Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[phunk]

3. Something much closer to earth provided the transmissions. As pure invention I am suggesting something in orbit that used a propulsion mechanism to maintain a position so as always to transmit as if coming from the direction of the moon.

Do tell me if there is a possibility I have missed out or if there is a flaw in my logic.

Are you seriously suggesting a rocket with enough fuel to hover for 4 days?

 

[little grey rabbit]

Are you seriously suggesting a rocket with enough fuel to hover for 4 days?

No. You can always tell what someone really thinks by the strawmen they suddenly cling to.

Hope that helps.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Hardly a strawman, since the action you are describing can only be accomplished by hovering.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Hardly a strawman, since the action you are describing can only be accomplished by hovering.

You had better define hovering then.

 

[Patrick1000]

Error in paragraph 7

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


We shall proceed now with a more thorough evaluation of the coordinate confusion/bird hiding issue by focusing on the Apollo 11 Mission Report's own accounting of the landing at Tranquility Base and specifically, on the report's data given in support of NASA's Apollo 11 Mission presentation. This Mission Report analysis will lead to the complete evisceration of the Apollo 11 "official story". We shall move on from this disembowelment of the Apollo 11 Mission Report's credibility to address motives of the fraud's perpetrators in later related pieces, with special attention to their scripting of the phony mission in the particular way that they did. Let's begin with our coordinate analysis.




APOLLO 11 MISSION REPORT COORDINATE ANALYSIS LEADS INEXORABLY TO FOOL PROOF DEMONSTRATION OF APOLLO 11 MISSION FRAUDULENCE.


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. For the moment, we should assume this report to be a full and truthful and honest accounting of the events transpiring from July 16 through July 24 as they relate to NASA's Apollo 11 first manned moon landing adventure. We'll see as we go along, it will become more and more difficult to hang on to that assumption of the report being a truthful and faithful accounting of anything really, but we won't give up on the report until we are confronted with fatal contradictions in the form of fatal "hidden bird" coordinate confusion nonsense.

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, what the actual Tranquility Base coordinates wound up being and also we 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. From the report;

"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 presented in the Apollo 11 Mission Report appear in garden variety decimal form and not degrees/minutes/seconds of arc, I will use the decimal form as well, converting the few degrees/minutes/seconds entries that do appear to this more easily dealt with format. The motivation is of course that we then won't have to jump around, go back and forth between the forms. It will make things easier for everyone to follow.

So we see that the originally planned targeted landing point was 00 43 53 north and 23 38 52 east. Let's convert that to the conventional decimal form. We get 0.731 as the targeted north coordinate. For the east we get, 23.65 degrees targeted.

For Tranquility Base, the actual landing site, we have the very familiar 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east, or equivalently; 0.6875 north and 23.4333. For now I'll leave the decimal forms here expanded to the fourth decimal digit as they are listed that way at times with regard to Tranquility Base coordinates. We may want to write these out to fewer digits of expression, but will defer that decision until later.

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 they've even made a genuine move down toward the lunar surface. (Here I assume the moon's circumference to be 6,790 miles which gives 18.86 miles per degree. 3.788 divided by 18.86 gave 0.2 degrees as the correction for the 20,000 foot down range error at the time the Eagle's descent to the moon's surface began.)

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."

Also, we note as a consequence, not only has a downrange error/adjustment become an issue, but a radial error of 20 feet per second must be taken into account. So the Eagle will not only land long, but also land left, or more precisely, land south of the originally targeted 0.731 north. Obviously, the Eagle cannot land if it is drifting south at 20 feet per second, it will break its legs off. But let's assume for the whole way down, the Eagle is drifting south 20 feet per second above and beyond the anticipated. As we'll see, the exact numbers here are not all that important. We just want some rough idea as to what should have been the expectation given there was this 20 foot per second radial velocity residual. The descent to the moon's surface took roughly 13 minutes, that gives 780 seconds drifting more south than planned at 20 feet per second. We have 2.95 miles south of the targeted site, or equivalently, 0.156 degrees. The Mission Report says the originally target landing site was 0.731 degrees north, so we subtract 0.156 and get, 0.575 north. One would think the "actual number" would be bigger than this because one would have to slow any translational velocities to land a space ship. So we calculated some "extra drift" by assuming the Eagle to be drifting south an extra 20 feet per second for roughly all 13 or so minutes of the descent to landing. Again, we'll see the details here are not important. We just want a rough idea of what the numbers might be , could be, and if we show/talk about all of our assumptions, there should be no problems, especially since we are not going to use any of this south drift estimation business in any major material way in terms of our demonstration that the Apollo 11 Mission Report and indeed the Apollo 11 Mission itself is fraudulent, at least not for the present anyway.

It may be worthwhile to do what we have just done for the anticipated landing coordinates as they appeared in the Apollo 11 Press kit. There on page 85 in that preflight NASA document dated Sunday July 6 1969, we see that NASA had listed slightly different numbers than those appearing in the Mission Report as the targeted landing site coordinates. In the press kit, we find the Eagle is targeted to land at 00 42 50 north and 23 42 38 east, or equivalently 0.714 north and 23.71 east. If we use these instead of the targeted landing coordinates as presented in the Mission report, we find with the 20,000 foot down range error and the 20 foot per second southward drift, the "new" targeted landing site would be .558 north and 23.51 east.

Let's turn our attention now to the table of real-time and post flight Tranquility Base coordinate determinations. I will place the lunar module targeted numbers first, even though they appear next to last in the actual Table 5-IV. The rest I will list in the order in which they actually appear in the Mission Report. In my Mission Report, this table is on page 15 of Section 5. My table below lists all coordinates in their decimal form. I have added afeature to my modified chart. TBD indicates the distance a set of coordinates are from Tranquility Base (0.6875 north and 23.4333 east). At the bottom of my table is a brief explanation(appears just as here in the actual Mission Report) indicating that the numbers as they originally appear in the chart must be "corrected" in order to reference trajectory values to the Lunar Map ORB-II-6. Since we are working in decimal representations and not degree/minutes/seconds of arc coordinate representations, we'll add the decimal equivalent of 2' 25", 0.040 degrees, to the north coordinate , and subtract the decimal equivalent of 4' 17", 0.071 degrees, from the east coordinate. These correction factors would seem to apply to all of the solutions with the exception of Lunar Module Targeted, Alignment Optical Telescope, and Photography. These solutions are not trajectory determined and so the correction factors should not apply. However, in the Mission Report Table, there is such a calculation done for photography and so in my table here, I will list both; photography coordinates with the correction and without(subentries a and b). My numbers below appear different from the original table because I have added the corrections in all cases where appropriate in the north coordinates and subtracted the corrections from the originally listed east coordinates where appropriate as well. Let's take a look at my table and see what we get.



SUMMARY OF APOLLO 11 MISSION REPORT LUNAR LANDING COORDINATE TABLE 5-IV. TBD is Tranquility Base Distance









1) Lunar Module:

latitude, 0.691 longitude, 23.72 TBD, 5.41 miles



2) Primary Guidance Onboard Vector

latitude, 0.689 longitude, 23.39 TBD, 0.75 miles


3) Abort Guidance Onboard Vector

latitude, 0.679 longitude, 23.37 TBD, 1.13 miles


4) Powered Flight Processor

latitude, 0.671 longitude, 23.40 TBD, 0.64 miles


5) Alignment Optical telescope

latitude, 0.523 longitude, 23.42 TBD, 3.11


6) Rendezvous Radar

latitude, 0.676 longitude, 23.43 TBD, 0.226 miles/1200ft


7) Best Estimate Trajectory Accelerometer Reconstruction

latitude, 0.687 longitude, 23.434 TBD, no meaningful difference


8)Photography
a. no correction

latitude 0.647 longitude, 23.505 TBD 1.55 miles

b. with correction

latitude 0.687 longitude, 23.435 TBD no meaningful difference



9) Tranquility Base

latitude, 0.6875 longitude, 23.433 TBD, not applicable


a Following the Apollo mission, a difference was noted (from the landmark tracking results) between the trajectory coordinate system and the coordinate system on the reference map. In order to reference trajectory values to the l:100 000 scale Lunar Map ORB-II-6 (lO0), dated December 1967, correction factors of plus 2'25" in latitude and minus 4'17" in longitude must be applied to the trajectory values.
b All latitude values are corrected for the estimated out-of-plane position error at powered descent initiation.
C These coordinate values are referenced to the map and include the correction factors.

The thoughtful reader, having taken just a cursory look at this table as now presented, with nothing changed materially fro the original Apollo 11 Mission Report whatsoever, will immediately see that the numbers/coordinates as I now show them in this more revealing presentation, are in no way compatible with the Apollo 11 Mission story as told by way of the conventional official narrative. We'll examine why that is the case in detail momentarily, but first, let's review what has been done to this chart, just to be sure our argument to follow is not subjected to any unfound criticism , for example charges of meddling/materially changing the numbers.

I have taken the liberty of numbering the solutions, placing the Lunar Module Targeted Solution first instead of next to last as it appears in the Mission Report. I added the actual Tranquility Base coordinates so we can just glance at the chart and remind ourselves of these numbers as we compare the Apollo 11 Mission Report Data with the Tranquility Base coordinates as they officially later became known. I added a feature, TBD, where using the pythagorean theorem I calculated the distance between the coordinate solutions as they appear in the Section 5-IV table and the actual Tranquility Base coordinates. I "doubled" my presentation of the photography numbers presenting one set of numbers which are left raw and unchanged, and another set which takes into consideration as NASA seems to encourage us to do, the need when switching between trajectory determined numbers and map referencing to add 2' 25 to the north value and subtract 4' 17" from the east value.

Let's begin to analyze these coordinate solutions by grouping them. Lunar module targeted is unique in the sense that it is a "planned coordinate" and so is not really a solution per se. We can list this particular targeted solution along with the others previously mentioned. First of all we have the planned landing site numbers as they are listed in the Mission Report page 6 of section 5. Those are 0.731 north and 23.65 east. We then made a modification to these figures given the Eagle actually started 20,000 feet downrange from the planned site of powered descent initiation. We also noted the Mission report indicated a 20 foot per second radial velocity residual that we had to take into account and we came up with 0.575 north and 23.45 east as a new targeted coordinate pair. We also saw that a completely different, though "close" set of targeted coordinates were presented in the Press Kit for the Apollo 11 Mission. These numbers are 0.714 north and 23.71 east. Since the Eagle started long and drifting south, we did the same to these numbers just to get a ball park idea of where the Eagle might land based on them. We found .558 north and 23.51 east. We reminded ourselves above that the 20 foot per minute radial velocity residual would really not apply for the entirety of the roughly 13 minute Eagle descent and so our method overestimates the degree of the southward drift. But we only wanted an approximation and for our purposes now, this will do. We simply want to round up all of the coordinates running about out there so we might be able to deal with them effectively if they come up under any circumstances. If they don't , well fine. But if we see numbers, we want to know where they are coming from. So these are the various Lunar Module Targeted coordinates, all a little different. At this point in time, it is somewhat difficult to see where the Lunar Module Targeted coordinates that appear in table 5-IV come from. They don't match the preflight numbers, nor match up with the numbers derived when taking the down range error and radial drift concerns into account,

Non real time coordinate solutions are numbers 7 and 8, the trajectory accelerometer reconstruction and photography solutions. It is not surprising that for these solutions there is really no meaningful difference between the coordinates so determined by these methods and the actual coordinates of Tranquility Base. This is because these are solutions arrived at after the astronauts have returned home and are solutions reflective of careful post flight analysis and consideration.

There are 5 methods of real time solution that we know of for sure appearing in the chart, numbers 2 through 6. All of these numbers reflect solutions as realized in a live sense, while the astronauts were on the moon. In addition, we read in Flight Dynamics Officer H. David Reed's account(chapter 3 of the book, FROM THE TRENCHED OF MISSION CONTROL TO THE CRATERS OF THE MOON) that real time photography studies were in effect and landing coordinate solutions derived from that method were being considered by him and others. We do not know what those numbers were, as Reed does not say in his account, and the numbers here in our table reflect the non real time solution as per the table 5-IV footnote c, once the "trajectory to map" corrections are taken into consideration, this post flight photography solution yields pretty much exactly the Tranquility Base coordinates. It may be that the corrections are necessary here because even though one does not think of photography as a "dynamic solution", there may have been trajectory concerns of some type taken into account which yielded the numbers 0.647 north and 23.505 east, and as such, these numbers would need to be modified by way of the "trajectory-map" corrections in giving an appropriately determined final result.

So it has taken a long time to get here, classifying, reading, calculating, but it will pay off because we know all of our numbers so well. Where they came from and so forth. We can't be fooled in any sense. If we continue to be careful as we have been, much will be revealed. Now with our data, let's commence with the analyzing. Since we are already familiar with H. David Reed's writing on the subject, let's begin there, for familiarity's sake. We'll analyze much more utilizing this table in future posts, but analysis in light of Reed's strong testimony, especially given his position/role as FIDO on the morning of 07/21/1969 is all too compelling to pass up. This is the very best place, with Reed, to start in now with a much more in-depth and very detailed analysis. Remember that H. David Reed as the FIDO or Flight Dynamics Officer is the person responsible for making the appropriate calculations to successfully launch the Eagle and have it rendezvous with the CM Columbia. It is Reed's jobs 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. this was Reed's job and no one else's. Though he did have help, most significantly from his SELECT officer who selects the best tracking sources, and his DYNAMICs officer who is the computer specialist assisting Reed.

Reed told us that when he walked into work on the morning of 07/21/1969, no one knew where exactly the Eagle had landed. Reed wrote that the MSFN tracking, PNGS, AGS, targeted landing site and geologists (maps/orbital photos) solutions didn't match up with one another. They were not "even close" to one another and so could not be viewed as reliable. They could not be viewed as accurate. If he had the coordinates for the Eagle's landing site and good data on Collin's in the CSM, the launch solution would be a "piece of cake" as he put it. When one reads the account given by Reed on the events transpiring that morning, one get's the feeling that Reed is surprised when he first walks in as no one has the coordinates for him. Here is Reed writing in the book, FROM THE TRENCHES OF MISSION CONTROL TO THE CRATERS OF THE MOON, chapter 3;

"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."

Maurice Kennedy; Charles Deiterich III; William Stoval; William Boone III; Glynn S. Lunney; H. David Reed; Jerry C. Bostick (2011-05-13). From The Trench of Mission Control to the Craters of The Moon (Ebook Locations 5634-5648).

So according to Reed, we should find something very very different from that which we do find in the Apollo 11 Mission Report table 5-IV. With the exception of the Alignment Optical Telescope solution, the other real-time dynamic solutions that do appear in the Apollo 11 Mission Report are unlike the case one would expect based on Reed's fairly detailed testimony. Reed tells us in his writing that all of the coordinate pairs available to him as determined by these various methods of solution were not in agreement at all with one another. But in the Apollo 11 Mission Report table 5-IV, we find exactly the opposite. Here we find coordinate solutions provided by various methods to be if not in excellent agreement, then certainly very good agreement with one another. Reed calculated number 6, the rendezvous radar solution. However, 2, 3 and 4; the PNGS, AGS, powered processor solutions would all have been available to him. Reed says they were not even close to one another when solutions were provided to him upon his first walking into work on the morning of 07/21/1969. Just take a look at 2 and 3 for instance, the PNGS and AGS, those solutions differ from one another by 0.010 degrees or .189 miles. That translates to 998 feet. With regard to the east-west coordinate, the numbers differ by 0.20 degrees or 0.378 miles/1996 feet. Using the pythagorean theorem we find the distance between these two solutions to be 2231 feet 0.423 miles. The numbers, with the exception of the Alignment Optical Telescope solution are all very close to one another. In Reed's book, he says all five solutions were "not even close". Let's continue to compare Reed's experience with the data as presented in the Apollo 11 Mission Report.

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. That said, good coordinates would have been sufficient to calculate a launch solution for the LM and the coordinates he did have and the LM/CM relationships as calculated by the other solutions were not satisfactory for a successful launch. Indeed, they were at such great variance from one another, it motivated Reed to solve the problem with a rendezvous radar calculation. Once this was done, Reed found his method lead to the rendezvous radar coordinates as they appear in my table above, 0.676 north and 23.43 east. Once Reed completed his launch solution, he discovered that all of the available real-time solutions provided to him for consideration and rejected by him as not meaningful/ not accurate because of their variance from one another were AT LEAST 25,000 FEET FROM HIS RENDEZVOUS RADAR SOLUTION OF; 0.676 north and 23.43 east. As the rendezvous radar derived coordinates calculated by Reed were roughly 1200 feet from the actual Tranquility Base site, we may conclude with a simple subtraction; 25,000 minus 1200 = 23,300 feet, that the real time solutions not only were at the very closest, 25,000 feet/4.73 miles from Reed's solution, but at the very closest; 23,300 feet/4.41 miles from Tranquility Base. Here is Reed's first person account of 07/21/1969's am dramatic Mission Control events;

"I remember taking my headset off and walking up to the Flight Direc- tor, 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."

Maurice Kennedy; Charles Deiterich III; William Stoval; William Boone III; Glynn S. Lunney; H. David Reed; Jerry C. Bostick (2011-05-13). From The Trench of Mission Control to the Craters of The Moon (Ebook Locations 5657-5672).

So according to Reed, his whole reason for rejecting all of the available coordinates presented to him on the morning of 07/21/1969 as they might be applied in a launch solution had to do with the fact that they were at great variance from one another. AND YES! REED CONSIDERS 25,000 FEET VERY GREAT VARIANCE!!! We have seen already, this variance does not appear in the Apollo 11 Mission Report coordinate table and we may confidently conclude that somebody has directly or indirectly cooked these books. These Apollo 11 Mission Report table 5-IV numbers and Reed's testimony simply cannot both be true, and Reed has no reason what so ever to make this up, especially given the detail he provides. This unquestionably WAS Reed's experience. With the exception of the AOT solution, there is very good agreement among the real-time solutions appearing in the Apollo 11 Mission Report table 5-IV. And not only do the solutions agree pretty well with one another, they are all fairly close to the actual Tranquility Base coordinate numbers; 0.64 miles, 0.75 miles and 1.13 miles distant from Tranquility Base. The PNGS and AGS solutions are only 0.423 miles distant from one another. So the real-time, non rendezvous radar solutions available as presented in the Mission Report are close to one another and furthermore they are all close enough to Tranquility Base(within 2 miles) that there is a reasonable chance the LRRR could have been successfully targeted if the Lick Observatory team had been presented with any of these solutions/coordinates. Finally, and perhaps most damning, 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.

We'll end here for now. Having demonstrated the Apollo 11 Mission Report to be utterly inconsistent with the experience of H. David Reed and consequently a fraudulent document. As the Flight Dynamics Officer on the morning of 07/21/1969, Reed was the most important figure and highest authority regarding this subject and his testimony as well referenced above is hardly to be questioned. We move forward now with the greatest confidence on our assertion of the Apollo 11 Mission Report's Fraudulence and along with it, the necessarily associated fraudulence of the entire Apollo 11 Mission. In my further studies, I plan to explore these coordinates more as presented in this modified lunar landing coordinate table. Analytic efforts placed in comparing the coordinates found here in the Mission Report and as presented above in my table with those coordinates fed to Michael Collins in his hunt for the Eagle, provides immensely rich rewards for those Apollo 11 researchers courageous enough to face the daunting implications.

Error found 7th paragraph down from the heading, A DETAILED INTRO..." where it reads, "On page 5 of the Apollo 11 Mission Report's Section 5". A little bit in from there my post reads;

"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."

"The downrange error of 20,000 feet to which I was referring does of course impact the east coordinate, but I accidentally wrote the west numbers here,
"0.731"

So the line should read;

"In other words, though the targeted east coordinate initially was 23.65 east, even before the descent begins in earnest, the Eagle is off target roughly 20,000 feet/3.788 miles west."

I had tried to correct that using the editing function, but that function not available there for some reason, so just draw attention to this "typo" of sorts here. Doesn't change my argument, just wrote the west numbers for the east one's in their one spot.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Don't you have classes in the morning? Get to bed.

 

[dafydd]

There is no need to resort to filthy language here.

Since we know the Apollo mission is a fake there can only be a limited number of possibilities that can exist:
1. The transmissions were not so public or widely monitored as you make out. Those that claimed to receive them were fellow-cult members
2. The transmissions could be mocked up by one or more ground based stations.
3. Something much closer to earth provided the transmissions. As pure invention I am suggesting something in orbit that used a propulsion mechanism to maintain a position so as always to transmit as if coming from the direction of the moon.

Do tell me if there is a possibility I have missed out or if there is a flaw in my logic.

'We'? Leave me out of your insane fantasy.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Do tell me if there is a possibility I have missed out

For our purposes, the following represents a decent spectrum of possibilities.

Since we know the Apollo mission is a fake

uh, no.

there can only be a limited number of possibilities that can exist:
1. The transmissions were not so public or widely monitored as you make out. Those that claimed to receive them were fellow-cult members

So . . . the Soviets? A random ham radio operator using a home built antenna in his backyard? The reporter from the newspaper who watched the event and wrote him up? This is a short list, but many countries monitored the transmissions.

2. The transmissions could be mocked up by one or more ground based stations.

Nope. This is the least likely of the possibilities. Because the transmitters on the Apollo equipment were fairly low power (35 watts for the CSM, as I recall) both transmitter and receiver used highly directional antennas. The receiving antennas had to be pointed at the moon to receive the signals and periodically re-aimed as the earth rotated. Over the long course of the Apollo missions a worldwide network of receiving stations were required to provide continuous coverage.

This also kicks your #1 in the shins, as random Spaniards are now part of your massive conspiracy that has never been compromised or ratted out.

3. Something much closer to earth provided the transmissions. As pure invention I am suggesting something in orbit that used a propulsion mechanism to maintain a position so as always to transmit as if coming from the direction of the moon.

Orbits are a high velocity thing. You don't just stand around in space.

If you haven't ever tried the free space flight simulation "orbiter" I can recommend it. It can be pretty fussy, especially when you start adding modules. That's why I scrubbed it from this computer -- I had the Millennium Falcon, A Borg Cube (parked at the location of my local bank in town), blimps and zeppelins, gliders, the Gemini and Apollo craft AND missions (then things get really messy) as well as building terrain to locate the park where my kids and I fly Estes rockets, the local airstrip and roads to get from my house to the air strip..... and I changed the "sandbags" on the blimps into 25# rockets that could be launched after they were dropped from the blimp.....

messy. Started to malfunction. Then I had a bug on this box so I had to clean it up and delete all the large footprint crap, including Orbiter and all teh kids' "scooby doo" games and stuff like that.

.... ANYway, orbits are really a process of falling. You go away from a gravity center and then fall back to it. If you are in an "orbit" the falling thing never intersects with the thing at the bottom of the gravity well.

The only way to "maintain a position so as always to transmit as if coming from the direction of the moon" is to go to the moon and orbit that.

Really. There's no way to use a "propulsion mechanism" to "maintain a position" that would simulate this.

If you know more about orbital mechanics than I do and can prove me wrong, go ahead, but be prepared to defend your thesis and please show your work. At that point we'll submit your Nobel application.

 

[GlennB]

3. Something much closer to earth provided the transmissions. As pure invention I am suggesting something in orbit that used a propulsion mechanism to maintain a position so as always to transmit as if coming from the direction of the moon.

Do tell me if there is a possibility I have missed out or if there is a flaw in my logic.

As people have pointed out, this requires a continuous burn of fuel and has correctly been described as 'hovering'. Impossible.

In addition - even if possible - it would only fool an observer in that particular moon/transmitter line of sight. Hold up your finger to obscure a distant objct. Go on, do it....... Does it obscure the object for a person sitting next to you?

In short, your proposals are preposterous. Either you're trolling or profoundly ignorant of the very basics of the subject. Either way, please shut up.

 

[nomuse]

Bearing in mind that this is just presented as an intellectual exercise.....

1. You don't need a satellite with an orbit period identical to the Moon, you need a satellite with an orbit that can approximate the Moon for a 12 hour period. So it could start off at an arbitrary "north" of the Moon and slide across the Moon's face over that 12 hours to an arbitrary "south" and still give a reasonable impersonation of a signal from the moon.

Clever, but the radio telescopes had pretty good pointing accuracy. I'd guestimate by the time you were fooling them, your satellite would already be past the Earth-Moon neutral point -- so no reason not to send it there.

Alternatively, perform a powered orbit. Then you could put it anywhere. But after a couple of circuits you've used enough fuel you'd do better to send the satellite to the Moon.

And do you know that they were able to not just discriminate the CSM from the LM, but figure out where the latter was in its orbit by the doppler effect? Amateurs were doing this (well, okay...ham enthusiasts, who range well upwards through professional levels of expertise and some pretty spanking gear, too.)

And it wasn't like NASA hadn't gotten probes on the Moon and had radio contact with them. There's no reason not to go that far, really.

2. Alternatively you could have a satellite that powered itself to cover the moon for a 12 hour period. Armstrong et al could be sitting up there reading off a script while watching the pre-recorded TV footage - sort of like driving round the block a few times.

We must not ask if it was technically possible to Hoax the radio transmissions, it was technically possible because it happened.

Just as a slight diversion - is it true NASA called it the Apollo missions after Apollyon in the Bible?

Just asking questions.

Ah, okay -- you did think of powered orbit. I'd have to try the math on it, but my gut instinct says the delta-V required looks a lot like the delta-V you'd need to achieve the further orbit. Again; I'm willing to bet it would be less fuel costly to go to the Moon in the end.

 

[dafydd]

You had better define hovering then.

You could look in a dictionary,but you ought to know what hovering means.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Clever, but the radio telescopes had pretty good pointing accuracy. I'd guestimate by the time you were fooling them, your satellite would already be past the Earth-Moon neutral point -- so no reason not to send it there.

Alternatively, perform a powered orbit. Then you could put it anywhere. But after a couple of circuits you've used enough fuel you'd do better to send the satellite to the Moon.

And do you know that they were able to not just discriminate the CSM from the LM, but figure out where the latter was in its orbit by the doppler effect? Amateurs were doing this (well, okay...ham enthusiasts, who range well upwards through professional levels of expertise and some pretty spanking gear, too.)

And it wasn't like NASA hadn't gotten probes on the Moon and had radio contact with them. There's no reason not to go that far, really.



Ah, okay -- you did think of powered orbit. I'd have to try the math on it, but my gut instinct says the delta-V required looks a lot like the delta-V you'd need to achieve the further orbit. Again; I'm willing to bet it would be less fuel costly to go to the Moon in the end.

I don't think fuel consumption was the key consideration holding NASA back.

Because what NASA is really looking for is where to find the Stargate

Within the Stargate fictional universe, Stargates are large rings composed of a fictional superconductive mineral called "naqahdah".[1] Each Stargate has nine points (chevrons) spaced equally around their circumference which are used to determine the address being dialed. On the inner ring are 39 unique glyphs (36 in the Stargate Atlantis series) representing star constellations and one symbol representing the planet or point of origin. Six such symbols and the point of origin serve to map out a specific location in space to which to dial. Additional glyphs may also be selected which increase the distance of travel, allowing gates outside the current galaxy to be reached. This process requires significantly more energy than "in galaxy" dialing. Pairs of Stargates function by generating an artificial stable wormhole between them, allowing one-way travel through. A typical Stargate measures 5.7 m (19 ft) in diameter and weighs 29,000 kg (64,000 lb).[3] The Stargates were created millions of years ago by an alien race known as the Ancients;[4] their modern history begins when Egyptologist Daniel Jackson deciphers their workings in the Stargate film.

Of course my lips are sealed. Now you will have to excuse me as I have to return to my hieroglyphic translations

 

[Patrick1000]

Lidar anyone?

A bit from a Time Magazine, May 18, 1962 article.

"A space traveler who happened to be standing on the dark side of the moon last week, in the mountains southeast of the crater Albategnius, would have been startled to see 13 brief red flashes flame up on the dark side of the distant earth. The unexpected spurts of light marked the position of Lincoln Laboratory near Lexington, Mass. They came from a ruby laser—a source of pure light of a single frequency—fitted into a 12-in. telescope.
Since laser light can be concentrated into a thin beam that barely spreads out at all, Professor Louis Smullin and Dr. Giorgio Fiocco, the M.I.T. engineers who performed the experiment, estimate that the laser's light diverged only about two-thirds of an inch for each mile of its quarter-million-mile journey to the moon. When it reached the moon's mountains, the laser beam lighted faintly a circular area only two miles in diameter.
Smullin and Fiocco estimate that each of its 1/2,000-sec. flashes squirted 2 X 10 21 (200 billion trillion) photons of light toward the moon. Most of these tiny bits of light got there, but those reflected by the moon's rough, dark surface scattered widely. Only a few of them bounced back to Lincoln Lab. Bunched together by a 48-in. telescope, the returning photons were sent through a filter that passed only light of the laser's wave length. Then the photons were picked up up by a sensitive photocell."

So we all knew this already, pre-retroreflector scientists good and bad could and had hit the moon with a laser, located it, ranged it.

Then I got to thinking, even with the small target and its irregular surface (Columbia), could they directly range and locate the thing in cislunar space, if it was really there, without the need to sight stars? Could they conceivably directly range a ship in cislunar space with a laser, by means of the then available state-of-the-art LIDAR technology, if they had been able to really get there, get there to to said cislunar space? Of course they couldn't really and truly get there. But what if they could? Could they be directly ranged and located with a laser and associated 1969 vintage technology?

Just something to kick around. We know the astronauts could be busted by successfully targeting with a laser(or not as it were) and then ranging and locating(or not as it were) by way of then additional star sightings. But maybe we should be reading up on lasers and the history of LIDAR more and seeing if our Eagle scouts were afraid of this too from cislunar space. Would explain an awful lot, wouldn't you say?

Worth checking into regardless.

 

[drewid]

A bit from a Time Magazine, May 18, 1962 article.

"A space traveler who happened to be standing on the dark side of the moon last week, in the mountains southeast of the crater Albategnius, would have been startled to see 13 brief red flashes flame up on the dark side of the distant earth. The unexpected spurts of light marked the position of Lincoln Laboratory near Lexington, Mass. They came from a ruby laser—a source of pure light of a single frequency—fitted into a 12-in. telescope.
Since laser light can be concentrated into a thin beam that barely spreads out at all, Professor Louis Smullin and Dr. Giorgio Fiocco, the M.I.T. engineers who performed the experiment, estimate that the laser's light diverged only about two-thirds of an inch for each mile of its quarter-million-mile journey to the moon. When it reached the moon's mountains, the laser beam lighted faintly a circular area only two miles in diameter.
Smullin and Fiocco estimate that each of its 1/2,000-sec. flashes squirted 2 X 10 21 (200 billion trillion) photons of light toward the moon. Most of these tiny bits of light got there, but those reflected by the moon's rough, dark surface scattered widely. Only a few of them bounced back to Lincoln Lab. Bunched together by a 48-in. telescope, the returning photons were sent through a filter that passed only light of the laser's wave length. Then the photons were picked up up by a sensitive photocell."

So we all knew this already, pre-retroreflector scientists good and bad could and had hit the moon with a laser, located it, ranged it.

Then I got to thinking, even with the small target and its irregular surface (Columbia), could they directly range and locate the thing in cislunar space, if it was really there, without the need to sight stars? Could they conceivably directly range a ship in cislunar space with a laser, by means of the then available state-of-the-art LIDAR technology, if they had been able to really get there, get there to to said cislunar space? Of course they couldn't really and truly get there. But what if they could? Could they be directly ranged and located with a laser and associated 1969 vintage technology?

Just something to kick around. We know the astronauts could be busted by successfully targeting with a laser(or not as it were) and then ranging and locating(or not as it were) by way of then additional star sightings. But maybe we should be reading up on lasers and the history of LIDAR more and seeing if our Eagle scouts were afraid of this too from cislunar space. Would explain an awful lot, wouldn't you say?

Worth checking into regardless.

Not really. Apart from the fact it's all "what-if", so irrelevant, the Apollo craft is a great shape for scattering a laser return.

Anyhow the craft were tracked all the way there and back using directional radio reception by stations all over the world, some of which included countries unfriendly to the States that would have love to blow the whistle given any opportunity.

When were Lick given the correct coordinates? It's mentioned in the prelim science report, and also the interview with Stone you keep quoting.

 

[Patrick1000]

Pot shots

It is important for us all to remember, once astronauts, feigned or authentic blast off, they are vulnerable to anything from pot shots to salvos of laser pops from ANYBODY, friend or foe, by ANY KIND OF LASER. They could be aimed at with say argon, then popped with ruby. The argon to find, and then the ruby for effect. The possibilities are countless, and this stuff may not come from the northern hemisphere.

Even in the case of a friendly laser, you could get caught. Say a well meaning tech at McDonald Observatory in El Paso targeted the Columbia and then the observatory guys asked, "See it!?" and then Armstrong answers,"Heck yeah!!!!" Because even though he is not really in cislunar space, if he says he sees the McDonald laser , well then this fools people into believing that he is really there in cislunar space. So later that day, the tech looks through his records, double checks this and that, and oh oh oh my!, discovers he actually screwed up and was off in his targeting solution by a degree west, and this means the laser could not have possibly hit Neil in the eye. So now this guy knows Neil is a phony astronaut.

So generally speaking, if the Apollo 11 adventure is feigned, well then we should expect what amounts to a game of laser tag, where as I have pointed out before, avoidance of the tag, avoidance of seeing lasers, avoidance of being hit, including avoidance of being hit by friendlies, is for the most part, mission critical.

So ask yourself, does the Apollo 11 Mission have these qualities? Features referable to a game of laser tag? Bird hiding, star phobia? Hmmmmmmm.............

Laser tag anyone?

 

[Patrick1000]

A shot in the eye!!!!

Last point, should be clear to most, but worth emphasizing, when one SEES a laser light, one is tagged. Your eyes, or equivalently the "EYES" of your camera, TV or still camera, IS THE TARGET!.

So Armstrong is adamant, and doesn't budge, not a hint of qualification, at no time from the surface of the moon, nor in the CM while floating about the moon's light side, did the photon phobic crew see stars. Indeed, Armstrong in the BBC interview with Patrick Moore in 1970 took an insane risk in telling a flat out never could/should/would be believed lie. He said to us, the incredulous, the only things one can see in cislunar space are the earth and the sun. We all stood there and went, "WHAT???????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Google/You tube search the video and check it out(search Neil Armstrong, BBC, 1970, Patrick Moore). What????? Is he nuts? Kinda' for telling such a whopper. But what is he to do? Someone wanted to toss a photon through the window of his iris, have it smack the commander's retina, smack it with light of a particular frequency, and in so doing cry, "TAG, YOU'RE A PHONY!!!!"

 

[Oji]

It is important for us all to remember, once astronauts, feigned or authentic blast off, they are vulnerable to anything from pot shots to salvos of laser pops from ANYBODY, friend or foe, by ANY KIND OF LASER. They could be aimed at with say argon, then popped with ruby. The argon to find, and then the ruby for effect. The possibilities are countless, and this stuff may not come from the northern hemisphere.

Even in the case of a friendly laser, you could get caught. Say a well meaning tech at McDonald Observatory in El Paso targeted the Columbia and then the observatory guys asked, "See it!?" and then Armstrong answers,"Heck yeah!!!!" Because even though he is not really in cislunar space, if he says he sees the McDonald laser , well then this fools people into believing that he is really there in cislunar space. So later that day, the tech looks through his records, double checks this and that, and oh oh oh my!, discovers he actually screwed up and was off in his targeting solution by a degree west, and this means the laser could not have possibly hit Neil in the eye. So now this guy knows Neil is a phony astronaut.

So generally speaking, if the Apollo 11 adventure is feigned, well then we should expect what amounts to a game of laser tag, where as I have pointed out before, avoidance of the tag, avoidance of seeing lasers, avoidance of being hit, including avoidance of being hit by friendlies, is for the most part, mission critical.

But why would you expect this to happen? After all, no one did it. You think people wanted to bombard them with lasers (deliberately or accidentally) but the fact is they didn't. So this speculation is utterly meaningless.

It only makes sense in your warped imagination because you assume it was faked and then think people at the time would have been looking to prove that. But of course, it wasn't and everybody at the time knew that it wasn't.

 

[dafydd]

Patrick,in a hundred years time the Moon landings will still be remebered as a great achievment and you and I will have been forgotten. Do you really think that you will convince the world that they are fake by posting self-contadictory,ego-boosting nonsense here? All you are doing is entertaing us,but if you enjoy it,keep ploughing on.

 

[drewid]

When were Lick given the correct coordinates? It's mentioned in the prelim science report,
http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11psr.html


and also the interview with Stone you keep quoting, the one with his ex-wife the reporter.
apollo-11-lands-on-target-moon-elusive-for-laser-crew-on-earth-a354589

 

[nomuse]

Last point, should be clear to most, but worth emphasizing, when one SEES a laser light, one is tagged. Your eyes, or equivalently the "EYES" of your camera, TV or still camera, IS THE TARGET!.

So Armstrong is adamant, and doesn't budge, not a hint of qualification, at no time from the surface of the moon, nor in the CM while floating about the moon's light side, did the photon phobic crew see stars. Indeed, Armstrong in the BBC interview with Patrick Moore in 1970 took an insane risk in telling a flat out never could/should/would be believed lie. He said to us, the incredulous, the only things one can see in cislunar space are the earth and the sun. We all stood there and went, "WHAT???????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Google/You tube search the video and check it out(search Neil Armstrong, BBC, 1970, Patrick Moore). What????? Is he nuts? Kinda' for telling such a whopper. But what is he to do? Someone wanted to toss a photon through the window of his iris, have it smack the commander's retina, smack it with light of a particular frequency, and in so doing cry, "TAG, YOU'RE A PHONY!!!!"

Congratulations. You've just argued that stars should have appeared in the background of the Apollo surface record.

After all your work, you've ended up back at the oldest and most stupid hoax believer claim of them all.