Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[matt.tansy]

show me your research results matt, dying to see them

You're funny! I'm using your own posts to debunk you. Good job!

 

[Patrick1000]

Goes for you too DC. What a pack of cowards. Not one single attempt, not ONE!

For Glenn. The launch could have taken place anytime before Apollo 11 and after Surveyor VLL. I'll take a look at what I have on surveyor and see what they used for that, circumstances, setting, blah blah blah and see if I can come up with something reasonable for you.

Gotta' work Glenn, thanks for the good question, Pat

 

[matt.tansy]

Acronym of the Day: LPD

Landing Point Designator. Etched marking on the Commander's window of the LM. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/lpdin.jpg

The etching were on the inside and outside, and when lined up, allowed the commander to see where the LM's guidance computer was planning to land. The angle was computed based on the slant angle to the landing site and the pitch of the LM. The computer displayed the angle and the LMP called it out for the Commander. In the landing videos you can hear the LMP calling out data, including angles.

During the initial phase of PDI the LM was flying face down. The Commander could independently verify his downrange progress by marking landmarks with the LPD. This is how Armstrong knew they were going to overfly their landing site.

 

[Patrick1000]

The question Matt is when was Lick Observatory notified of the LM landing coordinates, who(Houston?) notified whom(Lick) and what were those coordinates?

The fact a notification to Lick Observatory occurred Matt is not a point in dispute. NASA, Lick, the Apollo Lunar Scientists and the LRRR primary investigators all report a notification was made and the Lick staff began targeting the LRRR not too long after the astronauts were alleged to have set it down.

Please answer this question. your statement above has nothing to do with the question as asked. the info is readily accessible.

thanks in advance for showing your bravery. I had thought not one on your side had the courage to even attempt this.

Gotta' work, out for a while.

Again, thanks for the effort.

 

[GlennB]

For Glenn. The launch could have taken place anytime before Apollo 11 and after Surveyor VLL. I'll take a look at what I have on surveyor and see what they used for that, circumstances, setting, blah blah blah and see if I can come up with something reasonable for you.

So, an Atlas-Centaur took off in secret on a covert mission?

Or, it was a published launch carrying a covert mission? If that, then what supposedly happened to the payload it was supposedly carrying? You know there's a substantial group of enthusiasts who just love to track satellites and the like.

Give it a thought while you flip burgers heal people today.

 

[nomuse]

Velocity drops off very quickly after TLI. At the end of TLI the capsule is traveling at about 11 km/s. One hour after TLI the capsule has slowed to 5.7 km/s. Twelve hours after TLI it has slowed to 2.0 km/sec.

Through trial and error I find an abort 5 hours after TLI is within the delta V of the CSM. From that position it is traveling 2.96 km/s with a flight path angle of 70.8° at a distance from the Earth of 73,700 km. A burn of 2.78 km/s in the proper direction would convert the original orbit into an orbit with that distance as the apogee and a perigee that would intercept the atmosphere (~400,000 feet, the "start" of the atmosphere). Perigee (i.e. re-entry) would occur 11 hours later. This burn leaves very little room to adjust when and where the capsule would re-enter.

Nice. I lacked the patience to do the math on it, but my gut estimate was 16-20 hours to touchdown -- with no maneuver fuel to finesse the re-entry for position or angle.

Have you had the patience to track down when anyone at flight control -- particularly flight surgeon -- knew any details about Borman's illness? Would be interesting to see if this was within the window for "short" abort (scenario I or II, as opposed to lunar-distance apogee).

 

[tsig]

I'd love to see nomuse and sts take a shot at my challenge. They are such confident and FAST researchers. Here is your opportunity to really embarrass PAtrick. the lynchpin of his argument can be pulled in a moment. Surely boys you are not afraid!!!???

Why would anybody care to take your 'challenge'. Your taunting other members strikes me as uncivil and puerile.

 

[nomuse]

I'd love to see nomuse and sts take a shot at my challenge. They are such confident and FAST researchers. Here is your opportunity to really embarrass PAtrick. the lynchpin of his argument can be pulled in a moment. Surely boys you are not afraid!!!???

What argument would that be? I can't even figure out what you are asking for, much less why you think it matters.

In what world does LRRR team getting an approximate position so they can get a start on hunting (while waiting on better data to arrive) NOT make sense? That's how people work!

 

[SezMe]

Goes for you too DC. What a pack of cowards. Not one single attempt, not ONE!

Quit calling people cowards.

The launch could have taken place anytime before Apollo 11 and after Surveyor VLL. I'll take a look at what I have on surveyor and see what they used for that, circumstances, setting, blah blah blah and see if I can come up with something reasonable for you.

I'm not familiar with US launch history. How big a window is this? Is there a database of launches that could be used to check this assertion? What launch sites were active at that time?

It seems like his nonsense claim is something that could be tested.

 

[nomuse]

So, an Atlas-Centaur took off in secret on a covert mission?

Or, it was a published launch carrying a covert mission? If that, then what supposedly happened to the payload it was supposedly carrying? You know there's a substantial group of enthusiasts who just love to track satellites and the like.

Give it a thought while you flip burgers heal people today.

In the middle of the Cold War, too. "Don't mind the honking big rocket that's painted dead black and launched in the middle of the night, Ruskies. It's got nothing to do with you, promise!"

 

[Patrick1000]

Sorry, my use of the term "cowards" was indeed Inappropriate

You are absolutely correct. My use of the term "cowards" is most inappropriate and i sincerely apologize. i had become frustrated. Sorry. there was/is no reason for this.

For you nomuse; the question is simple. All agree that the Lick Observatory Staff received a meassge from someone within the Apollo program on the evening of 07/20/1969 informing the observatory's staff of the LRRR coordinates. NASA's own accounting of events on that evening features this as a simple fact.

the question is, when was the Lick Observatory staff notified of the LRRR coordinates, who notified whom as to what the coordinates were, and what were those coordinates?

this is a mainstream question, nothing tricky and the answer is accessable in materials widely available on the net and elsewhere.

 

[Erock]

Your claim has to be an unmanned mission placed them there, as I cannot imagine that even you with your non-scientific bias would suggest that it isn't actually there. Only somebody with the sheer stupidity of Jarrah White would make that ignorant claim

So I want to ask you some very simple questions.

If NASA has the capability of determining the exact position of a laser reflector on the Moon, how exactly could it do that? The same telemetry data used for a manned landing plus onsite analysis, would be used for any unmanned landing.

Ok, you answered this one. A mystery craft, nobody noticed, not least the Russians in a cold war. A whole specialist team needed to develop it, monitor it, land it, position it and then keep quiet and hope that this huge rocket wasn't noticed. Yeah, that doesn't wash.

You forgot this bit.....

"If they knew the position of a supposed unmanned laser.....

Why then would it invent such a convoluted account concerning the 'Lost Bird' if it already had a laser in place?

If NASA did not have a laser in place, how then could they give LICK exact co-ordinates that (though didn't work due to Earth positioning errors) turned out to be exactly where future laser ended up?

You appear to have some sort of contradiction here, perhaps you should explain your whole theory for all to see.


p.s. The 'dodgy script' scenario ain't cutting it."

Your whole theory relies on NASA embellishing the script to try and make it 'interesting'. Now that has some big problems all on its own, not least the telemetry data coming in to MCC matching this, and nobody smart enough to notice! Even when they used test telemetry it was basic in the extreme, so the idea you propose to fake this enormous amount of consistent and unique data is monstrously hard, if not impossible.

Your scenario, surprise suprise, relies on the dodgy script writers! It makes no sense at all for NASA to do this, particularly when all this 'extra stuff' is going on in the background. There was no reason at all for this to be done, since they had the LRR position already, according to your whacky theory.


p.s. I think you are deliberately avoiding using the quote button so that everyone has to go back and try to reference what it is you are responding to. Are you being deceitful here?

Use the quote button, pretty please.

 

[Patrick1000]

At Least I Took a Shoot

OK Erock, at least I took a shot. Care to take a shot at my question(s)? Much easier than yours to me. i gave it a go.

Haven't heard back from nomuse after i clarified the question, pretty straight forward, imagine this will be a piece of cake for him.

sts is a capable researcher, looking forward to his findings with respect to my simple question dealing with Lick Observatory and their being furnished with the coordinates of Tranquility Base on the evening of 07/20/1969.

What say you sts, got game? Thanks! cannot wait to hear back.

 

[Patrick1000]

Erock, honestly, i hate that quote thing. It is a matter of style. the boxes bug me. It is easy enough to use. I'll just cut and paste, no big. Guess I am old fashion. Sorry, thanks for putting up with that. I simply do not like the boxes personally.

 

[Patrick1000]

Sez, launch of an occult surveyor type lander might be testable, then again, might not. Perhaps they did it in secret. We launch/launched plenty of missiles/rockets without public notification.

 

[GlennB]

Erock, honestly, i hate that quote thing. It is a matter of style. the boxes bug me. It is easy enough to use. I'll just cut and paste, no big. Guess I am old fashion. Sorry, thanks for putting up with that. I simply do not like the boxes personally.

Then please use them as a courtesy so that others can track back easily through a series of exchanges. It isn't about your convenience or preferences. (In case you didn't know, quoted text contains a little "->" that quickly takes you to the post quoted.)

 

[Patrick1000]

Tsig, you are correct, it is silly for me to get worked up over the forum stuff. I appreciate your feedback. this type of thing is much more important than Apollo. really do appreciate you saying something. I was way out of line. Frustration is not an acceptable excuse. Pat

 

[Patrick1000]

Ok will try Glenn.

 

[uk_dave]

Patrick,

Apologies in advance if this question has been asked and answered by you elsewhere on this thread, but I am curious to know what you think the purpose of all these 'fake' events was?

I mean, we've had your 'Borman poop' incident, which apparently introduces an unnecessary complication into the 'fake' appollo 8 mission and which is quite obvious to someone with an intellect such as yours.

We have the apparent comments by Apollo 11 FIDO regarding their inability to accurately place the landed vehicle (a complication to that mission which, apparently, leaves said FIDO completely unconcerned but piques the interest of someone with an intellect such as yours)

And (as far as I have followed this thread) we now have comments about a faulty digital display which, once again enters a further unnecessary complication into the 'faked' story as presented by the 'actor' astronauts.

What's the point of all these complications? Why do you believe NASA decided to include within their various 'faked' missions incidents which to those with special intellect are obvious signs of fakery?

I mean, one might start to think that the missions were actually real, but these stories of poop and faulty displays were added just to make some people look really silly 40 years after the event.

What say you?

 

[Patrick1000]

Motive

UK,

The obvious motives would be prestige for USA and intimidation of our antagonists(USSR).

That said, there may well be occult motives, e.g. military motives to name one possibility.

Will try and write more for you perhaps tomorrow. i am so very tired now.

thank you for the question, Pat