Let's take a creful look at matt's point
Of course, you think it does, otherwise your lame brain theory would be in even deeper trouble. Footnote (c) applies to the photo position obtained from the map mentioned in footnote (a), not to any other navigation method. I posted a picture of it! Everybody can see it. Who here can see it?
Since you intentionally neglected to mention the reconstructed accelerometer trajectory out of sheer intellectual cowardice allow me to quote myself:
Yet you continue:
Bolding mine. This whole time you've been saying Lick was given the EXACT rendezvous radar position before Reed came in the morning, and mocked my assertion the positions did not match, saying they were close enough, and yet his position was off, if you apply the map corrections, which you're not supposed to do, by 40" of latitude and 17" of longitude, and even more off if you don't apply the map correction. Yet the reconstructed accelerometer trajectory is off by 1" and 1" (no doubt due to rounding errors when converting between a thousandth decimal place and one second of arc) and suddenly that's not close enough??? How does your ludicrously inconsistent logic not make your brain explode?
If you're going to apply the corrections to the rendezvous radar position you have to apply them to the reconstructed accelerometer position, too. So Mission Control reconstructed the PGNCS trajectory with the known errors and came up with a new position. Someone converted it to map coordinates and someone else passed it on to Lick. Mystery Solved!
Yet all the positions in Table 5-IV, including the ones available when Reed came into work, are within 5 miles of each other. So this FIDO either can't do simple spherical trigonometry or he is using artistic license. Yet another non-issue you keep regurgitating.
Since you will just quote the same old nonsense and ignore all this information I bid you good night. Your mom should be in soon to tuck you into bed.
I thank Matt for bringing up the point about all of the possible coordinates obtained for the landing site "Tranquility Base", as determined by the many methods employed, calculating out to being within 5 miles of one another, and moreover, calculating out to being not just 5 miles distant from one another, but very very very close to one another indeed.
Take a look here;
The Mission Report lists;
primary guidance coordinates as 0.649 north, 23.46 east
abort guidance as 0.639 north and 23.44 east
powered flight processor as 0.631 north and 23.47 east
alignment optical telescope as 0.523 north and 23.42 east
trajectory accelerometer as 0.647 north and 23.505 east
photography/maps as 0.647 north and 23.505 east
The latter coordinate pair there, when converted to the other coordinate form featuring minutes and seconds of arc , actually comes very close to the magic Tranquility Base numbers 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east, once the conversion is made and the appropriate "map based" correction factors are added or subtracted, the photography coordinates come out as 00 41 14 north and 23 26 01 east. remember though that according to the official NASA Apollo 11 Mission Narrative, these photography coordinates are not determined until well after the astronauts are "back on planet Earth". So these coordinates are not discovered "in time" to be utilized during the landing, or any time during the actual trip for that matter.
The other coordinates are all very close to one another with the exception of the AOT north coordinate determination. These other coordinates already have the "map based correction factors" added or subtracted in. So these coordinates as obtained by way of the PGNS, AGS, AOT, processor and accelerometer stand as calculated. These are the coordinates that NASA reports were obtained by employing the various methods in the "hunt" for Armstrong and Aldrin's Eagle.
As previously posted in my #47, Flight Dynamics Officer H. David Reed stated when he arrived at work to calculate the trajectory that the Eagle would pursue to find Collins, he found something very much OTHER than the situation as presented in the Mission Report, very different from the closely agreeing coordinate value data as presented above. Reed says none of the coordinates matched up and he had no idea where the Eagle was. All of the methods employed gave coordinates at significance variance from one another according to Reed.
If we look at the numbers above, we see this to not be the case. The numbers, with the exception of the AOT north coordinate, agree very well, and as Matt pointed out, are very much within five miles of one another.
But Reed claims the contrary. He says in his chapter of FROM THE TRENCHES OF MISSION CONTROL TO THE CRATERS OF THE MOON that because there was this significant variance, he wound up calculating a launch program utilizing the rendezvous radar of the LM "in reverse". Once he did that , he got coordinates that brought the alleged LM back to the alleged CSM. And Reed went on to comment that his rendezvous radar solution featured Tranquility Base coordinates that were 5 miles from all of the other solutions which themselves were at significant variance from one another.
We may conclude form this that H. David Reed is making up this story, intentionally lying, OR NASA is, and the coordinates in the Mission Report are fabricated as I have previously pointed out.
I see no reason for Reed to lie/make up this story. NASA has very good reason as far as I can tell.
Here's the quotes again from Reed's chapter in the "TRENCHES" book;
"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 Matt's drawing attention to the fact that all of the coordinates do coincide, do agree, do match up, emphasizes their having been forged. For these coordinates that match up so well, cannot possible be the coordinates that Reed referred to in his chapter of the book. there is no other way to see it. though I welcome other interpretations and of course we shall all consider their merits as based on a simple credibility test.
No one from my opposing camp's side has presented a good explanation for this contradiction, Reed vs NASA. I vote for Reed and unless Matt or another official story apologist can present a better explanation for the glaring internal incoherence of the narrative here, we may all confidently conclude, these coordinates, with the exception of Reed's own rendezvous radar determined coordinates, are FORGED. and FORGED COORDINATES EQUATES WITH FRAUD.
) and screwed up as follows:
