Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
You're not off the hook Matt

matt.tansy said:
Only if you flip 2000 years of philosophy on its head and reverse modus tollens.

You said he got it from the DSKY!!! Drop out of school. You'd make a great stand up comedian.

Unless someone at NASA got on a phone and told somebody. Hey, that's what happened!

Did you just miss the fact that you just wrote the coordinates were displayed on the DSKY? You guarantee us one laugh per sentence.
That would be the Labor Day school break.

Hey! Add the footnote (a) corrections to the PGNCS position (you know, the position displayed on the DSKY?) and see what you get.
Click to expand...

Look at footnote C Matt, it says and I quote;

"THESE COORDINATE VALUES ARE REFERENCED TO THE MAP AND INCLUDE THE CORRECTION FACTORS."

I'll repeat that for you Matt, "AND INCLUDE THE CORRECTION FACTORS".

So per NASA's own document, the Mission Report Section 5, Table iV, "THE LUNAR LANDING COORDINATES" every set of coordinates is not the same Matt; the PNGS, AGS, flight processor, AOT , rendezvous radar, accelerometer RECONSTRUCTION!, photography. All different and PER FOOTNOTE C ALL INCLUDE ALREADY THE CORRECTION FACTORS. As should be obvious Matt because the east coordinates are close to 23 26 00. If you corrected those, you'd be way off east-west wise. Please check with your colleagues on this.

So Matt, the numbers don't match up. AND somebody told Agnus Macpherson that 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east was in the DSKY display. Now as far as I am concerned , its fake, nothing is in the display, the whole thing is bogus. But somebody told Macpherson this story so this honest journalist would report THESE SCRIPTED COORDINATES! WERE IN ARMSTRONG'S DSKY WINDOWS.

Again Matt, check your Mission report, footnote C, the corrections are already there and if you did "correct" you'd throw the east -west coordinates off, which are close as they appear. The lunar module targeted numbers do not apply. We are talking about realized coordinate calculations, not what the LM targeted.

So Matt, the numbers, where did they come from? Feel free to help him out RAF.
 
Last edited:
A noob like this bragging about debating the Great Jay Utah (who spent most of the last year not posting) . . .

Somethin' don't add up.
 
Patrick1000 said:
Matt, the point stands and as all can see it is a good one! Armstrong has the coordinates outside of the context of their "official Apollo 11 Mission " calculation, by any means!

Possession of the numbers outside of NASA's recognized Apollo 11 Mission context amounts to foreknowledge. To know the coordinates before they are calculated is commensurate with no other explanation than FRAUD.

You would do well to give this one a shot Matt. In all seriousness, give it a try really.

Thanks for your challenges over the last 2 weeks. Hope to see a good answer from you when I get to Europe.

Otherwise, until Sept. best to you, Pat
Click to expand...

Just like many other here, I'd like to see you back up your claims with facts...

Oh - and since when has India been in Europe?
 
Patrick1000 said:
You are looking mighty foolish Patrick1000
Click to expand...

Fixed that forya

Well since you missed the plane do you have a good crab salad recipe?

Oh - and since when has India been in Europe?
Click to expand...

Why allow facts to enter into his made up stuff universe?

Now as far as I am concerned , its fake, nothing is in the display, the whole thing is bogus.
Click to expand...

How do you explain them being at that location on the Moon then? You keep seeming to forget that - and only a complete [insert description] would do so, LOL
 
Last edited:
Still in big trouble Matt , you and Neil.

addendum, not "way" off . That was too strong. But for example, for the first east coordinate 23.46, if you convert this to the "minutes and seconds of arc form", you get 23 27' 36". So fairly close to begin with, but most definitely not 23 26' 00". Now if you subtract the correction factor, 4' 17", you get 23 23' 19" which pushes the east coordinate farther away from 23 26' 00' than it was to begin with and this is true for some of the other figures AND it is not applicable because the correction factor is included AS EXPLICITLY STATED.

So Matt, let's phrase the question a different way. Who told this insanely bogus story to the journalist Agnus Macpherson about the coordinates in the DSKY? If I rephrase the question, does that make it easier to answer?

Help him out RAF!
 
Last edited:
Patrick1000 said:
Look at footnote C Matt, it says and I quote;

"THESE COORDINATE VALUES ARE REFERENCED TO THE MAP AND INCLUDE THE CORRECTION FACTORS."

I'll repeat that for you Matt, "AND INCLUDE THE CORRECTION FACTORS".

So per NASA's own document, the Mission Report Section 5, Table iV, "THE LUNAR LANDING COORDINATES" every set of coordinates is not the same Matt; the PNGS, AGS, flight processor, AOT , rendezvous radar, accelerometer RECONSTRUCTION!, photography. All different and PER FOOTNOTE C ALL INCLUDE ALREADY THE CORRECTION FACTORS.
Click to expand...

Still lying about the correction factors again, I see. Footnote (c) is clearly next to, and only next to, the "photography" position for the degree-minutes-seconds position. The photography position given in degrees and decimal degrees, when converted to degrees-minutes-seconds, do not match the position given in degrees-minutes-seconds so therefore are referenced to the trajectory coordinate system. If the reconstructed accelerometer position has the map corrections applied it matches the position given to Lick.

hQS6Y.png
 
Last edited:
RAF help him out!

Rincewind said:
Just like many other here, I'd like to see you back up your claims with facts...

Oh - and since when has India been in Europe?
Click to expand...

India via Europe, flight delayed, this is fun.

Try my challenge big mouth, let's see you come up with an explanation as to why Neil Armstrong and the people at Lick Observatory have the Tranquility Base coordinates before they are calculated by the Mission Control people. AND per Armstrong's numerous personal accounts, he knows the coordinates not, the whole time he is on the surface of the moon.

I claim that to be a fact and have provided ample support with excellent references, some from NASA's own MISSION REPORT.

So smarty pants, I like my facts. Let's see yours.

Good luck, Matt could use some help, see my post to him above.
 
Last edited:
Patrick1000 said:
India via Europe, flight delayed, this is fun.

Try my challenge big mouth, let's see you come up with an explanation as to why Neil Armstrong and the people at Lick Observatory have the Tranquility Base coordinates before they are calculated by the Mission Control people. AND per Armstrong's numerous personal accounts, he knows the coordinates not, the whole time he is on the surface of the moon.

I claim that to be a fact and have provided ample support with excellent references, some from NASA's own MISSION REPORT.

So smarty pants, I like my facts. Let's see yours.

Good luck, Matt could use some help, see my post to him above.
Click to expand...


But the LM was on the Moon so all in all who cares what your addled brain squirrels keep telling you to say? You do realize its just nonsense you keep repeating.

Why are you still lying about going on a plane? Is lying so engrained in your posting style that you must add lies to everything you post?

Do you prefer green or yellow onions in your crab salad?
 
The point stands and all the more so! Help him out RAF

matt.tansy said:
Still lying about the correction factors again, I see. Footnote (c) is clearly next to, and only next to, the "photography" position for the degree-minutes-seconds position. The photography position given in degrees and decimal degrees, when converted to degrees-minutes-seconds, do not match the position given in degrees-minutes-seconds so therefore are referenced to the trajectory coordinate system. If the reconstructed accelerometer position has the map corrections applied it matches the position given to Lick.

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/hQS6Y.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...

First of all, my point stands about using the correction factors on all of the other east coordinates. In no case does it give you 23 26' 00". AND my dear friend , I am so very glad that you brought this up because it gives an excellent example of how these clowns play loose and fast with the numbers to dupe us.

So according to Matt and NASA's Mission Report, the photography determined coordinates, once converted to the "minutes and seconds of arc" form will yield 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" E once we complete the calculation with the appropriate correction factors. For the north coordinate 0.647 we have the equivalent 00 38' 49" and to that we add 2' 25" and obtain 00 41 14". Now in the east coordinate case we have 23.505, which converts to 23 30' 18. We subtract 4' 17" and obtain 23 26' 01". Indeed close, but very much not 00 41 15 and closer still but not 23 26 01. AND here is one case where EXACT coordinates do matter because as we have see, the staff at Lick Observatory was given the north coordinate 00 41' 15" not 00 41' 14" and somebody told the Flight International Journalist that 00 41 15 north was in Armstrong's DSKY AND IN THIS CASE YES IT DOES NATTER THAT THE NUMBERS DO NOT MATCH EXACTLY FOR OBVIOUS REASONS, THOSE BEING , 00 41 15 IS INDDED THE EXACT COORDINATE OF TRANQUILITY BASE AND EVEN WITH ALL THIS BOGUS JIVE NASA DOESN'T SHOW WHERE THE NUMBER COMES FROM. AND THE FIDO ON DUTY EXPLICITLY STATES THAT ALL OF THESE NUMBERS IN THE MISSION REPORT , EXCEPT FOR HIS OWN OF COURSE ARE NOT WITHIN 5 MILES OF HIS CALCULATION, 0.636 NORTH AND 23.50 EAST WHICH ARE THE COORDINATES THE OFFICIAL NARRATIVE SAYS WERE EMPLOYED FOR THE LAUNCH TRAJECTORY CALCULATION.

So anyway you splice , dice, or NASA cooks its books, one never comes up with a north coordinate of 00 41 15 and we have plenty of evidence by way of NASA's own launch trajectory specialist David Reed's testimony that ALL OF THESE NUMBERS APPEARING IN THE MISSION REPORT ARE FRAUDULENT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE FOR THE RENDEZVOUS RADAR WHICH WAS REED'S OWN METHOD OF CALCULATION.

So the point stands. Where did the phony numbers come from Matt. Show me how to get 00 41 15 north from any of this jive. I triple space dog dare ya' to come up with an reasonable explanation outside of FRAUD!
 
Last edited:
Pat, the question was when (what time) did lick get the coordinates. As in 0400. See? That is a time.

So, what time did lick get the coordinates & what were the coordinates?
 
Green, for sure. Love 'em.

When I have a kid in my kitchen helping cook, and they get to cut green onions, that child is known as the "scallion scullion." :D

Anyway, I'm glad patrick is continuing to maintain a good sense of humor despite missing his flight to India and having to go the long way around and get there via Europe. I can admire a 54 year old medical doctor who still uses "triple dog dare." I don't care who ya are, that's just funny.
 
Patrick1000 said:
delete a word salad
Click to expand...


The LM is still sitting up there on the Moon, Patrick1000, how do you explain that?

Do you think celery should be added to a crab salad? Or is it too crunchy?

Why have you stopped lying about the plane? It was the best part of your mind mumbling

Green, for sure. Love 'em.
Click to expand...

Yes AG you are true man of the salad
 
Last edited:
And Matt's preferred photo method wasn't completed until long after!

Last point, this bogus photo method hardly applies as we are talking about coordinates in the DSKY after just touching down and the coordinates given to the Lick Observatory staff well before photo analysis was complete. Indeed , as well referenced above, Donald Beattie commented in his very good book, TAKING SCIENCE TO THE MOON", that the photo analysis was not complete until after the astronauts returned to earth. Again I quote with respect to the photo analysis issue from Beattie's book;

"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."

Donald A. Beattie. Taking Science to the Moon: Lunar Experiments and the Apollo Program (ebook Locations 2912-2915). I capitalized "RETURNED"

So the photo determined method does not even apply here Matt. It was complete after the astronauts returned AND the launch trajectory specialist says per his own account none of the numbers in that Mission Report were within 5 miles of his. I believe Reed as he had no reason to lie. his testimony is supported by the numerous claims, well documented, of a lack of precise knowledge with respect to the astronauts location while they were on the surface of the moon.


So you still have a problem because per NASA's own account, the photo data was not available until after the astronauts returned and so is not available to you Matt as an answer.
 
Last edited:
Patrick1000 said:
So you still have a problem because per NASA's own account, the photo data was not available until after the astronauts returned
Click to expand...

Returned from WHERE Patrick1000 with photos of WHAT Patrick1000? - have you forgotten what the squirrels in your head told you - the astronauts didn't go to the Moon (have you forgotten) and why would, in the squirrels world, 'faked' Moon photographs allow them to find the location they have told you they [evil NASA] already knew?

How again do you explain all those Apollo LMs sitting on the moon?

Why again are you going on about this?

Mustard in the salad, a touch perhaps, yellow or brown?

Oh and what happened to the plane trip - could you tell us the flight number so we can watch the delay? Its always fun to play with the minds of people making stuff up.
 
Last edited:
The photos don't count!

Please note again for emphasis Matt, I'll capitalize the relevant phrase by Beattie, one of the key Apollo Lunar Scientists;

"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."

I hope that lays to rest any nonsense that they "found/determined" 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east by way of examining photographs while the astronauts were on the surface of the moon, or pretending to be anyway.

Donald A. Beattie. Taking Science to the Moon: Lunar Experiments and the Apollo Program (ebook Locations 2912-2915). I capitalized "RETURNED"
 
Last edited:
Foreknowledge demonstrates FRAUD regardless of rocks , photos telemetry !

Hans said:
Returned from WHERE Patrick1000 with photos of WHAT Patrick1000? - have you forgotten what the squirrels in your head told you - the astronauts didn't go to the Moon (have you forgotten) and why would, in the squirrels world, 'faked' Moon photographs allow them to find the location they have told you they [evil NASA] already knew?

How again do you explain all those Apollo LMs sitting on the moon?

Why again are you going on about this?

Mustard in the salad, a touch perhaps, yellow or brown?

Oh and what happened to the plane trip - could you tell us the flight number so we can watch the delay? Its always fun to play with the minds of people making stuff up.
Click to expand...

If I show there was foreknowledge of the Eagle's landing site, FRAUD is a given and we can puzzle out the what about this and that later. If I prove foreknowledge, I have proven FRAUD. That is the beauty of this. It is a deadly approach to this problem because foreknowledge equates with the rocks not having been collected by Armstrong. It equates with a proof that the pictures are bogus. If I prove foreknowledge, you cannot take that away from me, nor take away every other thing which it implies, and it indirectly , though most definitely proves FRAUD. If there is foreknowledge of the Eagle's landing site, the Apollo 11 Mission must be phony for knowing those numbers is otherwise impossible.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom