IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags apollo hoax , moon landing hoax

Closed Thread
Old 11th August 2011, 08:23 AM   #41
Patrick1000
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,039
If you do not care about the inconsistency DC, I respect your opinion and move on. I only suggest you read first hand accounts by the principals involved in all of this. We can respectfully disagree. Best to you.
Patrick1000 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2011, 08:26 AM   #42
Patrick1000
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,039
One last suggestion DC, if you do change your mind about matching primary source material with NASA's account, you should read the papers by the LRRR experiment's primary investigators. If you go to the journal Science's web site, search LRRR, or equivalents. The early papers, especially the January 1970 paper is at odds with NASA's account in an important way. Another inconsistency, and not a trivial one. Again, best to you.
Patrick1000 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2011, 08:28 AM   #43
matt.tansy
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 991
Originally Posted by Patrick1000 View Post
For matt, no, just the opposite. I wrote in a post removed due to excessive length, a wall it was called, that the launch FIDO was clearly informed by his SELECT officer that NONE of the coordinates were anywhere close to one another. Above I pointed out in the Mission Report the coordinates are exceedingly close. Ergo, David Reed the FIDO or NASA is making up their side of the story. I say it is NASA as Reed has no reason to lie. For NASA, the reasons are as countless as the stars themselves. Look at Reed's writing and the Mission Report for yourself Matt. Ask your doc to premeditate you before you start in. I had to. It's nauseating to read this stuff for the first time.
Links, please.

SELECT told FIDO to take his pick. Are you misconstruing it as if he is saying "I have no idea", whereas he might have meant "They're all close enough you can use any source for your rendezvous calculations"?

I asked before and I'll ask again. How many miles apart were the sources from each other. How far was abort from primary? Primary to targeted site?. FIDO's calculation to accelerometer? Etc, etc?

How accurate did the position of the LM have to be known in order to rendezvous with the CSM?
matt.tansy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2011, 08:40 AM   #44
DC
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,064
Originally Posted by Patrick1000 View Post
One last suggestion DC, if you do change your mind about matching primary source material with NASA's account, you should read the papers by the LRRR experiment's primary investigators. If you go to the journal Science's web site, search LRRR, or equivalents. The early papers, especially the January 1970 paper is at odds with NASA's account in an important way. Another inconsistency, and not a trivial one. Again, best to you.
oh noo that sounds boring, i like YT videos about Reflecting studio lights on Astronot's helmets and the wires above the Astronots, that is entertaining.
DC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2011, 08:41 AM   #45
Patrick1000
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,039
I was under the impression I could not provide links. Am I wrong? Reed's essay can be found in, FROM THE TRENCHES OF MISSION CONTROL TO THE CRATERS OF THE MOON. Published in 2010, this compelling read features a collection of first person accounts by none other than the remarkable 20 somethings at the Mission Control consoles charged with the responsibility of tracking and navigating both the command module and Eagle. Each personal story is a gem, but the brightest and most edifying jewel of them all is H. David Reed's Chapter Three entitled, LOOKING BACK.

Search for Remington Stone's essay at the UC observatories web site MAtt. I had great quotes from both of those in the post removed. Sorry, really did try.
Patrick1000 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2011, 08:43 AM   #46
Erock
Muse
 
Erock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Debunking Linkbarf
Posts: 761
Originally Posted by Patrick1000 View Post
Erock, I have read that post. Noun 76 has nothing to do with position. 76 refers to a target delta V program. The meat of the Lost Bird inconsistencies has to do with the FIDO's account of what went on. Appeals to the voice transcript is not needed. What you have here is a guy saying flat out that NASA lied and not just any guy, their most valued launch FIDO. The Apollo debate is over Erock. Look at the references for yourself. I feel as bad now as you will soon enough. Better to read em' now and face the music. We may as well pull the plug on those clowns since we need the cash for other things anyway.
Well you seemed to think otherwise in the post at the top of this page...
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/inde...d=3203&page=27

" I encourage all to do the math for yourselves. It is instructive on many levels, not the least of which to get a real spine tingling feel for a bit of detail, as regards this extraordinary scheme. Keep in mind when you do this, this is the dark heart of this scam. This is its critical feature. THE CRITICAL FEATURE! You are not supposed to be able to read these numbers. DO NOT BE AFRAID! READ THEM WITH ME!"

Your 'critical feature' is wrong diddly wrong pal.

The Apollo debate is over, perhaps you should accept it gracefully, we went to the Moon.

Unless you have argument to dispute the position from the reconstructed accelerometer readings, what else is left of your case?

Not knowing where Eagle was definitely wouldn't have stopped NASA from passing on to LICK what they hoped was the most accurate reading would it?
__________________
The less they know the more they blow.
Erock is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2011, 08:47 AM   #47
Patrick1000
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,039
Matt, this is from Reed's essay on his 07/21/1969 work as FIDO;

"After Apollo XI landed, as the World celebrated and sipped champagne, I slept in preparation for my shift prior to lunar launch. I would work with SELECT and DYNAMICS to get all the relative geometry down and work out the correct ignition time for return to the CSM. Piece of cake really. All we needed were landing site coordinates and a solid ephemeris on the CSM.

"I sat down at the console for that prelaunch shift and was debriefed by the previous team to complete hand-off. I probably had my second cup of coffee by then and got on the loop to SELECT to get the best landing site. I remember asking SELECT what he had for landing site coordinates. I’ll never forget his answer when he said, “take your pick FIDO!” I also remember not reacting too positively to his offer. He explained that we had five different sites. He said “we have MSFN(tracking radars), PNGS (primary LM guidance computer), AGS(backup LM guidance computer), the targeted landing site and, oh yes, the geologist have determined yet another site based upon the crew’s description of the landscape and correlating that with orbiter photos”. No two of these were even close to each other."




" It was the DYNAMICS computer controller, Pete Williams who catalyzed the solution. He said that if we only had rendezvous radar tracking data from the LM on the CSM we could work the problem backward. After all, we knew where the CSM was and the problem was a relative one between the CSM and the LM, not actually requiring latitude and longitude. To do this we would need to have the rendezvous radar (RR) turned on in the LM one revolution earlier than planned. Only two more passes of the CSM remained before Ascent ignition, before we had to have a solution to this problem! I remember taking my headset off and walking up to the Flight Director, Milt Windler to explain the situation. We only used that kind of face to face communication when we had a serious problem such as this. I detailed the problem as best we knew it and the process that we’d have to follow to get the data we needed, and why we had to start a rev early to finish the calculations and then find the critical lift-off time for lunar launch. I recall the CapCom instructing Buzz Aldrin that we needed him to perform the RR check early but I don’t believe that CapCom explained why, just another check was all. Shaft & trunnion angles were passed up to aid acquisition. Right on time as the CSM cleared the horizon we began seeing data. We counted the agonizing minutes as the telemetry came flowing in until the CSM was receding. Now we had the data we needed to run the problem (a rendezvous problem in reverse) and get the correct liftoff time*. And that’s what we used. Later we would find out just where were we on the surface. We were actually over 25,000 feet from the nearest of the other five choices we had! At 5,000-fps orbital velocity of the CSM that could have been up to a ten second error in liftoff. That would have meant we’d need a LOT of RCS (reaction control system fuel) to play catch up or slow down in a rather abnormal (I don’t recall training for this one) rendezvous situation."


So many hours before all of this goes on with Reed, the scientists at Lick Observatory are given Tranquility Base's exact coordinates Matt. Armstrong is actually on the moon! and they get they coordinates, way way way before Reed figures them out.

Not just any coordinates Matt, the Lick scientists get 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east. Getting interested in this angle Matt? Bet you are!

Last edited by Patrick1000; 11th August 2011 at 08:50 AM. Reason: read> Reed
Patrick1000 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2011, 08:48 AM   #48
matt.tansy
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 991
Originally Posted by Patrick1000 View Post
The LM's AOT was of a power of ONE. As such, stars would be as faint when viewed throughout the AOT as with the naked eye, assuming the eye to be accommodated. Does any of this gibberish make any sense elbe? No, of course not. It is not consistent with any real experience.

Bzzzzz! Wrong! Magnification has absolutely nothing to do with light gathering power.
matt.tansy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2011, 08:53 AM   #49
Patrick1000
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,039
Erock, the Apollo launch FIDO is telling you the accelerometer data there in your copy of the Apollo 11 Mission Report is bogus. I am not telling you that, he is. David Reed says none of data available to him that morning was any good. As the data in that Mission Report Table looks very good, too good, I say NASA is lying and David Reed is telling the truth. You may disagree. And that is fine. I believe Reed, not NASA.

Last edited by Patrick1000; 11th August 2011 at 08:53 AM. Reason: that he> that, he
Patrick1000 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2011, 08:58 AM   #50
Erock
Muse
 
Erock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Debunking Linkbarf
Posts: 761
Originally Posted by Patrick1000 View Post
I say NASA is lying and David Reed is telling the truth.
Prove it.

Quote:
You may disagree. And that is fine. I believe Reed, not NASA.
I certainly do. Your whole contention is a riddle within a riddle. NASA supposedly fakes a mission, by faking an overshoot, faking a boulder area, for some unknown reason. Yet NASA does not have the presence of mind to fake accurate surface co-ordinates. What a load of cobblers.

Tell me, does Reed think it was a hoax?
__________________
The less they know the more they blow.
Erock is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2011, 09:01 AM   #51
Patrick1000
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,039
Of course Reed doesn't think the thing's a hoax.
Patrick1000 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2011, 09:04 AM   #52
Patrick1000
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,039
I cannot prove it with metaphysical certainty Erock, but common sense tells me Reed is telling the story straight up. Read the book for yourself. You can buy an e-copy for ten bucks. It's an important enough subject.

Reed is correct and NASA is lying their fannies off, or NASA's correct and Reed is out of his mind psychotic. I vote the former. There is no middle ground here.

Last edited by Patrick1000; 11th August 2011 at 09:05 AM. Reason: an copy> an e-copy
Patrick1000 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2011, 09:08 AM   #53
DC
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,064
Patrick1000, do you believe they never went to the moon? or that just this particular mission was a hoax?
DC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2011, 09:09 AM   #54
Patrick1000
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,039
Lost Bird Proves Apollo Inauthenticity

I am a scientist of not insignificant abilities, and once upon an uncaring self, thought Apollo true. When I looked at Apollo photos, I saw astronauts on the moon. When I saw a picture of a "moon rock", I saw a MOON ROCK. Then, for reasons not entirely clear to me, just 3 months ago, I decided to read the story. Not the story as told by so called HB types, but the story as told by NASA, by the astronauts, by the Apollo scientists. I carefully read the Apollo 11 Voice Transcript, the Apollo 11 Technical Debriefing, the Apollo 11 Mission Report and on and on and on. I read the story as presented in NASA's official narrative. Reading and reading and reading NASA's own materials, I came to know the story of Apollo 11 as anyone would reading with an open and reasonably clear mind. The fable as told by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins and those supporting them in Florida, Houston and in the Pacific at the time of their recovery, is indeed a fable straining the credulity of any sensible person. Just take a look for yourself, you'll agree. You need only reason's bright light. NASA's Apollo tale is in no need of deconstruction by any external agent, by any outside review or examination. NASA's own account is one of an adventure that implodes with comical inconsistencies.

But of course, if one pauses, internal incoherence is precisely what one would expect from a bogus telling of an Apollo moon landing. Such would be a bogus telling's hallmark. Were Apollo real, the converse would of course be the case. Oh sure, there would be areas of confusion where things were not known, but there would not be telling the story one way to achieve some effect or end, and then reversing field in outer space and coming up with contradictory nonsense because the first batch of jive you mixed up was found to be just that, JIVE, or perhaps because given the circumstances the phony story's telling required 2 versions of events in places given the extraordinary circumstances.

The latter proved to be the case with the "Apollo 11 Mission". The presence of LUNA 15 pressured the Apollo 11 narrative into its having to commit to 2 utterly different tellings. In all likelihood the lunar laser retroreflector was already planted prior to 07/20/1969. I say this because if one considers the facts as I will detail in future posts, it makes more sense than anything else. That said, retroreflector present or not, the exposure of of Apollo's fraudulence by LUNA's camera was nevertheless a major concern, retroreflector already "planted" at Tranquility Base or not. There were no astronauts for LUNA to photograph. The Russians probably knew this, at least they were appropriately suspicious. The fact that the Apollo 11 official narrative features simultaneous accounts of BOTH lack of knowledge as regards the astronauts' location on the surface of the moon AND utter lack of that knowledge, leads the clear thinking open minded individual to the disappointing conclusion that as both stories, as both tellings, cannot possibly be true, neither is. Apollo is fraudulent. The key to coming to terms with the horrifying notion of inauthenticity in the particular case of Apollo 11 has to do with one's recognizing this particular element of this particular mission. The Russians were there to spoil the party. Studied from such a vantage, the whole Apollo 11 tale, including the extraordinary inconsistencies, makes eminent sense. Studied from such a vantage, we the curious become oriented to the forensics of the Apollo fraud within nanoseconds.

Last edited by Patrick1000; 11th August 2011 at 09:12 AM. Reason: as detailed below>as I will detail in future posts
Patrick1000 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2011, 09:11 AM   #55
matt.tansy
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 991
Originally Posted by Patrick1000 View Post
We were actually over 25,000 feet from the nearest of the other five choices we had! At 5,000-fps orbital velocity of the CSM that could have been up to a ten second error in liftoff. That would have meant we’d need a LOT of RCS (reaction control system fuel) to play catch up or slow down in a rather abnormal (I don’t recall training for this one) rendezvous situation."
No additional fuel would be required. All the LM would need to do is stay in its catch-up orbit a little shorter or a little longer before initiating the co-elliptical maneuver. This guy is trying to overly dramatize the story.

Quote:
So many hours before all of this goes on with Reed, the scientists at Lick Observatory are given Tranquility Base's exact coordinates
"Exact"? No, they were given one position that was close enough for a laser to find the reflector. This may come as a shock to you but lasers beam spread out. They did not have to point at a one square foot of real estate to get a return signal; just within a mile or two. With a little searching it wouldn't have taken long to find the reflector.

Quote:

Not just any coordinates Matt, the Lick scientists get 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east. Getting interested in this angle Matt? Bet you are!
Not even remotely. Your claim is extremely droll. You are making a mountain out of a molehill and it's getting quite tedious, especially your proclamations of victory. You are used to driving around with a GPS and plying with Google Earth and so you have no understanding of navigational errors. 300 years ago the British parliament offered £10,000 to anyone who could determine a ship's longitude within 60 miles. I was an expert in celestial navigation in the US Navy and my star sights usually came within 2 nautical miles of our GPS position. And that was using a $1000 top-shelf sextant. Convert all those position pairs into miles and you'll see there is nothing spectacular about your claims.
matt.tansy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2011, 09:19 AM   #56
Patrick1000
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,039
DC, none of the landings are "real". Apollo 11 is a good one, a sort of fun one, to study though because of the Apollo 11 post flight press conference, the LUNA factor, Remington Stone's great writing about the LRRR issue and the SCIENCE articles by the LRRR principal investigators that relate to the first targetings. I like Apollo 11 the most. It has the richest background because of its primacy. The materials with regard to Apollo 11 are more detailed and plentiful.
Patrick1000 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2011, 09:21 AM   #57
Patrick1000
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,039
Matt, be careful about doubting what Reed is saying. If you read the entirety of the book, you'll see these guys DON'T exaggerate. He is the most capable of all the launch FIDOs. That said, I love your style in challenging everything. Go for it!

Last edited by Patrick1000; 11th August 2011 at 09:23 AM. Reason: this>the, you>you'll
Patrick1000 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2011, 09:22 AM   #58
Patrick1000
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,039
OK, matt, have it your way. I encourage you to read up on the subject. Ask around. I'll leave the issue be from my end.

Last edited by Patrick1000; 11th August 2011 at 09:23 AM. Reason: you>your
Patrick1000 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2011, 09:25 AM   #59
matt.tansy
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 991
Originally Posted by Patrick1000 View Post
OK, matt, have it your way. I encourage you to read up on the subject. Ask around. I'll leave the issue be from my end.
Still waiting for those mile measurements.

Can't do it, can you?
matt.tansy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2011, 09:29 AM   #60
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler View Post
Oh no--another wall of text following a yellow card!
Looks like he's on a trajectory to burn up in the atmosphere.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2011, 09:29 AM   #61
Patrick1000
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,039
Lost Bird Proves Apollo Inauthenticity

You asked for links Matt, but I do not think I can do that for a while, like 2 weeks. Is that correct? Assuming that to be the case, here is a collection of quotes from my references. As a collection, as a group of quotes, one sees there very much is this effort to dupe us into believing no one has a clue as to where these guys are. The best I can do under the circumstances Matt. As you read these, keep in mind, they're at the same time, giving the people at Lick Observatory the Eagle's EXACT coordinates and doing it in real time. More or less right after they put the LRRR down. It is crazy!

1) CDR/ARMSTRONG.(TRANQ) "Houston, the guys that said that we wouldn't be able to tell precisely where we are are the winners today.*
We were a little busy worrying*
about program alarms and things like that in the part of the descent where we would*
normally be picking out our landing spot; and aside from a good look at several of the*
craters we came over in the final descent, I haven't been able to pick out the things on*
the horizon as a reference as yet."


APOLLO 11 VOICE TRANSCRIPT.



2) "Of course the ground can take its measurements as well, but it really has no way of judging where the LM came down, except by comparing Neil and Buzz's description of their surrounding terrain with the rather crude maps that Houston has."


Command Module Pilot Michael Collins, book,* CARRYING THE FIRE.





3) "While Houston and Eagle prepared for liftoff, feeding coordinates into the computer that would, with luck, achieve a smooth rendezvous with Columbia on its twenty-fifth lunar orbit, there were two nagging worries. One was a slightly embarrassing technical failure: Houston wasn't precisely sure where Tranquility Base was located on the lunar surface. Ever since touchdown, NASA's geological survey team had been scrambling to unravel just how far away from the planned landing site Neil had gone while scrambling to avoid the deadly escarpment.
The United States Geological Survey in Houston and the Center for Astrogeology in Flagstaff, Arizona, desperately studying maps and analyzing information available, had finally come to a consensus. But it was just an educated guess. There had been no provision for an aborted site and a zig-zag, last-second dash to find a safe landing zone. The one hope for a completely accurate fix was the laser retro-reflector experiment Aldrin and Armstrong had assembled a few hours prior. But, thus far Houston hadn't been able to locate the reflector with the laser.
Less than an hour prior to scheduled liftoff, Capsule Communicator Ron Evans apologetically briefed the astronauts on the situation: "We have fairly high confidence that we know the position of the Eagle. However, it is possible that we may have a change of plans. But in the worst case it could be up to 30 feet per second, and of course we don't expect that at all". Meaning: If they were far off Eagle's location, a successful rendezvous would require some quick and accurate throttling up or down to thread the needle properly tricky work at 5,000 miles per hour. Of course, it was for such contingencies that Buzz Aldrin, a man with a genius for astrophysics, who held a Ph.D. in space rendezvous from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Neil Armstrong, one of the coolest hands in the history of aviation, were chosen for the job. NASA believed the Apollo 11 team could do it, and so did they. In the end, NASA's failure to ascertain the exact location of Tranquility Base had no great impact on the docking of Columbia and Eagle, which was fortunate, because it wasn't until 5 days after splash-down on July 29, when film taken by the astronauts was processed and studied, that an official determination was reached."



Leon Wagner's authorized biography of Neil Armstrong,* ONE GIANT LEAP.




4) "In the meantime we were monitoring the signal sent back by the passive seismic experiment and attempting to find the LRRR that the astronauts had left behind. This latter operation was not as easy as we expected, since the exact location of the landing site was not immediately known. Mike Collins had attempted unsuccessfully to locate the LM from orbit using the command module sextant. After analyzing the flight data and the returned photographs, we passed our best estimate to the LRRR PIs, and the LRRR was found on August 1, 1969 by the Lick Observatory in California."



Apollo experimental scientist Donald Beattie, book, TAKING SCIENCE TO THE MOOON.




5) "But no one, not Armstrong and Aldrin nor anyone in mission control, knew just where Eagle was. The location would be a helpful, though not essential, piece of information for this computer to have during tomorrow's rendezvous. It fell to Collins to try to find the LM on the surface, using the command modules 28 power sextant."…………

"Each time he went around from the far side, mission control had a new set of coordinates for him to try, but on his map, one guess was as much as 10 grid-squares away from the last. It didn't take long to realize no one had a handle on the problem. His search continued fruitlessly for the rest of his 22 solo hours."




Andrew Chaikin, book, A MAN ON THE MOON.




6) "They wondered about their exact location, glancing out the windows and describing what they saw to give flight control and Collins some clues to aid in the search. While waiting to be found, Armstrong relayed all that he could remember about the landing. They knew they were at least six kilometers beyond the target point, although still within the planned ellipse.

While his crewmates had been active on the surface, Collins had been busy in the command module. There was not much navigating to do, so he took pictures and looked out the window, trying to find the lunar module. He never found it; neither did flight control. There was just too much real estate down there to be able to search the whole area properly. Collins divided the part of the moon he was flying over into segments, but he had no better luck. Armstrong and Aldrin had taken the 26-power monocular with them, but Collins did not think it would have helped much, anyway. He did complain that all this searching cut into the time he needed for taking pictures on each circuit, but he was philosophical about it. As he said, “When the LM is on the surface, the command module should act like a good child and be seen and not heard.”10*


Brooks, Courtney (2008). Book, CHARIOTS FOR APOLLO


7) "For the next couple of orbits, I tried very hard to spot Eagle through my sextant, but I was unable to find it. The problem was, no one knew exactly where Neil had landed, and I didn't know which way to look for them. Oh, I knew approximately where they were, but the sextant had a narrow field of view, like looking down a riffle barrel, and I need to know exactly which way to point it."

Michael Collins, Command Module Pilot/"NAVIGATOR!", from FLYING TO THE MOON, AN ASTRONAUT'S STORY.



8) " In retrospect, two items may seem curious about Apollo 11’s technical situation immediately following touchdown. First, no one in NASA knew exactly where Eagle had landed. “One would have thought that their radar would have been good enough to pinpoint us more quickly than it did,” remarks Neil. When a spacecraft was in a trajectory or when it was in orbit, with all the optical and radar measurements being taken, both the ground and the crew had a pretty good idea of where the flight vehicle was, but it was a different problem when the object was sitting in one spot and all that anyone was getting was the same single measurement over and over again. “There was an uncertainty in that that was bigger than I would have guessed it would have been.”

JAMES R. HANSEN, from the authorized biography, First Man (pp. 480-481). Simon & Schuster.


Countless as the stars in the sky are these references emphasizing our funny little "Lost Bird". Take a look for yourselves my friends, they indeed abound as this "double fib", a denial of knowing where the astronauts were upon a lunar surface never visited, was critically important.

Last edited by Patrick1000; 11th August 2011 at 09:48 AM. Reason: I tis> It is
Patrick1000 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2011, 09:35 AM   #62
Patrick1000
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,039
No Matt, more or less people for a long time believed the LRRR was EXACTLY at 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east. EXACTLY. Each 01" of arc is 27.6 feet, so let's say within a minute of arc, .314 miles. They told the Lick Observatory people about the coordinates to that degree of precision before the FIDO figured out where the Eagle was, and while most of the help in Houston thought no one had any real sense as to where the astronauts were. Read my quotes above again, including from Armstrong's authorized biography.
Patrick1000 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2011, 09:45 AM   #63
matt.tansy
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 991
Originally Posted by Patrick1000 View Post
Less than an hour prior to scheduled liftoff, Capsule Communicator Ron Evans apologetically briefed the astronauts on the situation: "We have fairly high confidence that we know the position of the Eagle. However, it is possible that we may have a change of plans. But in the worst case it could be up to 30 feet per second, and of course we don't expect that at all". Meaning: If they were far off Eagle's location, a successful rendezvous would require some quick and accurate throttling up or down to thread the needle properly tricky work at 5,000 miles per hour.
No, that is not what it means. You are so ignorant of orbital mechanics you completely misunderstood what Evans said. "Lunar Orbit Rendezvous". Look it up.

You keep characterizing the rendezvous as "threading the needle". That is ignorant nonsense.

Do you drive an automobile? Do you drive on the highway? When you pass someone on the highway do you tell yourself you are 'threading the needle'"? No, because your relative speed to the other car is very low. Just like the LM and CSM rendezvousing. After lift-off and the LM is in its first phase of rendezvous it is gaining on the CSM at around 35 mph. When it gets to the predetermined distance to the CSM the LM raises it orbit and slowly approaches the CSM. Yes, they are traveling at thousands of miles per hour, but they are approaching each other very slowly.
matt.tansy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2011, 09:50 AM   #64
EventHorizon
Atheist Tergiversator
 
EventHorizon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 3,103
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Bah. Welcome to my ignore list, Patrick1000.

Hans
Why deprive yourself of the humor Patrick1000 will provide us?

For example:

Originally Posted by Patrick1000 View Post
DC, just because there is a LRRR on the moon at 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east does not mean Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin put it there. Get a grip, use a little common sense.
And this:

Originally Posted by Patrick1000 View Post
I am a scientist of not insignificant abilities,
Do you think he's posting this stuff with a straight face?
__________________
"One of the hardest parts of being an active skeptic - of anything - is knowing when to cut your losses, and then doing so."
-Phil Plait

Last edited by EventHorizon; 11th August 2011 at 09:58 AM.
EventHorizon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2011, 09:57 AM   #65
Patrick1000
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,039
Matt, I do not keep anything. To put this in perspective, Evans in your quote above is working with Reed's calculations. He is informing the astronauts BASED ON WHAT REED HAS DETERMINED. Reed is responsible for the launch trajectory and ONLY REED with help from DYNAMICS and SELECT.

I say nothing. Reed says plenty. He walked in and no one had any idea where the Eagle was. He figured out where the Eagle was. As per my post above. His coordinates are found in the Mission Report. Evans briefs the astronauts based on Reed's work. This is why Reed's testimony is so compelling. The numbers are his. Evans' numbers are Reed's numbers. Collins numbers are Reeds numbers. Armstrong's numbers are Reed's numbers.

And the people at Lick Observatory had these numbers while Reed was still sleeping!

And NASA's Mission Report gives a completely different account of the numbers as determined by all of the other methods of determination available, numbers Reed chose to ignore, and with good reason as they were according to him not consistent with one another.

As the numbers in the Mission Report are VERY consistent, we may conclude Reed is making this all up, or NASA is making up their Mission Report numbers. I vote Reed honest, NASA not credible. There is no middle ground.

What Evans says is irrelevant, or relevant only in the sense he works with Reed's calculations. READ THE BOOK!

Last edited by Patrick1000; 11th August 2011 at 10:00 AM. Reason: reed>Reed, perspective> perspective, give>gives
Patrick1000 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2011, 10:12 AM   #66
matt.tansy
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 991
Originally Posted by Patrick1000 View Post
No Matt, more or less people for a long time believed the LRRR was EXACTLY at 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east. EXACTLY. Each 01" of arc is 27.6 feet, so let's say within a minute of arc, .314 miles. They told the Lick Observatory people about the coordinates to that degree of precision before the FIDO figured out where the Eagle was, and while most of the help in Houston thought no one had any real sense as to where the astronauts were. Read my quotes above again, including from Armstrong's authorized biography.
.314 miles per minute? What does that mean? Nothing. Compare it to the other position sources.

PNGCS to the position of the LRRR: 0.88 miles
AGS to the position of the LRRR: 0.92 miles

PNGCS to Reed's position: 0.79 miles
AGS to Reed's position: 0.74 miles

There is nothing wrong with these differences.

You are confusing "precision" with "accuracy". Just because an instrument can display position to the nearest second of arc doesn't mean that is the system's absolute accuracy. My job in the US Navy was submarine navigation. Submarines use inertial navigation systems when they can't receive GPS. It was nothing out of the ordinary to come up to periscope depth after a few hours and have your inertial systems' positions be a mile from your GPS position.
matt.tansy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2011, 10:21 AM   #67
matt.tansy
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 991
Originally Posted by Patrick1000 View Post
Matt, I do not keep anything. To put this in perspective, Evans in your quote above is working with Reed's calculations. He is informing the astronauts BASED ON WHAT REED HAS DETERMINED. Reed is responsible for the launch trajectory and ONLY REED with help from DYNAMICS and SELECT.

I say nothing.
Oh, but you did. You quoted Evans then you added your own spin, which was hilariously wrong. Don't you remember adding this after quoting Evans?

Quote:
Meaning: If they were far off Eagle's location, a successful rendezvous would require some quick and accurate throttling up or down to thread the needle properly tricky work at 5,000 miles per hour.
Quote:
And the people at Lick Observatory had these numbers while Reed was still sleeping!
The position you quoted as given to Lick and Reed's position are different by 0.22 miles. Which means Lick didn't get their position from Reed.

Again. Mountain out of a molehill.
matt.tansy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2011, 10:28 AM   #68
Patrick1000
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,039
Each degree constitutes roughly 18 miles at the moon's equator, each minute of arc .314 miles, each second of arc 27.6 feet or thereabouts. As they gave the Lick Observatory staff the coordinates 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east, they were confident in providing the coordinates to an accuracy of the last digits, seconds of arc.

Of course that is ridiculous , and I'll make that point now. In Houston, they have US Geological Survey people "looking for" Armstrong on what Michael Collins himself refers to as "crude maps" and they are going to determine his location to within minutes' of arc accuracy? Absurd!

So, having made that point, let's say they told the Lick people they had Armstrong and Aldrin located to within a minute of arc or .314 miles for each of the coordinates. That would give us . 314 squared plus .314 squared, take the square root of that sum, gives .445. So its reasonable to suggest given the units and decimal places they are working with, when they give the Lick Observatory people the Eagle's coordinates, they are providing coordinates that give the astronauts' location to within .445 miles. If they were not his confident, they would not be specifying the numbers so completely. and I remind you, the numbers given to Lick were the numbers Lick confirmed as coordinates 10 days after the landing. Accurate indeed. And how so? Who made the calculation to begin with? It most certainly was not Reed. And Reed is a very reliable historian and he tells us it was decidedly not one of his guidance and trajectory colleagues. So the information came from OUTSIDE OF THE MISSION CONTROL GROUP. THERE WAS KNOWLEDGE OF THESE NUMBERS BEFORE HAND AND THIS MEANS FRAUD!

Last edited by Patrick1000; 11th August 2011 at 10:33 AM. Reason: REWED>REED, DIGIT>DIGITS, tell>tells
Patrick1000 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2011, 10:52 AM   #69
matt.tansy
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 991
Originally Posted by Patrick1000 View Post
Each degree constitutes roughly 18 miles at the moon's equator, each minute of arc .314 miles, each second of arc 27.6 feet or thereabouts. As they gave the Lick Observatory staff the coordinates 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east, they were confident in providing the coordinates to an accuracy of the last digits, seconds of arc.
Navigation isn't high school math where the correct answer depends on the student rounding off his answer to the significant digit. You don't round your position off to the nearest mile because your inertial navigation system is only accurate to 1 mile.

Quote:
Of course that is ridiculous , and I'll make that point now. In Houston, they have US Geological Survey people "looking for" Armstrong on what Michael Collins himself refers to as "crude maps" and they are going to determine his location to within minutes' of arc accuracy? Absurd!
So the word "crude" has a numerical value to you? What exactly is it?

"to within minutes" can mean within a mile on the Moon. Do you have proof our lunar maps weren't accurate to within that limit? Keep in mind personal incredulity is not proof.

Quote:
So, having made that point, let's say they told the Lick people they had Armstrong and Aldrin located to within a minute of arc or .314 miles for each of the coordinates. That would give us . 314 squared plus .314 squared, take the square root of that sum, gives .445. So its reasonable to suggest given the units and decimal places they are working with, when they give the Lick Observatory people the Eagle's coordinates, they are providing coordinates that give the astronauts' location to within .445 miles.
It is not reasonable to assume that. It is one giant unsubstantiated leap of logic.

Quote:
If they were not his confident, they would not be specifying the numbers so completely. and I remind you, the numbers given to Lick were the numbers Lick confirmed as coordinates 10 days after the landing. Accurate indeed. And how so? Who made the calculation to begin with? It most certainly was not Reed. And Reed is a very reliable historian and he tells us it was decidedly not one of his guidance and trajectory colleagues. So the information came from OUTSIDE OF THE MISSION CONTROL GROUP.
You are assuming that. First find out who gave Lick the coordinates then investigate further.
Quote:
THERE WAS KNOWLEDGE OF THESE NUMBERS BEFORE HAND AND THIS MEANS FRAUD!
You have not found any evidence to support that claim.
matt.tansy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2011, 11:01 AM   #70
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,095
fattydash, breaking up your lengthy spams into smaller pieces doesn't improve your arguments.

Originally Posted by Patrick1000 View Post
As touched upon above, viewing Apollo through the prism of the "Lost Bird" metaphor,
Repeatedly and patiently explained to you and your sock-puppets in other forums. The Apollo 11 LM was not "lost"; if it was, they would not have been able to communicate with it. Its position was always known within a few n.mi., which was perfectly adequate for rendezvous with the CSM; both had maneuvering reserve, and they had active radar/transponder guidance.
Originally Posted by Patrick1000 View Post
obviates the need to address that which in isolation can never be satisfactorily addressed by either side,
Well, one "side" has the space science community, the planetary science community, and aerospace engineers, who actually understand the principles behind Apollo and accept that it happened. The other side is, well, pretty much you and assorted other Internet cranks, who like to mix 'n' match numbers and quotes from different sources and contexts, but don't really understand them because you don't really know what you're talking about.
Originally Posted by Patrick1000 View Post
those impossible questions regarding "fake" photos, telemetry authenticity, "lunar rock" origins and so forth.
Handwaving attempt to dismiss significant parts of the Apollo record noted. Feel free to start threads to discuss them if you wish. I've worked contacts with spacecraft tracking stations, so we can have a nice talk about things like seven years of ALSEP telemetry.
Originally Posted by Patrick1000 View Post
The Lost Bird argument is one based on our examining the consistency of the official narrative, what I like to refer to as the narrative's internal coherence. Because the tale told by NASA is indeed a tale of robust internal incoherence, ...
Let's go to the tape, shall we?

My claim as to why the lander could not perform a guided ascent is we have no evidence that Aldrin was able to determine lander coordinates for the Eagle

...I do not believe there was an ascent as I do not believe there was a landing.
-------------------
They did not have a LM that could land on the moon.

If one looks at the facts and concedes the lander works, and I do imagine the builders constructed the thing well. I am not trying to play games. I grant the lander works, fine.
-------------------
Yes we know there was most definitely no telemetric transmission of the coordinates.

This makes sense given the general features of Apollo guidance. It is for the most part telemetric.


That's just a sample of your internal incoherence here, where you were spamming this same drivel after getting banned from Bad Astronomy for TOS violations including sock-puppetry.
Originally Posted by Patrick1000 View Post
The Apollo debate has long been mired in a soupy space where nothing ever can really be settled.
Well, sure, in the same sense that the question of whether the Earth revolves about the Sun, or vice-versa, can never really be settled.
Originally Posted by Patrick1000 View Post
We the curious sit in a sort of knowledge purgatory where one side cries, "What about the rocks!" and the other's rejoinder is, "Well, what about them?".
Geologists study lunar samples because they were recovered in situ from the Moon, and they can verify this. Internet cranks pretend, bizarrely, that it's merely a matter of opinion - as if no one actually knows more than anyone else. It's a bizarre view of reality, but I suppose it offers some comfort to those who need to believe their superiority to all those darned experts. Or something; I'm an engineer, not a psychologist.
Originally Posted by Patrick1000 View Post
Each side in the debate...
Get over yourself. There's no grand debate; there's just a handful of arguments on random Internet fora. The real world doesn't care. History and physics and planetary science and aerospace engineering don't care, because the people working in those fields grasp that Apollo actually succeeded.
Originally Posted by Patrick1000 View Post
In contradistinction, for the guys and gals on the other side, the photos are so obviously phony ... Just look you blind buffoon!
If you want to offer specific claims about specific photographs, start a thread for it. I suppose you're an expert photographic analyst now, having tired of pretending to be a doctor, engineer, and "scientist of not insignificant abilities".
sts60 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2011, 11:09 AM   #71
Patrick1000
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,039
Lost Bird Proves Apollo Inauthenticity

One more try Matt before I head off to work. I'll summarize my points above. At least consider the following;

To emphasize Matt, the most remarkable reference dealing with this extraordinary subject turns out to be a recent publication, FROM THE TRENCHES OF MISSION CONTROL TO THE CRATERS OF THE MOON. David Reed's first person account of his experiences at a Mission Control console on 07/21/1969 is one of many first person accounts featured in what I think is a terrific book. As mentioned, Reed's job was that of FIDO, pronounced like the dog's name. He was a FLIGHT DYNAMICS OFFICER responsible for tracking and maneuvering calculations. Reed was a launch specialist and the best of the best. He was on shift for at least 5 of the Saturn V launches and because of his abilities, he was tapped as the person most able to deal with the Eagle's launch from the lunar surface back to Collins orbiting above.

The role of FIDO is supported by 2 key players, DYNAMICS(computer specialist dealing with tracking/maneuvering calculations) and SELECT(a specialist who "selects" the best tracking source for the calculations of concern). Keep in mind Matt, a guy like Reed is not a player in the fraud. Most of the 400,000 people participating believe the hokum is real. Pretty dang sad is all I can say.

So Reed walks into work to begin his shift at the time when people are looking toward what they believe will be a real launch of this oh so very not real bird. Reed writes,

"After Apollo XI landed, as the World celebrated and sipped champagne, I slept in preparation for my shift prior to lunar launch. I would work with SELECT and DYNAMICS to get all the relative geometry down and work out the correct ignition time for return to the CSM. Piece of cake really. All we needed were landing site coordinates and a solid ephemeris on the CSM."

Note Matt that initially from Reed's point of view, no big deal. He needs the coordinates of the Eagle and wants to know where the command module is. Keep in mind Reed is Mission Controls highest authority on that day for this problem. He knows more than anyone about this particular job, this launch task, that is why he is there on the morning of 07/21/1969. It is significant that Reed actually seems to have anticipated the coordinates being ready for him. Well he was in for a surprise as I already pointed out above. Reed writes;

"I sat down at the console for that prelaunch shift and was debriefed by the previous team to complete hand-off. I probably had my second cup of coffee by then and got on the loop to SELECT to get the best landing site. I remember asking SELECT what he had for landing site coordinates. I’ll never forget his answer when he said, “take your pick FIDO!” I also remember not reacting too positively to his offer. He explained that we had five different sites. He said “we have MSFN(tracking radars), PNGS (primary LM guidance computer), AGS(backup LM guidance computer), the targeted landing site and, oh yes, the geologist have determined yet another site based upon the crew’s description of the landscape and correlating that with orbiter photos”. No two of these were even close to each other."

So based on Reed's account, and he is the individual who knows more than anyone there at Mission Control about tracking and maneuvering issues at the time of the Eagle's launch, all the sophisticated tools these guys have at their disposal, take a look, they are listed above, there is no agreement "even close" amongst the 5 methods of landing site determination employed. That means at that point in time, Reed knew that at least 4 solutions were way off, and as we'll see below, once the numbers were reviewed by this FIDO, he came to the conclusion that all five of the previously arrived at solutions were way off. Doesn't exactly inspire confidence now does it?

But wait a dang second now! On the other hand, back at Lick Observatory in California where they were fixing to fire and did fire a ruby red laser at the LRRR(lunar laser retroreflector) many hours prior to the commencement of Reed's important launch shift, this wasn't the story. The very man who targeted the laser, Remington Stone, wrote a marvelous little first hand account of his experience at the Lick Observatory on the evening of 07/20/1969. You have to read this account of the events at Lick Observatory that night Matt. It is essential.

Shortly after the astronauts were said to have deployed the laser retroreflector, Houston called Lick Observatory with precise coordinates; 00 41 15 north, 23 26 00 east. As it turned out, the man at Lick Observatory who took the phone call from Houston, a scientist by the name of Joe Wampler, he heard "50" instead of "15" at the end there of the north coordinate, so there was a tiny problem with the "hand off". (For the curious 15 to 50 is a 35 second of arc difference amounting to 35 X 27.6 feet per second of arc, 960 feet difference. The laser beam on the moon is 2 miles wide, so 960 feet off may not have been too big an issue if other things went well, which they did not, as detailed below.)

The critical point here to keep in mind Matt is the narrative's glaring incoherence. Here we have Lick observatory being given Eagle' precise location, the EXACT! location of Tranquility base hours before Reed even comes on duty. Clearly, the site of the laser reflector was known before hand, before the pretended Eagle landing, as Armstrong had it not, and "officially" Houston had it not. As we'll see, our FIDO Reed, begins to puzzle out the Eagle's location. But back too Reminton Stone, a quote from his account of that epic evening;


"We took a break to watch Neil Armstrong’s historic first step event on TV, a thrill shared by all present.
After the PR opportunity, the astronauts began to place science experiments out on the moon's surface. The first such experiment was our retroreflector, an array of 100 beautiful corner cube prisms, cut so as to return any inbound light exactly back to the source.
The Retroreflector array is seen here about 1/3 from the left edge of this photo, between the flag and Lunar Expedition Module. The astronaut in the foreground is now placing a seismograph on the lunar surface
It seemed then as if we were all set, but we still needed to know exactly where on the moon the astronauts were. As the laser beam diameter at the moon was only about two miles, we had to be able to point fairly accurately. The lunar module, under manual control in order to avoid some rough terrain, had not been landed exactly where planned. The astronauts soon determined their precise location on the moon and radioed that information to Mission Control in Houston. Later that evening, Joe Wampler spoke with Mission Control to obtain the coordinates for the actual landing site. I was sitting next to him as he stood at the night assistant's desk in the 3m control room, upon which he had a large scale moon map spread out. I heard Joe repeat back the coordinates three times in order to be absolutely certain he had them correct. Then, with the spot carefully marked on the map, we pointed the telescope to that exact lunar location and started firing a laser at it - scientific history in the making!."

The interested may find Remington Stone's remarkable story at the University of California Observatories Web Site. READ IT! Stone goes on to relate how the next day they figured out the 15/50 problem but it was not until August 1st 1969 that the laser retroreflector was successfully targeted by the scientists at Lick observatory. Their having difficulty with the targeting had to do with a software/timing problem. This is confirmed in the seminal article by the laser retroreflector lead investigators/scientists who published an article appearing in the January 1970 issue of the journal, SCIENCE, which mentions this timing "problem".

So we have the scientists at Lick Observatory receiving Tranquility Base's precise coordinates when every one at Mission Control INCLUDING REED! in Houston is in the dark as regards these very same Eagle landing coordinates. AND it is not until 08/01/1969 that those coordinates are confirmed as the site of Eagle's landing, 10 or 11 days after the Eagle was said to have touched down. So the smartest FIDO/tracking calculator on the planet, H. David Reed, did not know information, EXTRAORDINARILY CRITICAL AND IMPORTANT INFORMATION, regarding Eagle's coordinates that was passed along to the Lick scientists well before he even came on duty. Why wasn't Reed given the coordinates? Lick Observatory itself did not know these to be the "correct" coordinates of Tranquility Base until successful LRRR targeting on 08/01/1969. From this insane SCRIPT, we rightly conclude there was foreknowledge on the part of an "elite" group/person on the fraud's inside, passing the coordinates to Lick as all would expect, but keeping them from Reed to perpetuate the game. Remember, only a very small number of people in a relative sense know this is fake.

Let's finish up with H. David Reed. I hope the guy actually learns of his having been gamed at some point. It is the only way this thing ever will resolve, with a major player saying, "YES! it had to have been FAKE! I was not part of it, but was fooled".

Here's Reed again;

" It was the DYNAMICS computer controller, Pete Williams who catalyzed the solution. He said that if we only had rendezvous radar tracking data from the LM on the CSM we could work the problem backward. After all, we knew where the CSM was and the problem was a relative one between the CSM and the LM, not actually requiring latitude and longitude. To do this we would need to have the rendezvous radar (RR) turned on in the LM one revolution earlier than planned. Only two more passes of the CSM remained before Ascent ignition, before we had to have a solution to this problem! I remember taking my headset off and walking up to the Flight Director, Milt Windler to explain the situation. We only used that kind of face to face communication when we had a serious problem such as this. I detailed the problem as best we knew it and the process that we’d have to follow to get the data we needed, and why we had to start a rev early to finish the calculations and then find the critical lift-off time for lunar launch. I recall the CapCom instructing Buzz Aldrin that we needed him to perform the RR check early but I don’t believe that CapCom explained why, just another check was all. Shaft & trunnion angles were passed up to aid acquisition. Right on time as the CSM cleared the horizon we began seeing data. We counted the agonizing minutes as the telemetry came flowing in until the CSM was receding. Now we had the data we needed to run the problem (a rendezvous problem in reverse) and get the correct liftoff time*. And that’s what we used. Later we would find out just where were we on the surface. We were actually over 25,000 feet from the nearest of the other five choices we had! At 5,000-fps orbital velocity of the CSM that could have been up to a ten second error in liftoff. That would have meant we’d need a LOT of RCS (reaction control system fuel) to play catch up or slow down in a rather abnormal (I don’t recall training for this one) rendezvous situation."

I don't believe I need draw the attentive reader's eye to the lines above where Reed emphasizes by how far off all the other five solutions had been. And by now, I need not draw the reader's attention to the bizarreness of all this, the utter unmitigated insanity. One can only walk away incredulous. Here we have the man most responsible for calculating/determining the Eagles trajectory back to the command module. It would had e been a "piece of cake" per Reed himself, had they only had the coordinates. Yet they had them all along! Someone gave them, the very same exact coordinates that proved to be the location of the precise location of the Eagle, to the Lick Observatory staff many hours before Reed even came on duty. Something is not only rotten in Denmark, but rotten in outer space as well. Good thing you can't smell anything up there. PEEEEYOUUUUUU!!!!

The reason for the shenanigans is obvious Matt. If the Russians got wind of 00 41 15 north, 23 26 00 east, they might take a picture of a place where there were no astronauts. LUNA crashed late on 07/21/1969. Tranquility Base was not formally found until 08/01/1969.

I leave you Matt with 2 questions, imagine planning a lunar expedition and not being reasonably confident you would be able to find your astronauts' location on the surface of the moon. Hardly makes any sense. Additionally, have you ever seen the US Geological Survey Maps of the moon they employed when trying to find Armstrong and Aldrin? Go ahead, take a look at them, their detail. Is it remotely possible a halfway reasonable person would suggest using these in finding the Eagle given their detail? NO.

Apollo as a story is so very very very internally incoherent. We need not fight over the authenticity of rocks and photos and telemetry any longer. Of course it is all fake. For once and for all we can all see this now. Now that our Lost Bird has been found.
Patrick1000 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2011, 11:18 AM   #72
frenat
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 482
Still BS as it was on the other two forums. Your inability to comprehend the responses showing you why is the only problem here.
Reality is not defined by your lack of comprehension.
frenat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2011, 11:34 AM   #73
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Quote:
Apollo as a story is so very very very internally incoherent.

False. The "story" of the various moon voyages and landings is utterly and absolutely coherent, both internally and externally consistent. There are photographs of the earth from the moon that can be corroborated with weather photos and reports on earth. The very few pictures in which "stars" are visible have turned out to be Venus in exactly the correct position in the sky for being observed from that location on the moon at that exact time.

The Apollo program produced hundreds of hours of film and video, thousands of photographs and millions of pages of documentation of every single piece of flown hardware. The scientific results were analyzed in real-time by scientists at Houston and have been further studied for 40 years. Not one inconsistency has been discovered.

The Apollo program used large rockets that were seen to depart Florida by thousands of people, live and in person. Radio contact and telemetry was monitored by many people around the world including hostile nations and amateur ham radio operators ( google " eavesdropping apollo " ) using a variety of gear, both in Earth orbit and on the surface of the moon. Those rockets were photographed in orbit, in Translunar Injection Burn, and in cislunar space by independent amateur astronomers.

The massive load of lunar rock and soil samples have been studied by scientists around the world. They are consistent with the scraps of dust collected by the Soviets, but also ADD NEW KNOWLEDGE by revealing facts about the lunar surface that scientists had not predicted. Those facts have been cross-studied with other disciplines and have allowed new scientific
predictions to be made and tested.

There are hundreds if not thousands of published peer-review academic studied from geologists all around the world based on the lunar soil and rock samples, and not one of them raises any doubt in the veracity of the samples.

What do you have? One misunderstood analysis of one minor moment in the entire project.

If your "theory" were in any way valid it would allow you to make falsifiable/verifiable predictions about the lunar program and find other inconsistencies.

That would be science.

Your failure to do so suggests an inconsistency between your claims of being some kinda scientist and observable reality.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2011, 11:42 AM   #74
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon View Post
False. The "story" of the various moon voyages and landings is utterly and absolutely coherent, both internally and externally consistent. There are photographs of the earth from the moon that can be corroborated with weather photos and reports on earth. The very few pictures in which "stars" are visible have turned out to be Venus in exactly the correct position in the sky for being observed from that location on the moon at that exact time.

The Apollo program produced hundreds of hours of film and video, thousands of photographs and millions of pages of documentation of every single piece of flown hardware. The scientific results were analyzed in real-time by scientists at Houston and have been further studied for 40 years. Not one inconsistency has been discovered.

The Apollo program used large rockets that were seen to depart Florida by thousands of people, live and in person. Radio contact and telemetry was monitored by many people around the world including hostile nations and amateur ham radio operators ( google " eavesdropping apollo " ) using a variety of gear, both in Earth orbit and on the surface of the moon. Those rockets were photographed in orbit, in Translunar Injection Burn, and in cislunar space by independent amateur astronomers.

The massive load of lunar rock and soil samples have been studied by scientists around the world. They are consistent with the scraps of dust collected by the Soviets, but also ADD NEW KNOWLEDGE by revealing facts about the lunar surface that scientists had not predicted. Those facts have been cross-studied with other disciplines and have allowed new scientific
predictions to be made and tested.

There are hundreds if not thousands of published peer-review academic studied from geologists all around the world based on the lunar soil and rock samples, and not one of them raises any doubt in the veracity of the samples.
Seriously. What other event in the whole of human history has this much evidence to support it? I can't imagine the thought malfunctions that need to occur in order to ignore all of it.
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2011, 11:51 AM   #75
matt.tansy
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 991
Has anything anybody said to you sunk in yet? All your claims have been addressed and found to be bogus.

If you're going to copy and paste the same nonsensical wall of text over and over again at least have the courtesy to fix the typos and improper punctuation.

And the replace text function works with punctuation marks. So instead of replacing "xxxxx" with "Matt", you can use ", xxxxx, ". As is the proper punctuation mark usage when addressing someone by their name.

You quote Reed as saying his position calculation was off by 25,000 feet from the other 5 choices he had. That means the latitude and longitudes you supplied earlier are wrong because they are all within 2.9 miles of his position.
matt.tansy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2011, 11:55 AM   #76
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
Originally Posted by Patrick1000 View Post
I am a scientist of not insignificant abilities,
Tell us your name and your degree so that we can verify?
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2011, 11:57 AM   #77
frenat
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 482
Originally Posted by Patrick1000 View Post
I am a scientist of not insignificant abilities,
You've said before you were a doctor, engineer, US radar tech working in China, and now this. Which is it? I'm guessing none of the above.
frenat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2011, 12:01 PM   #78
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,095
Originally Posted by Patrick1000 View Post
...a recent publication, FROM THE TRENCHES OF MISSION CONTROL TO THE CRATERS OF THE MOON. ...Keep in mind Matt, a guy like Reed is not a player in the fraud. Most of the 400,000 people participating believe the hokum is real. Pretty dang sad is all I can say.
No, it's really pretty funny.

I've worked a few flights in both old and new MCC backrooms (Payload MPSR, and the new POCC). Your cartoon view of how things work in flight control is as hilarious as your cartoon view of a large fake aerospace project where only a select secret few know that the entire thing won't work.

Originally Posted by Patrick1000 View Post
... He said “we have MSFN(tracking radars), PNGS (primary LM guidance computer), AGS(backup LM guidance computer), the targeted landing site and, oh yes, the geologist have determined yet another site based upon the crew’s description of the landscape and correlating that with orbiter photos”. No two of these were even close to each other."
Actually, they were all close enough for successful rendezvous. You pick this popular account and amp it up because it suits your purpose to pretend that all the other other measurements were hopelessly wrong.

Wait, other measurements? The ones you said didn't exist over on apollohoax?

See, that's the problem attending U. Google for your "study", and conducting "research" by quote-mining. You can't keep your stories straight. So, since you keep telling us that inconsistency = dishonesty, what does that say about you? Especially given your history of lying when you agreed to the TOS when creating all your sock-puppets?

Originally Posted by Patrick1000 View Post
...But wait a dang second now! On the other hand, back at Lick Observatory in California where they were fixing to fire and did fire a ruby red laser at the LRRR(lunar laser retroreflector)...
Right, the LRRR experiment. The lasing of which was not part of the flight activities; once the crew deployed it, they were done with it, and so was the flight control team. The only mission objective for A11 was to land the crew and return them; this has been explained to you, repeatedly, but you still don't get it.

Or rather, you won't get it, because you have a breathless narrative to spin of some grand deception; one which was masterful enough to fool all the scientists and engineers (then and now), but not enough to fool a "scientist" like you. Or a doctor like you. Or an engineering expert like you; your story keeps changing. Hey, maybe you'll be a lion tamer tomorrow.
sts60 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2011, 12:15 PM   #79
Erock
Muse
 
Erock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Debunking Linkbarf
Posts: 761
Originally Posted by Patrick1000 View Post
Erock, the Apollo launch FIDO is telling you the accelerometer data there in your copy of the Apollo 11 Mission Report is bogus.
No he isn't. He isn't sure of the accuracy of anything, since they have several different data co-ordinates.

Quote:
I am not telling you that, he is.
Yes you are (refer to first quote).

Quote:
David Reed says none of data available to him that morning was any good.
Told you so. His conclusion was that the position, given the different readings could not be determined. Not bogus.

You are deliberately mis-representing his account of the event. Where does he say it is bogus(that implies deception)?

I ask again, why wouldn't NASA give the LICK observatory their best guess, which would be the reconstructed accelerometer readings?
__________________
The less they know the more they blow.
Erock is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th August 2011, 12:34 PM   #80
Patrick1000
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,039
Lost Bird Proves Apollo Inauthenticity

Not bad points about the rocks and pics, but as we all know only something like 5% of the rock samples have been studied. What about the other 95%? People go back and forth about the photos ad nauseam. Makes one dizzy. HBs see the photographs as obviously fake, mainstreamers see extraordinarily clear shots of the 20th century's most amazing event.

The only way one ever makes headway in coming to terms with any of this is to look at the narrative itself. Study the story. What is the story?

If that story features a pair of world class fighter pilots lost on the moon's surface with no clue as to how best to find themselves, I know I need not worry about rocks and pics, at least as regards to what they tell me about the Apollo Program's authenticity. The narrative is inconsistent, internally incoherent and therefore necessarily untrue. Of course the rocks are fake. Of course the pictures are fake. Of course the Saturn V launches are "staged", with the big rockets going up, but not to the moon., to know where? What metaphor! We know this to be the case because we find the principals to be lying and obviously so. There is nothing subtle about this, and so there is no mystery to any of this, to the rocks, to the pics. It all must be counterfeit. There is no other explanation consistent with the fraudulent narrative.

If a NASA principal tells the people at Lick Observatory the precise coordinates of Tranquility Base during the evening of 07/20/1969 and withhold this information from the very man who needs it most, FIDO H. David Reed, we know Apollo must be bogus. How can it be otherwise?

If during the flight of Apollo 8 astronaut Borman gets diarrhea and his poop floats throughout the zero G cabin contaminating everything without anything that remotely resembles an appropriate response to it all by Charles Berry or one of the other pretend doctors, we know Apollo simply cannot be a bona fide space adventure to the moon. It can only be super fake, just based right there on the Borman diarrhea episode alone. It could not have happened with real doctors in a real world and so we know this was the pretend world of Apollo where it doesn't matter if salmonella adhere to Jim Lovell's eyebrows or not. It's only pretend bacteria after all. Score one for imagination and laughs though. Too bad the funny diarrhea story cost us $130,000,000,000. You'd think after the fake Borman loose poop episode that they would have come up with a fake contingency plan for future episodes of fraudulent g.i. distress, but their imaginations were limited.

You say real rocks and I say fake diarrhea. You say real photos and I say these lost astronauts couldn't score a Boy Scouts of America Map and Compass Navigation merit badge. We are at an impasse yes, but I pay no attention to the rocks and pics any more. I read what the astronauts say and the astronauts lie to my face, so I know Apollo cannot be true.

So sad…………..
Patrick1000 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:12 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.