Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Oji]

I thought it might be useful to cut the argument down to its essentials:

APOLLO 11 MISSION REPORT COORDINATE ANALYSIS LEADS INEXORABLY TO FOOL

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Yeah, he seems to have given up his attempt to quit posting by pretending to go somewhere. I was hoping he'd come back with a sock puppet. That would have suggested he's a college freshman who finally got his uni email account. Instead we continue to have no proof he's anything other than a high schooler, and loads of proof he's not a 53 year old doctor.

 

[dafydd]

It must be old age. I just cannot make any sense of this stuff.

HELP!!!!

It's CT material. It's not supposed to make sense.

 

[dafydd]

I'm unfamiliar with this term. Can you elaborate for me? Thanks.

Lewis Carroll,The Hunting Of The Snark. The Bellman in the poem has a repeating line,'What I tell you three times is true.' It fits truthers and CT fans like a glove. Instead of providing facts they just repeat the same old rubbish.

edit. I see Dave has already explained.

(or was it just one line? I can't find my copy of the book)

 

[Loss Leader]

So, then, you've proven to me that Apollo 11 did not go to the moon. I accept it. I believe it. I understand and agree with your reasoning.

What about 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17? Did any of those make it to the moon?

 

[dafydd]

We on the HB side could say "alleged" every time we make a statement about a mission statement or exchange. We assume most understand this to be our position. The mission is fake and these exchanges are not occurring in any real sense. Speaking from the HB side, we assume all on your side understand we believe this to be the case. It simply makes the communication easier than to say, "the Collins character, the Collins actor, the Collins thespian, in the fake Apollo 11 script said,. "blah blah blah" ". But that is what we mean. We are referring to an actor, not an astronaut. From here on out, assume this to be my meaning. The thing is fake, the astronauts are speaking lines, etc.. The astronauts are actors.

The Apollo 11 equipment never went to the moon. It was not proven to be functional in the context of a space trip. Just because Charles Draper has a great navigation device, doesn't mean it was employed in a bona fide moon adventure. Having/being in possession of sophisticated equipment and verifying that that equipment was employed in a genuine lunar landing are 2 different things.

I have show the telemetry data to be fraudulent, the Mission Report to be fraudulent and so too the entirety of the Apollo 11 Mission. The equipment may or may not work under any given set of circumstances, but as of July 24 1969, it had not been proven to do so as that lunar mission was bogus. We can look at Apollo 12 and the question of that particular batch of goods later.

But you have not. Repeat it as much as you like,you will never turn it into the truth.

 

[dafydd]

So, then, you've proven to me that Apollo 11 did not go to the moon. I accept it. I believe it. I understand and agree with your reasoning.

What about 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17? Did any of those make it to the moon?

Are we going for the Guinness Book Of World Records longest thread?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

For that matter, what about 8 and 10?

Oh, wait, I remember now. He "proved" 8 was "fake" because Borman crapped his pants but they didn't immediately decelerate from 25000 miles per hour to zero and then zoom back to earth at 25000 miles per hour so he could have a shower and get some fresh tighty-whiteys.

 

[Kiwi9]

Back to the LRRR that Patrick1000 says must have been planted by a Surveyor craft.

I've long been under the impression that those Surveyors were fairly unsophisticated when it came to really complex robotics:- Turn and tilt the camera, extend a scoop, push and pull some soil, place some on a spot on the spacecraft for analysis, fire the rocket engine to launch the craft briefly and land it again, and send pictures and other information back to earth.

And the LRRR which Lick successfully hit on 1 August 1969:- It was designed by a whole lot of scientific guys who had in mind deploying it in a very particular way as follows:

From the Apollo 11 Lunar Surface Operations Plan, June 27, 1969, pages 60 & 61

(Go to the Apollo 11 ALSJ and click on "Final Lunar Surface Procedures" to view or download.)

Select site for PSE and LR3 deployments, nominally 70 ft south of the S/C

Move to deployment site with cameras. Estimate distance and position with respect to the LM

Place LR3 with base toward Earth. (Astronaut faces east for Sites 1 and 2 and west for Sites 3,4, and 5). Rest/prepare area (clear rocks, smooth surface as required)

Deploy LR3:

a. Simultaneously grasp deployment boom ("hockey stick") and pull pin inside carry handle. Remove and discard "hockey stick" (1)

b. Simultaneously grasp deployment handle and release ring (Left side of package) to release deployment handle pull pin (2)

c. Pull deployment handle to extend handle six inches, to the first detent position, and to partially release array. Discard handle release ring

d. Grasp pull ring on array tilting handle, pull to remove protective cover. Discard cover (3)

e. Grasp deployment handle to steady package. (4A) Grasp array tilting handle, push down rotate handle 45 degrees. Pull outward to extend to detent position (9.5 inches) and complete array release (4B)

f. Use deployment handle to steady package. Use array tilting handle to tilt array (to detent for landing site)

* The circled numbers and symbols correspond to decals on the packages.

g. Release tilting handle (should spring back into stowed position)

h. Depress trigger on deployment handle, pull handle to extend to full (5) extent (an additional 27 inches) and rotate package to lunar surface

i. Check and report experiment aligned and level to within +/- 5 degrees. (6) ALIGN Use gnomon shadow cast on partial compass rose for alignment. Use bubble for level indication. Use deployment handle to align and level as required

Finally, page 62 says that whatever it was that was setting this up then had to photograph the LRRR and the seismic experiment (PSE) and avoid walking upsun of the PSE because shadows on its solar panels could affect its internal electronics.

Strangely, those instructions refer to an astronaut, but that's just silly because there wouldn't have been any on board a Surveyor craft. So let's hope that Patrick1000 can tell us all about those robotics and how they managed those tasks.

Take just the first two: Select a site 70 feet south of the spacecraft and move to it. It sounds as if the robotics must have been remarkably human-like, and we know that the deployment was accomplished so successfully that the LRRR is still working just as those guys intended it to work. And I can imagine that they would have screamed blue murder if NASA had attempted to substitute a much simpler LRRR than the one they designed.

 

[dafydd]

For that matter, what about 8 and 10?

Oh, wait, I remember now. He "proved" 8 was "fake" because Borman crapped his pants but they didn't immediately decelerate from 25000 miles per hour to zero and then zoom back to earth at 25000 miles per hour so he could have a shower and get some fresh tighty-whiteys.

Wait a minute. Ignoring the fact that kind of thing would have been taken into consideration,am I to understand that Patrick is saying that a fake mission which never took place was aborted when the actual rocket was on the way to the Moon?

 

[Kiwi9]

...am I to understand that Patrick is saying that a fake mission which never took place was aborted when the actual rocket was on the way to the Moon?

No, you have got it wrong. What he's saying is that a fake mission which never took place should have been aborted when the actual rocket was actually on the way to the Moon.

Or something like that, anyway. It's sometimes hard to tell from his walls of words.

As you can see, his impeccable logic has already been pointed out in a few other posts on this page. I'd very much like to know when he was taught about logical fallacies and who by, and whether it was when he studied for his multiple degrees. He's highly-qualified, you know.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

If the few at the top hoodwinked the 400,000 scientists and engineers into designing and building and testing a working spaceship, capable of bringing 3 astronauts to the moon and back, why did they not use the spaceship?

I can only assume that he believes the scientists and engineers were at least as ignorantly arrogant as he, himself, actually is. They were all arrogant enough to believe themselves capable of producing something awesome, but were too incompetent to notice that they had actually failed to do so...

And, of course, the non-scientist and non-engineer puppeteers were quite aware of this failure... somehow...

 

[theprestige]

If the Bellman tells me what he tells me three times is true is it true?

 

[sts60]

Back to the LRRR that Patrick1000 says must have been planted by a Surveyor craft...

And the LRRR which Lick successfully hit on 1 August 1969:- It was designed by a whole lot of scientific guys who had in mind deploying it in a very particular way as follows:...

Strangely, those instructions refer to an astronaut, but that's just silly because there wouldn't have been any on board a Surveyor craft. So let's hope that Patrick1000 can tell us all about those robotics and how they managed those tasks....

Well, yes, that's one of the fundamental points that eludes poor Patrick1000/fattydash/HighGain/DoctorTea/BFischer/BSpassky/mvinson/piersquared/<and even more sock-puppets>. The LRRR was designed to be deployed by humans. There were contracts let for its design, manufacture, and testing. The instrument was stowed aboard the LM by actual people, and its deployment by actual people was practiced on Earth, and carried out on the Moon, with imagery and audio documentation of the deployment procedures in actual practice. All of those constitute evidence for the historical (and correct) version of how various observatories have been able to get returns off the reflector for decades. There is even imagery taken decades later from lunar orbit matching the EASEP deployment record.

By contrast, our poor pretend doctor/writer/grownup cannot, despite repeated requests - I asked him a month and a half ago and again a couple of weeks ago - provide any evidence whatsoever for his supposition that an LRRR was placed by an unmanned spacecraft.

He can't even come up with a consistent handwave - he has variously said it was launched on a Surveyor, on some other unspecified craft, or on the Apollo 11 stack. As with everything else, he simply can't keep his story straight. But never mind that the only story that actually fits the design of the LRRR is that it was launched to the Moon on the Apollo 11 LM and deployed by the crew of that mission; he's had weeks and weeks to come up with actual evidence for his story - whatever version - and failed.

Speaking of versions, has he gone back to saying that the spacecraft wouldn't work? So he's contradicted himself yet again. He's gone from

They did not have a LM that could land on the moon.

to

If one looks at the facts and concedes the lander works, and I do imagine the builders constructed the thing well. I am not trying to play games. I grant the lander works, fine.

over on apollohoax, and now back to

we have no reason to believe a spacecraft was in existence capable of landing on the moon.

The same primary reason that P1k/fd/HG/DT/BF/BS/mv./pir../etc. is clearly not a writer, but is a rather incompetent liar, also ensures that he keeps contradicting himself: rather than putting together an actual theory with actual evidence, or even a self-consistent hypothesis, or even just a plain old clear story that made a lick of sense, his only goal is to hear himself talk, and troll for responses from adults without actually paying any attention to them.

On a side note, I was just this week up where they assembled the RTGs that flew to the Moon on Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 (and around the Moon on A13 enroute to hydrosynchronous orbit). The ALSEPs which they powered returned, by my estimate, about 30 gigabits of data from the Moon over seven years, which was received at stations all over Earth.

 

[dafydd]

No, you have got it wrong. What he's saying is that a fake mission which never took place should have been aborted when the actual rocket was actually on the way to the Moon.

Or something like that, anyway. It's sometimes hard to tell from his walls of words.

As you can see, his impeccable logic has already been pointed out in a few other posts on this page. I'd very much like to know when he was taught about logical fallacies and who by, and whether it was when he studied for his multiple degrees. He's highly-qualified, you know.

It is hard to follow his self-aggrandizing walls of text.

 

[dafydd]

If the Bellman tells me what he tells me three times is true is it true?

In the poem yes,but not in real life.

 

[nomuse]

HIDING THE BIRD

///ed.; subtitle omitted as duplicative//


//We ...analysis./// Edited for brevity, revision follows:

There is a problem in NASA's own "Apollo 11 Mission Report," in regards to the coordinates given for the Tranquility Base landing site.

//APOLLO 11....//Edit; removal of duplicate heading.

The Apollo 11 Mission Report was published from the Manned Space Flight Center in Houston Texas in November of 1969. It is in a very real sense, NASA's most thorough "single volume" report on the Apollo 11 Mission.

//Edit: STET//

//For the moment...adventure.//

Edit: duplicative, not needed.

///We'll see as we go...confusion nonsense.//

Edit: duplicative, fishing, not needed.

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. On page 6 of the Mission Report's Section 5, we find //statements informing us //what the planned landing site coordinates were, //and// what the actual Tranquility Base coordinates wound up being//.// //and also we //"We also" find a reference to the Mission Report's table 5-IV where all of the real-time and post flight landing site solutions/coordinates can be found, along with a listing of the methods whereby those solutions were obtained.//P// From the report;

//Direct quote: STET//
"The coordinates of the landing point,
as obtained from the various real-time and postflight sources, are shown
in table 5-IV. The actual landing point is 0 degree 41 minutes 15 seconds north latitude
and 23 degrees 26 minutes east longitude, as compared
with the targeted landing point of 0 degree 43 minutes 53 seconds north
latitude and 23 degrees 38 minutes 51 seconds east longitude as shown in
figure 5-10. Figure 5-10 is the basic reference map for location of the
landing point in this report. As noted, the landing point dispersion was
caused primarily by errors in the onboard state vector prior to powered descent
initiation."
//

//Since most of the coordinates ..to follow.

So we..targeted.

For Tranquility Base...until later.

//Edit: replace all with "The following coordinates are all in decimal form."

On page 5 of the Apollo 11 Mission Report's Section 5, we find the report's authors referring us to figure 5-3. In the second paragraph of the section quoted, the report's authors state there was a 20,000 foot down range error existing at the time of powered descent initiation. In other words, though the targeted east coordinate initially was 0.731 east, even before the descent begins in earnest, the Eagle is off target roughly 20,000 feet/3.788 miles west. As such, the new east targeted coordinate has shifted down range by .2 degrees from the originally targeted 23.65 east to 23.45 east.

//This is before...surface began.)//Edit: none of the removed material advances the purpose of this paragraph. The rest can stand.

Here is the relevant Mission Report citation;

"Figure 5-B contains histories of altitude compared with altitude- rate from the primary and abort guidance systems and from the Network powered flight processor. The altitude difference existing between the primary system and the Network at powered descent initiation can be ob- served in this figure. All three sources are initialized to the primary guidance state vector at powered descent initiation. The primary system, however, is updated by the landing radar, and the abort guidance system is not. As indicated in the figure, the altitude readouts from both systems gradually diverge so as to indicate a lower altitude for the primary system until the abort system was manually updated with altitude data from the primary system.
The powered flight processor data reflect both the altitude and downrange errors existing in the primary system at powered descent initiation. The radial velocity error is directly proportional to the downrange position error such that a 1000-foot downrange error will cause a 1-ft/sec radial velocity error. Therefore, the 20 000-foot downrange error existing at powered descent initiation was also reflected as a 20-ft/sec radial velocity residual. This error is apparent on the figure in the altitude region near 27 000 feet, where an error of approximately 20 ft/sec is evident. The primary-system altitude error in existence at powered descent initiation manifests itself at touchdown when the powered flight processor indicates a landing altitude below the lunar surface. Figure 5-4 contains a similar comparison of lateral velocity from the three sources. Again, the divergence noted in the final phases in the abort guidance system data was caused by a lack of radar updates."
//Edit: direct quote, but still needs to be edited for brevity and clarity. Quotes need to be more selective.

Comment: I haven't the strength to do any more of this but I hope the point is clear. And that's just a first pass!

 

[nomuse]

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!

You are physically incapable of a synopsis, aren't you.

Or even a topic sentence. (Other than the IDW-like "I will prove.....!")

 

[drewid]

Also 400,000 people designed, prototyped, tested, built, every single element of a working spaceship/launch vehicle/suit/and the myriad other things that make up a space programme, not to mention a well documented testing programme of Saturn V launches, but it was never actually used because of a "few bad apples".

 

[nomuse]

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!

And the flight engineers who were watching different data streams? Such as engine and LM systems, or AGC self-reports, or LM external sensors, or medical telemetry? Who made up the detailed streams of data that fooled the people who made the actual gear and designed the actual scientific experiments?

See, this is one of the class of problems the conspiracy theory runs into. For every person in front of a monitor on TV, you need AT LEAST one conspirator who is even more clever and well-paid and who is working their NASA off making a believable simulation that will hold up for the next forty years.