Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Jrrarglblarg]

What time was it when Lick observatory received the coords?

 

[Tomblvd]

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.

Unless they are saying the Apollo landings were faked, what is your point?

You can't hold them up as unimpeachable experts and then tell us they are lying about Apollo.

 

[Patrick1000]

Reed I believe, NASA lies like space dogs.

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

Reed I believe, NASA lies like space dogs. Please review all relevant posts. I have emphasized time and time again, Reed has no reason to lie, so I believe his accounting of events, "SUCH AS HE WAS ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THEM" in Houston.

Obviously this is a fake landing. They have foreknowledge of the coordinates and pass them to Wampler because the staff at Lick is expecting them.

Same question to you big shot number 2. Leave Reed out of it. I have already shown we can prove foreknowledge without his testimony. It even, is not critical to my argument. So how is it Wampler has the coordinate numbers for the landing site and Collins does not? I AM CALLING COLLINS A LIAR! NOT REED. Please answer my question.

 

[Patrick1000]

They are fake

Unless they are saying the Apollo landings were faked, what is your point?

You can't hold them up as unimpeachable experts and then tell us they are lying about Apollo.

Totally fake, patently fake. That is my point. And I gave a reason as to why they did this. They planted LRRRs on the moon to measure the distance across the oceans. The project I am sure was not limited to this, but that was one element we can be sure of now anyway.

 

[drewid]

Patience child, the adults are doing real research.

 

[frenat]

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.

From those emails you refuse to post to prove they are even real? Ever bother to ask them if they think Apollo is faked? Or how about if they think you're a crackpot?

 

[drewid]

Reed I believe, NASA lies like space dogs. Please review all relevant posts. I have emphasized time and time again, Reed has no reason to lie, so I believe his accounting of events, "SUCH AS HE WAS ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THEM" in Houston.

Obviously this is a fake landing. They have foreknowledge of the coordinates and pass them to Wampler because the staff at Lick is expecting them.

Same question to you big shot number 2. Leave Reed out of it. I have already shown we can prove foreknowledge without his testimony. It even, is not critical to my argument. So how is it Wampler has the coordinate numbers for the landing site and Collins does not? I AM CALLING COLLINS A LIAR! NOT REED. Please answer my question.

cough

"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

 

[nomuse]

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

Hah ha ha. I'd suggest you read up on satellite geodesy. The first laser ranging from satellites was performed quite a few years prior to Apollo 11.

 

[nomuse]

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.

Go back and read up on the LRRR, Patrick. Note specifically where the alignment of this passive arrangement of corner prisms is only within a few degrees (and is still introduces less of a difference than the Moon's own nutation).

And then do the math and figure out just how small an angle you'd need to get within five miles of a location on Earth.

(Not to mention one of the things you keep running away from...even as it reaches the MOON the laser is already not much more accurate than your "5 to 10 miles.) When it passes through that distance AGAIN, after coming off the corner reflector....)

 

[nomuse]

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.

This entire web you have suspended from a quote from a single astronomer as given to the reporter in a student paper that there were things he couldn't say because of national security.

In 1969.

 

[Patrick1000]

Coordinate confusion

cough

These are the Real-time landing coordinate solutions as presented in the Apollo 11 Mission Report table 5-IV. I took the liberty of adding and subtracting the correction factors for the north and east coordinates respectively. The other solutions in the Mission Report Table are not real-time.

1) Primary Guidance Onboard Vector, 0.649 , 23.46/corrected 0.689 and 23.39
0.75 miles from Tranquility Base's post mission verified coordinates

2) Abort Guidance Onboard Vector, 0.639 , 23.44/corrected 0.679 and 23.37
1.13 miles from Tranquility Base's post mission verified coordinates

3) Powered Flight Processor, 0.631, 23. 47/corrected 0.671 and 23.40
0.64 miles from Tranquility Base's post mission verified coordinates

4) Alignment Optical Telescope 0.523 , 23.42, correction does not apply, not a trajectory
3.11 miles miles from Tranquility Base's post mission verified coordinates

5) Rendezvous Radar, 0.636, 23.50, corrected 0.676, 23.43
1200 feet miles from Tranquility Base's post mission verified coordinates

The first 4 real-time coordinate solutions were those available to the Mission Control staff prior to Reed's coming on duty. Number 5, the rendezvous radar is Reed's calculation, so this "doesn't count". It was not available during the evening of 07/20/1969 and very early morning of 07/21/1969. Even if the rendezvous radar coordinates were available, they too, like those of the other 4 solutions, are not the coordinates of Tranquility Base; 0.685 north and 23.433 east, or equivalently; 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east.

So how is it Wampler got 0.6875 north/00 41 15 and 23.433 east/23 26 00 when Collins did not. If Collins was given these coordinates, he would have found the Eagle immediately. The computer would have directed the sextant to the exact spot.

Note we have used data from NASA's Mission Report only and have not had to rely at all on Reed's testimony.

 

[Patrick1000]

Did not provide the requisite accuracy for ICBM targeting.

Hah ha ha. I'd suggest you read up on satellite geodesy. The first laser ranging from satellites was performed quite a few years prior to Apollo 11.

Did not provide the requisite accuracy for ICBM targeting.

 

[nomuse]

Did not provide the requisite accuracy for ICBM targeting.

And bouncing a laser off the Moon would?

Are you even thinking before you hit "reply?"

 

[matt.tansy]

Did not provide the requisite accuracy for ICBM targeting.

So prior to 1969 our ICBMs couldn't have been launched? We just left them sitting in their silos and we sent out ballistic missile submarines loaded with the Polaris missiles with no way to launch them?

You really need to start thinking through the implications of what you post.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It does seem odd that both nations would produce such a large stockpile of weapons that were incapable of being used effectively.

 

[Patrick1000]

They bounce 2 lasers simultaneously

And bouncing a laser off the Moon would?

Are you even thinking before you hit "reply?"

They bounce from both sides of the Atlantic , or both sides of the Pacific and solve for the oceans' unknown distances. As time went on, and they had more LRRR's and more ranging lasers, details of the oceans' spatial geometry became better and better known.

It wasn't that the oceans had not been mapped and distance estimates made, the oceans had been mapped, and distances were known. But targeting an ICBM is a precise business, especially when one is trying to hit something as "small" as the silo of another ICBM.

In the 60s, a sub could at best hit a city with a missile. Hitting a small hard target was out of the question for many reasons, and one of them had to do with the oceans' unknown distances. Not unknown in an absolute sense, but in a relative sense. If you are off by 10 miles with a relatively small warhead, you've missed in the case of many targets.

Modern accurate parallax based mapping of the great oceans began with the non peaceful Apollo program. This is not a matter of debate, but a simple fact.

 

[drewid]

These are the Real-time landing coordinate solutions as presented in the Apollo 11 Mission Report table 5-IV. I took the liberty of adding and subtracting the correction factors for the north and east coordinates respectively. The other solutions in the Mission Report Table are not real-time.

1) Primary Guidance Onboard Vector, 0.649 , 23.46/corrected 0.689 and 23.39
0.75 miles from Tranquility Base's post mission verified coordinates

2) Abort Guidance Onboard Vector, 0.639 , 23.44/corrected 0.679 and 23.37
1.13 miles from Tranquility Base's post mission verified coordinates

3) Powered Flight Processor, 0.631, 23. 47/corrected 0.671 and 23.40
0.64 miles from Tranquility Base's post mission verified coordinates

4) Alignment Optical Telescope 0.523 , 23.42, correction does not apply, not a trajectory
3.11 miles miles from Tranquility Base's post mission verified coordinates

5) Rendezvous Radar, 0.636, 23.50, corrected 0.676, 23.43
1200 feet miles from Tranquility Base's post mission verified coordinates

The first 4 real-time coordinate solutions were those available to the Mission Control staff prior to Reed's coming on duty. Number 5, the rendezvous radar is Reed's calculation, so this "doesn't count". It was not available during the evening of 07/20/1969 and very early morning of 07/21/1969. Even if the rendezvous radar coordinates were available, they too, like those of the other 4 solutions, are not the coordinates of Tranquility Base; 0.685 north and 23.433 east, or equivalently; 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east.

So how is it Wampler got 0.6875 north/00 41 15 and 23.433 east/23 26 00 when Collins did not. If Collins was given these coordinates, he would have found the Eagle immediately. The computer would have directed the sextant to the exact spot.

Note we have used data from NASA's Mission Report only and have not had to rely at all on Reed's testimony.

"corrections" added by someone who doesn't know his radial from his lateral? Yeah, right.

 

[matt.tansy]

These are the Real-time landing coordinate solutions as presented in the Apollo 11 Mission Report table 5-IV. I took the liberty of adding and subtracting the correction factors for the north and east coordinates respectively.

You're still lying about the corrections. I spanked you on that about 40 pages ago.

The corrections are only applied when plotting the position on the map mentioned in the footnote.

 

[matt.tansy]

In the 60s, a sub could at best hit a city with a missile.

Citation needed.

Have you bother to look up "CEP" yet? What was the CEP of the early 1960s ICBMs?

 

[Laton]

Citation needed.

Have you bother to look up "CEP" yet? What was the CEP of the early 1960s ICBMs?

Don't forget MIRV's:

"MIRV: A BRIEF HISTORY OF MINUTEMAN and MULTIPLE REENTRY VEHICLES" by Daniel Buchonnet, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, February 1976

• The idea of multiple warheads dates back to the mid-1960s, but the key year in the history of the MIRV concept was 1962 when several of technological developments made it possible for scientists and engineers to conceive of multiple, separately targeted warheads that could hit a growing list of Soviet nuclear threat targets. One important innovation was that the weapons laboratories had designed small thermonuclear weapons, a necessary condition for deploying multiple reentry vehicles on the relatively small Minuteman. Equally significant were the ABLE-STAR and TRANSTAGE space vehicles which made it possible to place several space satellites on different orbits. Those vehicles were the "direct predecessors" of the MIRV "bus" used to propel the reentry vehicles to target.
• A major event in MIRV history was a decision in 1966 to enlarge the Minuteman's third stage, thus creating Minuteman III (pages 19 and 43). This made it feasible to deploy MIRVs on the Minuteman because earlier versions had a relatively small throw- weight (payload) which limited the size of the weapons package and supporting equipment.
• MIRV would be used to reduce collateral damage "by matching the yield to the target." MIRVs could hit point targets, such as a missile base or silo, so accurately that only a small nuclear warhead would be necessary to achieve the anticipated destruction. Collateral damage, therefore, would be less compared to that caused by larger, enormously destructive thermonuclear warheads. The yield of the Minuteman III MIRV is excised from this document but as of the early 1970s it approximated 170 kilotons, substantially less than the Minuteman I's 1.2 megaton yield. (Nevertheless, one Minuteman MIRV warhead would have had over eight times the yield of the 20 kiloton weapon dropped on Hiroshima, thus, collateral damage would still be extensive).

Bolding mine. From here.