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?!
