phony "shifted grid" and voila! See, it was there all along!

We've caught 'em boys and girls, caught em' red handed with a phony map! Hooray! score one for truth justice and accuracy in cartography. No wiggle room for Neil here my friends.
Click to expand...

You STILL haven't figured out there's no single coordinate system for the Moon? You are still ignoring the geoid revisions that have been done over the years based on more accurate radar height maps? You still don't understand that at the time of Apollo, we didn't have the Clementine, LRO, or for that matter Apollo itself's contribution to better lunar maps? You think a complete and detailed map of the Moon sprung out of a telescope fully formed one nice morning in the early 20th century, and everyone has been using it since?
 
Patrick1000 said:
Apollo's fraudulence proven beyond any doubt whatsoever, right there.
Click to expand...

You seem to have this "problem" with understanding that you can't make "declarative" statements as if they were factual without supportive evidence.

...oh, and you misspelt flatulence.
 
Patrick1000 said:
I have the same LM manual the Astronauts used for introductory study, published July 1964. It does not say anything about what the cross range tolerance is for a launch, how far away the LM can be from a simulated overflying by a simulated command module.

It does say however that lunar orbital rendezvous range is 5 nautical miles from the CSM. Once in orbit, the LM is in rendezvous range when 5 nautical miles away. That is the extent of my knowledge based on my LM manual.
Click to expand...

Define "Ellipse" for me Patrick. Show you understand the difference between track and cross-track.
 
Patrick1000 said:
I listened to the voice transcript. I heard them say Julian abaddon. That was enough for me. I withdraw my claim. Is that understood?

AND , I did study that entire NASA coordeinate manual, and NASA does/did use a Julian dating system as/when appropriate. AND for the most part I understood all of that well.
Click to expand...

You listened to the transcript? What did you do, select one of the transcripts at Apollo Lunar Surface Journal and turn on the "Speak this text" option on your computer? No wonder you confused "Julian" with "Juliette!"
 
Hello!!!!!

Garrison said:
On;y in the parallel universe you inhabit. It's been explained repeatedly why this has no relevance to rendezvous, so what do you hope to gain by repeating the same mistakes?
Click to expand...

Hello!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,

Garrison, who cares about rendezvous? The point is they are supposed to be determining where on the moon the astronauts are. We haven't even broached the subject yet with respect to the impact this would or would not have on the simulated rendezvous.

Look at the map. 1.3 miles is roughly the distance of two small squares. See how different the topography can bee going from one point to another over this distance?

So if this were real, the landing, they would be looking in the wrong place at the wrong topography EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY LOOKED, because here it is flat, 1.3 miles away are craters. Indeed, in the Apollo 11 Mission Simulation, Armstrong flew over a boulder field to land in a flat area.

On the moon, especially for the first time, even if it is a pretended first time, 1.3 miles is a long long long long way.

Edited by LashL: 
Edited for civility.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Patrick1000 said:
Treatment; SUSpilot, meet Matt out in front of the Apple store. Give your ipads to homeless guys panhandling out in front. They can sell them to the next wave of way way way off base pro Apollo researchers for lunch money and use the meal money balance to party tonight.
Click to expand...


Translation: Dr. Socks doesn't know how to measure a position on a map.
 
Patrick1000 said:
Hello!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,

Garrison, who cares about rendezvous? The point is they are supposed to be determining where on the moon the astronauts are. We haven't even broached the subject yet with respect to the impact this would or would not have on the simulated rendezvous.

Look at the map. 1.3 miles is roughly the distance of two small squares. See how different the topography can bee going from one point to another over this distance?

So if this were real, the landing, they would be looking in the wrong place at the wrong topography EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY LOOKED, because here it is flat, 1.3 miles away are craters. Indeed, in the Apollo 11 Mission Simulation, Armstrong flew over a boulder field to land in a flat area.

On the moon, especially for the first time, even if it is a pretended first time, 1.3 miles is a long long long long way.
Click to expand...

Two words for this drivel:

SO WHAT?

What problem is this allegedly inaccurate position supposed to have caused since it has been clearly established it is irrelevant to the rendezvous?
 
Please are RAF, make a fool of me, show the world in what way I am wrong here

R.A.F. said:
I am constantly amazed at how some people will make complete fools of themselves without any embarrassment whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Please are RAF, I beg of you, make a fool of me, show the world in what way I am wrong here.

I have yet to see anything from anybody remotely substantive countering my claim. You guys are in trouble and I am lovin' it.

Edited by LashL: 
Edited for civility.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Patrick1000 said:
Edited by LashL: 
Edited for civility.
Click to expand...

Actually I think R.A.F. has been spot with regards to you, and think Patrick since we have established your track record of deception and sockpuppetry you are in no position to criticize anyone else posting here, you should actually just be grateful they deign to respond to your nonsense.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Patrick1000 said:
...
Click to expand...

I didn't make a mistake.

No, you made several.

Your entire modus operandi for the past few months in which you've been debating this topic has been to pretend to be an expert, get caught, and run away to come back later under a new assumed identity hoping your trail of incompetence doesn't catch up to you.

Show my work to any professional cartographer and they'll tell you...

...that first you'll need to reconcile coordinate systems among the several in use.

It is so obvious...

Yet no one has managed to catch it in decades, except for the guy who has been shown to make basic map-reading errors.

The need here to do this must be quite deep.

Oh, but listen to you crow. Let's examine where the real needs probably lie.

First you show up to BAUT pretending to be a doctor. You say it was unacceptable for Frank Borman's gastrointestinal difficulties to be allowed to persist, and that if it were a real mission it would have been immediately aborted. Of course that argument was based solely on your say-so as an alleged medical professional. When others tore holes in that claim, you deployed a sock puppet -- supposedly another doctor -- to endorse the arbitrary opinion on which the whole claim rested. Your sock puppet was discovered and you were banned.

Then almost immediately after you arrive at ApolloHoax pretending to be some expert in celestial navigation. But naturally you made dozens of technical and conceptual errors, and I and others provided a very detailed, very in-depth description of how ascent guidance worked and how your claims simply made no sense. Then you destructed there in hail of sock-puppets and the now-familiar walls of text.

So back to BAUT where you claimed to be an expert in radar programming, but couldn't answer any basic questions about radar. You immediately tore into Wernher von Braun for being a horrible man who helped the Nazis commit genocide, and then into NASA for hiring such a horrible man. Then lo and behold you got caught again as a sock puppet and banned.

Now here, making the same claims under a brand new identity, but with fewer safeguards against uncivil debate.

Who in this discussion is really the one so desperate to prove his belief that he'll stoop to all manner of evasion and dishonesty to prevent a challenge?

Diagnosis; Limited intellectual range and contaminated calculative faculties.

That would almost work if my first post here hadn't been a fairly expert analysis of the computer difficulties encountered on Apollo 11, and if many of the kind readers and posters here don't know me from other forums such as BAUT and ApolloHoax.

Let's revisit part of that ApolloHoax debate again. You claimed a number of things, and when you were pressed to answer my question you evaded until you were threatened with banning, whereupon you admitted that you had no credible evidence the Moon landings were fake, and you conceded that it happened substantially as NASA claimed.

But of course that was just a tactical withdrawal to keep you from having to answer questions you knew you couldn't answer. So please by all means explain to the nice readers here how you can accuse me of intellectual incapacity when your own admission of incapacity is right there in black and white.

Punishment; Quarantine. Go to the library and study for the next several years. Don't come out until you can read a map.

Part of my work has been in orbital geographical imaging systems. I help draw maps, buddy. And I've spent many, many years in libraries and have obtained a fairly extensive college education, probably spanning more years than you've been alive.

You're making elementary mistakes and hoping that people won't catch you in them. Bluster will not save you.
 
Patrick1000 said:
Please are RAF, I beg of you, make a fool of me
Click to expand...

You've done a bang up job of that all by yourself.

show the world in what way I am wrong here.
Click to expand...

See pages 1 through wherever we are now.

I have yet to see anything from anybody remotely substantive countering my claim.
Click to expand...

How do your type these replies with your eyes closed?

You guys are in trouble and I am lovin' it.
Click to expand...

Wow yes you've attacked the mass of evidence for Apollo, and not even put a scratch in it. It's like watching someone attacking the Great Wall of China with a plastic spoon; bizarre, occasionally amusing but no real threat.
 
Patrick1000 said:
23 26' 00", the radian measure east coordinate of Tranquility Base
Click to expand...



Wait a minute! Didn't you claim you had a math degree? But you're using "radians", a unit of angular measurement, for the name for the degress-minutes-second format! And you're still using it after it after I corrected you!


:dl:
 
The only way Patrick escapes being corrected by EVERYONE is that the all-but-impenetrable way he writes makes it too much effort to try to determine what he is saying.

That, and it seems to change from moment to moment anyhow, making it even more an exercise in futility to try to follow his arguments.
 
Well for one thing, Tranquility Base then is not at 23 26' 00"

Garrison said:
Two words for this drivel:

SO WHAT?

What problem is this allegedly inaccurate position supposed to have caused since it has been clearly established it is irrelevant to the rendezvous?
Click to expand...

Well for one thing, Tranquility Base then is not at longitude 23 26' 00".

So what? So what? I shall tell you what. If the LAM 2 map is scaled and labeled correctly, and what else may I ask should we assume, then Tranquility Base being at latitude J .65 and longitude 7.52 is at 00 40' 09" north and 23 29' 49" east.

And here we were Garrison, thinking all along Tranquility Base was really at 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east. Ain't we dumb and uninformed? NASA even wrote those silly numbers in their Apollo 11 (Simulated) Mission Report. But there you have it. The numbers don't lie. NASA labeled and scaled the map. Must be correct?

SO WHAT THEN ?

HERE IS WHAT THEN, TRANQUILITY BASE J .65 / 7.52 is not at 00 41' 15 " north and 23 26' 00", but rather 00 40' 09" north and 23 29' 49" east. AND as such, every single history book containing these numbers must now be rewritten, not to mention NASA's own web sites, every "page" where these numbers occur or are referenced, must be rewritten. AND this'll fry you, my name, Patrick1000, will have to appear as the source of this SO WHAT WHO CARES ABOUT THE NUMBERS ANYWAY CORRECTION.

Edited by LashL: 
Edited for civility.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Patrick1000 said:
...
Click to expand...

Garrison, who cares about rendezvous?

You did, until you got caught.

The point is they are supposed to be determining where on the moon the astronauts are.

Why?

We haven't even broached the subject yet with respect to the impact this would or would not have on the simulated rendezvous.

Yes we have, and you lost.

Oh, it started innocently enough. You said it was vitally important to locate the LM precisely on the lunar surface so that the rendezvous could occur. Seems a fair ploy: I mean, what are the chances you'd run into anyone on a web forum who actually knows how guidance systems work.

Imagine your surprise at finding four on one forum.

So your carefully constructed bluster fell apart immediately. You had to backpedal and say that the missions probably happened as claimed, but that there was still some abstract historical concern over the way the landing coordinates had been computed.

So you're here now with the same ipse dixit historical claims, only now you think you have a new set of technical arguments to back up your claim. You said it yourself: maps are objective, and don't require us to buy into your subjective expectations for historical consistency.

Only you've gotten in way over your head again on the technical points, because map reading is not as straightforward as they taught you in Boy Scouts. Since you can't really speak in accurate cartographic terms, you have to invent a new science of map-reading where you fumble through your hand-crafted conversions and estimations, pretending that this somehow preserves the objectivity of the original source.

You start with an original source, but then on top of that you pile a huge mess of Cartography a la Patrick, hoping that we'll be so impressed with your cleverness that it won't be readily seen as what it is: pasted-on ignorant interpretation. And your back to the same basis for your argument: "It's fake because I say so."

Again I say, there's a reason all suitably educated people believe Apollo was real. It's not because they're sheep; it's because they know what they're talking about.
 
Patrick1000 said:
I hope with that as a weekend activity the relevance of map accuracy will finally sink in.
Click to expand...



Map accuracy? Like the trajectory position to ORB-II-6 coordinate corrections?

To spare yourself more embarrassment why don't you research the datum transformation between LAM-2 and ORB-II-6 maps.
 
Heck, Jay, I arrived at the same thing through carpenter logic. If the LM has a 10% fuel margin on descent AND on ascent, it can't get any further off in descent than it is capable of correcting in ascent (all else being equal, which they aren't exactly, but close enough for a set of escape stairs!)
 
Patrick1000 said:
I hope with this as a weekend activity the relevance of map accuracy will finally sink in Garrison. JEEEEEEEEEeeeZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz.
Click to expand...

I have my weekend plans, does include a little time pencilled in to watch you make a further fool of yourself, and you are doing a bang up job so far.
 
Just to amplify my above...Patrick is requiring an experienced test pilot, and a man with a degree in aeronautical engineering, to fly a spacecraft under his command and with his full understanding of what he is doing past the point of no return.

He is thinking someone who has spent a decade in the development of this craft, with hundreds of simulated hours in this craft, and who has gotten himself out of deadly situations multiple times in his aviation and space career, will mindlessly continue a course that will maroon him on the Moon without once considering the consequences.

I do not think that Patrick has any developed or complex skill set of his own. To only be able to imagine people interacting with their environment in this primitive a fashion betrays a lack of any personal experience of a more complex world.
 
Nice try Boy Scout

JayUtah said:
Garrison, who cares about rendezvous?

You did, until you got caught.

The point is they are supposed to be determining where on the moon the astronauts are.

Why?

We haven't even broached the subject yet with respect to the impact this would or would not have on the simulated rendezvous.

Yes we have, and you lost.

Oh, it started innocently enough. You said it was vitally important to locate the LM precisely on the lunar surface so that the rendezvous could occur. Seems a fair ploy: I mean, what are the chances you'd run into anyone on a web forum who actually knows how guidance systems work.

Imagine your surprise at finding four on one forum.

So your carefully constructed bluster fell apart immediately. You had to backpedal and say that the missions probably happened as claimed, but that there was still some abstract historical concern over the way the landing coordinates had been computed.

So you're here now with the same ipse dixit historical claims, only now you think you have a new set of technical arguments to back up your claim. You said it yourself: maps are objective, and don't require us to buy into your subjective expectations for historical consistency.

Only you've gotten in way over your head again on the technical points, because map reading is not as straightforward as they taught you in Boy Scouts. Since you can't really speak in accurate cartographic terms, you have to invent a new science of map-reading where you fumble through your hand-crafted conversions and estimations, pretending that this somehow preserves the objectivity of the original source.

You start with an original source, but then on top of that you pile a huge mess of Cartography a la Patrick, hoping that we'll be so impressed with your cleverness that it won't be readily seen as what it is: pasted-on ignorant interpretation. And your back to the same basis for your argument: "It's fake because I say so."

Again I say, there's a reason all suitably educated people believe Apollo was real. It's not because they're sheep; it's because they know what they're talking about.
Click to expand...

Nice try Boy Scout. Enough with your Apollo is true by virtue of an appeal to reason jive line Jay. Your bogus astronauts are flat out busted here dude. The map is fake and you know it. Give me some numbers! Prove me wrong! I see none and know you cannot!

IT IS HARD EVIDENCE, THE MAP FRAUD JUST DEMONSTRATED, AND YOU KNOW IT SO QUIT TRYING TO DENY IT. IT MAKES A MAN OF YOUR REPUTATION/STATURE LOOK PATHETIC, KIND OF LIKE ARMSTRONG.

I'll have much to say about why map accuracy is ever so relevant. For starters, you'll recall that identifying "Little West Crater" ON A MAP! at J / 7-8 was one of the ways "Tranquility Base's location" was first identified.

My oh my oh my, watch them scramble! scramble! scramble!

Edited by LashL: 
Edited for civility.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Patrick1000 said:
Nice try Boy Scout. Enough with your Apollo is true by virtue of an appeal to reason jive line Jay. Your bogus astronauts are flat out busted here dude. The map is fake and you know it. Give me some numbers! Prove me wrong! I see none and know you cannot!

IT IS HARD EVIDENCE, THE MAP FRAUD JUST DEMONSTRATED, AND YOU KNOW IT SO QUIT TRYING TO DENY IT. IT MAKES A MAN OF YOUR REPUTATION/STATURE LOOK PATHETIC, KIND OF LIKE ARMSTRONG.

I'll have much to say about why map accuracy is ever so relevant. For starters, you'll recall that identifying "Little West Crater" ON A MAP! at J / 7-8 was one of the ways "Tranquility Base's location" was first identified.

My oh my oh my, watch them scramble! scramble! scramble!

Edited by LashL: 
Edited for civility.
Click to expand...

Is it me or is the tone getting progressively more hysterical today? And I mean that in both senses of the word.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Patrick1000 said:
I'll have much to say about why map accuracy is ever so relevant. For starters, you'll recall that identifying "Little West Crater" ON A MAP! at J / 7-8 was one of the ways "Tranquility Base's location" was first identified.
Click to expand...



Ever hear of a "street sign"?

Ever hear of a "lighthouse", or a "buoy", or a "dayboard"?

Ever hear of the sport called "orienteering"?

Ever hear of "bathymetric navigation"?

Your continuous spouted incredulity of the simplest of navigational techniques is very amusing. Do you need help finding the bathroom in your own house?
 
In the parlance of the Apollo Faithful, "evasion noted" Matt.

matt.tansy said:
Ever hear of a "street sign"?

Ever hear of a "lighthouse", or a "buoy", or a "dayboard"?

Ever hear of the sport called "orienteering"?

Ever hear of "bathymetric navigation"?

Your continuous spouted incredulity of the simplest of navigational techniques is very amusing. Do you need help finding the bathroom in your own house?
Click to expand...

In the parlance of the Apollo Faithful, "evasion noted" Matt.

The issue at hand is the map, its authenticity, accuracy, fraudulence. The numbers if you please............, or be off with you. I have no time for such irrelevant prattle.

Within a week, I'll have the Apollo 11 official story completely eviscerated. The phony map is hard evidence of fraud and you all know it.

Let the good times roll boys and girls. The TIDE has changed.
'
 
Last edited:
Patrick1000 said:
Enough with your Apollo is true by virtue of an appeal to reason jive line Jay.
Click to expand...


Appeal to reason!

Hoax believers, after growing weary of being told they are committing logical fallacies, decide if they can't beat em they'll join em. But as usual, the "logic" part eludes them.

Stundied!
 
Patrick1000 said:
AND this'll fry you, my name, Patrick1000, will have to appear as the source of this...
Click to expand...

So it's fair to say that if you have to admit you're wrong, then you don't get your name in the history books as Doctor Patrick Fattydash Tea, the High Gain Professor of physiology, medicine, mathematics, astrodynamics, and radar repair at the Proxy University of Hear-No-Evil.

Okay hyperbole aside, that's really what you want, isn't it? This isn't about space exploration or holding powerful interests accountable. This is about making you feel important. This is about creating a fantasy world in which you are the doctor-lawyer-soldier-scientist who saves the huddled, sheepish masses from their own ignorance and foolishness, and prevails against a terrible, faceless foe that has oppressed them.

You've tapped out NASA as your foe, and you'll take any shot against it that you can: guidance, bacteriology, history, politics. You'll pretend to be any person you have to be in order to fight that foe. Except you're not really fighting it; you're fighting the caricature of it that you've created. And you're not fighting it with actual weapons, but instead with little plastic swords of your own invented or supposed expertise. You don't really know the sciences involved, so you try to reinvent them by simplifying the problems down to your level of understanding, picking and choosing what parts of them make sense to you and conform to your beliefs. This is why you fear opposition from actual qualified experts. You can only respond by evasion, and when that fails, with bluster.

The purpose of your fantasy world is to create you as the hero. So your lengthy computations and comparisons, intricate and based on nothing more than your guess for how such problems should be solved, become what you hope are the artifacts of your victory. "Look at me! Look at what I've done! Look at this masterful computation that shows I've prevailed against impossible odds!"

This payoff is real. Dr. Irving Biederman studies the neurophysical effects of believing you have uncovered a nefarious plot, or that you know or believe something others do not. There are neurochemical artifacts associated with secret-knowing and secret-keeping.

It doesn't matter to you that there are simple and foolproof observations that we can do to ascertain that the mainstream results against which you violently compute are good enough. You aren't interested in the answer, because you know the answer will pop your fantasy world like a soap bubble, and because those elaborated lines of reasoning are themselves the payoff.

In the real world a method that produces the wrong result is useless, regardless of how intricately it has been crafted or how proud its creator is of it. And you can't bear to see any of your elaborately crafted lines of reasoning written off as useless. You rely on deduction when we can obtain better results by observation. You eschew the observation so that you can wrap yourself in the warm fuzziness of a deduction you authored, even if it's misdirected and wrong.

The reason the world won't let you persist in your fantasy is because by accusing Apollo practitioners of fraud, you are affecting real people. Sorry, but your sense of well-being just isn't worth rewriting the world's history and denying skilled people their just desserts. And there really are people whose love of truth and fact is strong enough to compel them to comment when someone like you plays fast and loose with them for his own purposes. That's what I understand JREF to intend. By all means expand your self-esteem, but not at the expense of others' legitimate accomplishments.
 
Patrick1000 said:
Nice try Boy Scout. Enough with your Apollo is true by virtue of an appeal to reason jive line Jay. Your bogus astronauts are flat out busted here dude. The map is fake and you know it. Give me some numbers! Prove me wrong! I see none and know you cannot!

IT IS HARD EVIDENCE, THE MAP FRAUD JUST DEMONSTRATED, AND YOU KNOW IT SO QUIT TRYING TO DENY IT. IT MAKES A MAN OF YOUR REPUTATION/STATURE LOOK PATHETIC, KIND OF LIKE ARMSTRONG.

I'll have much to say about why map accuracy is ever so relevant. For starters, you'll recall that identifying "Little West Crater" ON A MAP! at J / 7-8 was one of the ways "Tranquility Base's location" was first identified.

My oh my oh my, watch them scramble! scramble! scramble!

Edited by LashL: 
Edited for civility.
Click to expand...

Pat, you should really go back & check your work. Where you went wrong has been mentioned already, you're wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom