Hey DC,
Thanks for the videos. Those are funny, have seen them before. You have to be patient. I have only begun to present my case.
Here is a tiny example. Consider this; when I first brought up the abort notion, very recently, a few members simply didn't believe an abort was a consideration from the position of an alleged translunar coast. Well of course it is. It is a very main stream notion, nothing "way out" there about it or anything like that.
So in order to even begin to present my case about one of the Apollo inconsistencies, first I have to provide references to support my assertion with regard to something that really is not controversial at all, an abort contingency from a translunar coast vantage.
There are many official story supporters who of course know such contingencies are part of the mainstream story/view and they could pop in right now and say, "the Patrick guy is correct, there is such a thing as an abort contingency for a full fledged high speed turn around". But as it turns out, a discussion like this seldom goes that way. Rather, I actually have to show some official story advocates the truth with respect to features of the official story. In this case, the truth that a translunar coast vantage abort contingency did exist and was even "considered" in some of the Apollo scripts; Apollo 8 and Apollo 13 to my knowledge. There may be others.
So you can't really suggest I've failed in any fair sense yet, because the guys and gals arguing from the other side are first of all waiting for me to provide them with their own facts, the facts of the official story.
None of this I mind by the way. My point is only that it takes a great deal of time. It is a very slow process. I believe ApolloG commented above that my little abort reference from Chaikin's book debunked my own claim. I haven't even begun to present my best evidence for my claim yet. I am still in the process of first providing evidence there was such a thing as an abort from cislunar space.
So I am challenged every step of the way.
The NASA official story claims the Eagle's coordinates were not known with certainty until 08/01/1969. This is the official story claim. Nothing CT about it. Very mainstream, very much a part of the official story. Yet as you'll see, it will be me presenting NASA's own materials to support what others will view as a claim on my part, yet within the materials which stand as those of Apollo's official canon there is no big deal about this.
So DC, I'll proceed now with presenting a little about the abort thing in terms of references. You'd think I would not really need to as it is a part of the main, official story wise, but because it's not part of the main, public appreciation wise, it falls to me to point it out when arguing my case.
I like your videos and do not feel offended by the way because I am confident about all of this, as I was with my point about telescope magnification. But each point takes a great deal of time to make. So in building my case, a day, two, three, four may pass before in the context of this forum everyone agrees on something as fundamental as aborts from a cislunar vantage.
You'll see I have many interesting things to say, all from NASA's own story. Here's one to consider for example. In the Apollo 11 Post flight Mission Report, in the section on LASER RANGING RETRO-REFLECTOR it says;
"The Laser Ranging Retro-Reflector(LRRR) experiment is optimally designed for lunar night operation and has consequently not yet been acquired by any laser ranging stations".
Well this report is from July 24 1969. We know that the LRRR was not successfully targeted until 08/01/1969 per NASA and the Primary Investigators of the LRRR experiment. The experimenters published their reports in the professional journal Science. We also know that it was still "daytime" on the moon on 08/01/1969. We know from NASA itself and the Apollo experimental scientists that Lick Observatory was not able to find the location of the LM at 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east until 08/01/1969 because they could not provide the Lick Observatory scientists with their best estimation of the LRRR's position until they analyzed trajectory data and photo data from the mission.
All this being the undisputed case, we also know that someone from Houston gave Lick Observatory the numbers 00 41 15 and 23 26 00 east on the evening of 07/20/1969.
Taken together, the above facts as presented by NASA, the Apollo Lunar Scientists and the Lick Observatory staff constitute an utterly incoherent narrative. I of course will suggest it is the NASA piece that is out of place, that is the BIG LIE because I see no reason for the Apollo Lunar Scientists to lie, nor a reason for the Lick Observatory Staff to lie, nor a reason for the LRRR primary investigators to lie, but many reasons for NASA to lie.
In my presentation of the above. I will only use primary sources in presenting the facts as outlined, nothing conjectural. But each point I imagine might take days if I so care to work at it. I say that because I will be the one presenting to my challengers NASA's own official story, and I will be challenged every step of the way, as you can see I was when I first suggested there was such a thing as a cislular abort consideration/contingency.
So you may want to withhold your opinion about my abilities for a bit in fairness since the process is so very slow going. But if not, that is OK too, you may keep sending the videos. I think the astronauts are sort of funny too.
