Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[frenat]

Knowing what we know now fess. They had to have the LRRRs for accurate distance measurements and quantitative oceanic cartography. It is obvious. The moon ranging made sub based ballistic missile targeting relatively accurate. Before they had this, they din't know how big the oceans were, not to the degree necessary for the weapons to be a meaningful threat. If an ICBM lands in a Moscow suburb instead of in the Kremlin's front yard, it's a problem. If an American ICBM targeting a Russian ICBM silo is off by 5 miles, that's a big deal. 10 miles, a huge deal. This stuff is very relevant

I doubt the distances were unknown by even a few hundred yards. The 5 or 10 miles you're just pulling out of your backside. They DID know the size of the oceans to the degree necessary. There are other far easier ways to verify distances. This is just another lame attempt to support your predefined conclusion.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

[derp]

 

[matt.tansy]

Field theodolites, such as that used to survey Britain in the 18th century, was accurate to 1 arcsecond. When used for finding a position using the stars it means it is accurate to 1/60 of a nautical mile, or 30.87 meters.

 

[fess]

Knowing what we know now fess. They had to have the LRRRs for accurate distance measurements and quantitative oceanic cartography. It is obvious. The moon ranging made sub based ballistic missile targeting relatively accurate. Before they had this, they din't know how big the oceans were, not to the degree necessary for the weapons to be a meaningful threat. If an ICBM lands in a Moscow suburb instead of in the Kremlin's front yard, it's a problem. If an American ICBM targeting a Russian ICBM silo is off by 5 miles, that's a big deal. 10 miles, a huge deal. This stuff is very relevant

To think that in 1969, we didn't have the expertise to figure out the distance between point A and B within the necessary degree of accuracy is simply ludicrous.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

To think that in 1969, we didn't have the expertise to figure out the distance between point A and B within the necessary degree of accuracy is simply ludicrous.

While at the same time believing that we could successfully place a small reflector on the Moon and point a laser at it...

 

[R.A.F.]

...it has taken about 4-5 months to work through 11...

It took you that long to come up with this coordinate crap?

Don't quit your day job...

Oh, and I really don't think you will have the opportunity to lie about the other missions...call it a hunch.

 

[Patrick1000]

As I was saying......

To think that in 1969, we didn't have the expertise to figure out the distance between point A and B within the necessary degree of accuracy is simply ludicrous.

From ehow.com, http://www.ehow.com/how_10004579_angle-parallax.html

How to Find the Angle of a Parallax



"A distant object such as a radio antannae can be used as a reference point.
Parallax angle is a measurement used to indirectly calculate the distance to an object when making a direct measurement is impractical or impossible. Because astronomers and geographers cannot measure distances across oceans or between stars using measuring tape, they calculate the angle between the object and a distant reference point from two different positions, then use geometric formulas to calculate the distance to the object.


References

University of Michigan Astronomy Department: Parallax -- Introduction"




As I was saying, we have learned that at the time, 1960s, the distances across the great oceans were not known with accuracy, though transcontinental distances were. Lunar ranging provided the opportunity TO ACCURATELY MEASURE FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME TRANSOCEANIC DISTANCES. The methodology employed in making these measurements was that of parallax.

The moon was ranged from both sides of the Pacific, both sides of the Atlantic. In this way, land and sea based ICBMs could be targeted more accurately, whether those targets be the large cities of our adversaries such as Peking/Beijing and Moscow, or military targets per se, such as Russian ICBM launch sites.

Prior to the placement of lunar laser retroreflectors, the opportunity for the accurate measurement of transoceanic distances by way of employing parallax methodology, simply did not exist. AND as it turns out, there was no other way at the time to accurately measure the distances across the great oceans.

Prior to Apollo, the distance across the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans was known, but not to an accuracy adequate to target an ICBM such that it could hit a Russian silo, or reliably strike dead center in the heart of Kiev, Leningrad, Moscow.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Prior to Apollo, the distance across the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans was known, but not to an accuracy adequate to target an ICBM

Citation please

 

[matt.tansy]

Prior to the placement of lunar laser retroreflectors, the opportunity for the accurate measurement of transoceanic distances by way of employing parallax methodology, simply did not exist.

Nonsense. Google "Clarke Ellipsoid of 1866". Google "World Geodetic System 1960".

AND as it turns out, there was no other way at the time to accurately measure the distances across the great oceans.

More nonsense. Did you bother to read what I wrote about theodolites?

Prior to Apollo, the distance across the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans was known, but not to an accuracy adequate to target an ICBM such that it could hit a Russian silo, or reliably strike dead center in the heart of Kiev, Leningrad, Moscow.

Do you know what "CEP" stands for? No, you don't. Look it up. Then look up the CEP for 1960's ICBMs.

 

[frenat]

The idea that we needed a reflector on the Moon to get the accuracy when it would be far easier to bounce off a satellite in low orbit for the same method is ludicrous at best. The idea that the accurate measurement was still unknown in 1969 or miles off when we had flown those distances and overflown them with multiple satellites is absurd.

 

[Patrick1000]

My coordinate analysis has proved Apollo bogus

It took you that long to come up with this coordinate crap?

Don't quit your day job...

Oh, and I really don't think you will have the opportunity to lie about the other missions...call it a hunch.

My coordinate analysis has proved Apollo bogus. Do tell RAF, how is it that the staff at Lick Observatory had the numbers 00 41 15 north 23 26 00 east over a week before NASA's own trajectory specialists had the numbers? NASA's own trajectory specialists didn't have those numbers until after analyzing the 16mm film of the launch from the lunar surface. This was well after the astronauts returned from their "journey to the moon".

From the NASA, 16 March 1970, Trajectory Analysis Report;

"In order to gauge the quality of the landing radar data, it was necessary to determine that the above trajectories did accurately represent the actual descent trajectory. This quality judgeinent vas based largely on the landing point conditions obtained from each trajectory. These landing sites obtained from each trajectory are summarized graphically i n Figure 7-30. Note that both the BET #3 and the Onboard hlSFN H-S estimates are very close to the 16mm photographic estimate (accepted as the best estimate)."

And from table 5-IV of the Apollo 11 Mission Report we do find the 16mm/photographic solution among the Eagle landing site coordinates provided, from page 5-15;

"photography 0.647 or c 00 41' 15", 23.505 or c 23 26' 00"

a) Following the Apollo 10 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 tra- Jectory 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."


Of course the 16mm launch video wasn't analyzed until well after the astronauts returned. As we all recall, Donald Beattie was the NASA Headquarters Program Manager for Lunar Surface Experiments. Here again is what Donald Beattie had to say about the landing coordinate issue;

"The samples, which had arrived before the astronauts, were carefully opened in the LRL, inventoried, and briefly described. In the meantime we were monitoring the signals sent back by the passive seismic experiment and attempting to find the LRRR that the astronauts had left behind. This latter operation was not as easy as we expected, since the exact location of the landing site was not immediately known. Mike Collins had attempted unsuccessfully to locate the LM from orbit using the command module sextant. After analyzing the flight data and the returned photographs, we passed our best estimate to the LRRR PIs, and the LRRR was found on August 1, 1969, by the Lick Observatory in California.

Donald A. Beattie. Taking Science to the Moon: Lunar Experiments and the Apollo Program (ebook Locations 2911-2915).

You would have thought RAF, after they had given those EXACT coordinates to Joseph Wampler in San Jose at Lick Observatory, they would have been thoughtful enough to give Michael Collins a jungle up in his "spaceship". Not to mention having been thoughtful enough to walk down a console or two to chat with Flight Dynamics Officer, H. David Reed, and give him the coordinates they had given to Wampler as well. Here's Reed, capitals mine for emphasis;

"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 COORDINATES AND A SOLID EPHEMERIS ON THE CSM. I sat down at the console for that prelaunch shift and was debriefed bythe 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 5634-5650).

Again, Joseph Wampler wrote to me and gave me permission to share the following, a quote from professor Wampler answering my question as to whether he was really given those EXACT coordinates that evening(07/20/1969);

"I thought that NASA said 00 41 50, not 00 41 15, and so at first I aimed the telescope at the wrong position."

So RAF, Joseph Wampler knew what Michael Collins wanted to know and did not, the EXACT location of the Eagle. Joseph Wampler knew what the Flight Dynamics Officer charged with calculating the Eagle's launch solution, H. David Reed, wanted to know and did not, the LM's EXACT landing coordinates.

So in four months time I have shown the Apollo 11 Mission Telemetry Data to be fraudulent. Nobody has done that in 42 years and you don't think that is very good?

PS, love my day job, but am good at this too, don't you think?!

 

[Tomblvd]

PS, love my day job, but am good at this too, don't you think?!

And therein lies the problem.

You don't even know enough about the LRRR construction, function, uses, etc. to know that what you are saying is complete idiocy.

The whole idea of the LRRR experiments is so far beyond you that you actually think what you continue to repeat actually makes sense.

Here's a place to start: If the LRRR was a military piece of equipment for the purpose of better targeting Soviet cities, military bases and missle sites, it would be a secret. There would be no reason for them to have discussed it while it was being set up. Yet we heard the whole thing in almost real time.

That single issue alone renders your "gotcha" useless.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

To think that in 1969, we didn't have the expertise to figure out the distance between point A and B within the necessary degree of accuracy is simply ludicrous.

While at the same time believing that we could successfully place a small reflector on the Moon and point a laser at it...

A "non-Passive" reflector, no less, still functional after all these years, that magically turns on whenever random observatories give LRRR demonstrations to touring high schools .... placed on the moon using Surveyor-like (but more better) automated machinery thingies, launched on Soooper Seekret rockets nobody noticed back in the day when ordinary satellite launches were front page news ...


and somehow this "proves" the Apollo missions didn't happen, because Borman crapped his shorts?

 

[Patrick1000]

Apparently not

The idea that we needed a reflector on the Moon to get the accuracy when it would be far easier to bounce off a satellite in low orbit for the same method is ludicrous at best. The idea that the accurate measurement was still unknown in 1969 or miles off when we had flown those distances and overflown them with multiple satellites is absurd.

Apparently that is not the case. I would encourage you to read more. They didn't tell the astronomer's to keep their mouths shut for nothing. AND I would suggest Lick Observatory Astronomers Joseph Wampler, Joseph Miller and Llyod Robinson know more about the subject than you do, or any of us here in this forum for that matter.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

My coordinate analysis has proved Apollo bogus.

Your use of the word "proved" is incorrect in this context.

 

[Patrick1000]

Forget all that for a moment

A "non-Passive" reflector, no less, still functional after all these years, that magically turns on whenever random observatories give LRRR demonstrations to touring high schools .... placed on the moon using Surveyor-like (but more better) automated machinery thingies, launched on Soooper Seekret rockets nobody noticed back in the day when ordinary satellite launches were front page news ...


and somehow this "proves" the Apollo missions didn't happen, because Borman crapped his shorts?

Forget all that for a moment Apollognomon. How was it that Joseph Wampler was given the Eagle's coordinates when Michael Collins was not? Answer that one simple question.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Why should I bother, when you can't explain how the radio signals during Apollo missions came from the moon.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Forget all that for a moment Apollognomon.

That's the wrong thing for a scientist to suggest; it's an even worse thing for a scientist to do.

 

[drewid]

Of course the 16mm launch video wasn't analyzed until well after the astronauts returned.

So now you're calling Reed a liar? Do try to keep your argument straight pat.

"photography 0.647 or c 00 41' 15", 23.505 or c 23 26' 00"

the geologist have determined yet another site based upon the crew’s description of the landscape and correlating that with orbiter photos

 

[Patrick1000]

So I grant you that... and... ?

Why should I bother, when you can't explain how the radio signals during Apollo missions came from the moon.

So I grant you that... and... ? So they came from the moon. I grant you that, AND Joseph Wampler and the staff at Lick Observatory were given the coordinates of the Eagle's landing site before anyone else had them, including Collins and Reed. How is that? Fine, the radio signals came from the moon. Answer my question big shot.