Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Kid Eager]

oh gawd. (tl:dr)^tl:dr

 

[dafydd]

HIDING THE BIRD

A DETAILED INTRODUCTION TO THE APOLLO 11 MISSION REPORT'S LUNAR LANDING COORDINATE TABLE AND ITS HORRIFYING IMPLICATIONS OF APOLLO 11 MISSION REPORT FRAUDULENCE........


.

Yawn.

 

[Patrick1000]

Bogus Telemetry

We'll explore this all in much greater detail on the occasion of later posts , but the analysis there in my just previous post #1178 proves with great certainty, the telemetry data to be fake. The "real-time" data flowing to Reed and his colleagues COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REAL! They were being fed bogus numbers. Were bogusness not the case, we would see landing coordinate data consistent with Reed's story. But it is not, and this shows the Apollo 11 Mission Report and the entire Apollo 11 Mission to be fraudulent.

Additionally, the above analysis gives us a clue as to how it was at least in part achieved, at least how the flight officers were duped. Reed and the crew on before him were being fed coordinate solutions at variance from what the Mission Report ultimately provided, at great variance. Notice how Reed added an exclamation at the end of the sentence when he indicated the other solutions available prior to his coming on duty were 25,000 feet from his! So the guidance and flight dynamics people, honest Joes and Davids that they were, worked arduously with these phony numbers to provide solutions for something that never happened.

We know now a little bit as to how all this was done, bogus telemetry fed to honest flight officers and then data doctored after the event to make everything look hunky dory. Ugghhhhh! 25,000 feet!

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I had a spare day, so here's a TL;DR version:

The section of the report we are most interest in is Section 5 dealing with the descent of the Eagle and its landing at Tranquility Base.
...

H. David Reed as the FIDO or Flight Dynamics Officer is the person responsible for making the appropriate calculations to ... determine the coordinates and the relationship between the LM and CM and provide the Apollo 11 Mission with a satisfactory launch solution so that the LM may find the CM and rendezvous safely.
...

Reed says that because he did not have a good solution for the landing coordinates, he employed the LM's rendezvous radar in solving for the relationship between the Lunar Module and the Command Module. He stated in his writing that coordinates themselves were not necessary in arriving at a launch solution as what is more important is the relationship between the LM and CM.
...
Here is Reed's first person account...;

"...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! ..."

...

Reed says none of the real-time solutions available to him were within 25,000 feet of his. But here in the Mission report we see that is not the case. The PNGS solution is roughly 4,180 feet from Reed's solution. The AGS solution is roughly 5975 feet. The powered flight processor is 2987 feet from Reed. 25,000 feet is a long way from 2987.

 

[Dave Rogers]

So either there's a monstrous conspiracy to hide the fact that the Apollo missions were fakes, or Reed mis-spoke by saying twenty-five thousand when he meant twenty-five hundred?

Dave

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Well, Reed didn't care where Tranquility Base was. He only cared where the Eagle was relative to the CM. Could be most of the error he's talking about was in the position of the CM.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Of course, this doesn't explain why Patrick thinks that such anomalies mean the data's faked. If they'd faked it, why would they fake large discrepancies?

 

[abaddon]

<snip yet another wall of text>

TL;DR

Why does the word concise pass over your head repeatedly?

Do you have reading comprehension issues?

 

[drewid]

Well he did already atate that there was a 20,000 foot error in the orbit numbers.

Of course Fattydash could have got his maths wrong, it's been known.

 

[drewid]

TL;DR

Why does the word concise pass over your head repeatedly?

Do you have reading comprehension issues?

It's deliberate. He can write concisely but is choosing not to.

 

[drewid]

...immensely rich rewards for those Apollo 11 researchers courageous enough to face the daunting implications.

This could be the funniest thing you've ever written, and that's saying something.

 

[abaddon]

This could be the funniest thing you've ever written, and that's saying something.

Unintentional revelation of motive, perhaps?

 

[Patrick1000]

Of course it is 25,000 feet

So either there's a monstrous conspiracy to hide the fact that the Apollo missions were fakes, or Reed mis-spoke by saying twenty-five thousand when he meant twenty-five hundred?

Dave

Of course it is 25,000 feet. The Mission report itself said 20,000 feet from the "targeted site" and the targeted site's coordinates were one of the solutions available to Reed. That does not even take into account the radial drift from the targeted site coordinates . Reed emphasized the magnitude of the coordinate discrepancy by placing an exclamation mark at the end of the sentence emphasizing the 25,000 foot difference and the serious implications it would have. Surely he would not have written 2500 feet!. Reed took off his head set in squaring off with fight Director Milt Windler. And in Reed's quote repeated below, he informs us he only did this when he had a big problem. He would hardly take off his headset and make such a fuss if the distances being addressed were 2500 feet. And even if it was 2500 feet which it is not for the prior reasons mentioned, Reed is telling us here this was a huge problem, specific numbers aside. As it turned out, the other solutions were 4 and a half miles off roughly and Reed emphasized this would have been a significant problem were the launch trajectory calculated using the other 4 and a half mile off solutions. Sorry but this is very real and it translates to bogus telemetry and Apollo 11 Mission fraud. Here's Reed;


"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."

 

[Patrick1000]

Here's the exlamation mark!

So either there's a monstrous conspiracy to hide the fact that the Apollo missions were fakes, or Reed mis-spoke by saying twenty-five thousand when he meant twenty-five hundred?

Dave

You may feel it is no big deal, but Reed did and he was the FIDO, the authority on the problem, hardly an individual whose assessment should be questioned/second guessed by forum members here. Here's the big!, from Reed;

"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."

 

[dafydd]

Of course it is 25,000. The Mission report itself said 20,000 from the "targeted site" and the targeted site's coordinates were one of the solutions available to Reed. That does not even take into account the radial drift from the targeted site coordinates . Reed emphasized the magnitude of the coordinate discrepancy by placing an exclamation mark at the end of the sentence emphasizing the 25,000 foot difference and the serious implications it would have. Surely he would not have written 2500 feet!. Reed took off his head set in squaring off with fight Director Milt Windler. And in Reed's quote repeated below, he informs us he only did this when he had a big problem. He would hardly take off his headset and make such a fuss if the distances being addressed were 2500 feet. And even if it was 2500 feet which it is not for the prior reasons mentioned, Reed is telling us here this was a huge problem, specific numbers aside. As it turned out, the other solutions were 4 and a half miles off roughly and Reed emphasized this would have been a significant problem were the launch trajectory calculated using the other 4 and a half mile off solutions. Sorry but this is very real and it translates to bogus telemetry and Apollo 11 Mission fraud. Here's Reed;


"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."

So? That does does not alter the fact that the Moon landings happened.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Sounds increasingly likely to me that the discrepancy Reed's talking about is in the position of the CM and may be the same discrepancy which led to the LM overshooting the target landing site in the first place.

 

[Patrick1000]

The discrepency has to do with the LM landing coordinates nothing about the csm

Sounds increasingly likely to me that the discrepancy Reed's talking about is in the position of the CM and may be the same discrepancy which led to the LM overshooting the target landing site in the first place.

This coordinate business has nothing to do with the CSM except as regards it is part of the launch solution. Here is Reed;

"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."

Nothing there per Reed about the CSM in this particular quote. He is talking about the landing coordinates of the LM as determined by the PNGS, AGS, planned targeting, photos and MFSN. They are worthless as they differ so much from one another and cannot be used to calculate a solution to bring the Eagle to the CSM.

 

[Patrick1000]

Of course it alters everything, this poves the telemetry is fake.

So? That does does not alter the fact that the Moon landings happened.

Means plenty. We have incontrovertible proof that the telemetry is fake and so the Apollo 11 Mission is fake. No other way to read this.

 

[Patrick1000]

Try something substanstive

This could be the funniest thing you've ever written, and that's saying something.

Care to take a shot at debunking my claim?

 

[Patrick1000]

same for you abaddon

TL;DR

Why does the word concise pass over your head repeatedly?

Do you have reading comprehension issues?

care to try debunking this?