Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,778
I was going to suggest that he just discovered the phrase "space-time", but this may be more likely...
Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga
- Thread starter Patrick1000
- Start date
- Status
I was going to suggest that he just discovered the phrase "space-time", but this may be more likely...
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Yes Pat,tell us more. I need cheering up.
matt.tansy
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2007
- Messages
- 991
Ok, my brain has been de-exploded and put back into my skull.
Dr. Socks, now compute the tidal force on either side of a 5 foot diameter ballistic missiles and tell us if you think the targeting team needs to worry about it?
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
More on Apollo 8 and the Borman diarrhea thing
More on the Borman diarrhea thing.
Life Magazine, January 17 1969, Vol. 66 No.2 featured an article about the "flight of Apollo 8" which included first person accounts penned by each of the 3 astronauts.
Frank Borman recounts very briefly his experience with "becoming sick" in cislunar space. He writes about the nausea and vomiting and conveniently forgets to mention the diarrhea. In his narrative he suggests it was the seconal(sleeping pill) that made him sick to begin with and then goes on to unbelievably say he took a half a pill a second time to sort of test it out, see if that is what made him sick to begin with, to see if that is what caused the problem the fist time.
I think this finding finally lays this nonsense to rest. Diarrhea all over the spaceship, risking your colleagues' health, jeopardizing the safety of the entire mission, AND HE TAKES SECONAL A SECOND TIME!!!!?????
This man is not an astronaut, and he is in absolutely no way under a doctor's supervision.
More on the Borman diarrhea thing.
Life Magazine, January 17 1969, Vol. 66 No.2 featured an article about the "flight of Apollo 8" which included first person accounts penned by each of the 3 astronauts.
Frank Borman recounts very briefly his experience with "becoming sick" in cislunar space. He writes about the nausea and vomiting and conveniently forgets to mention the diarrhea. In his narrative he suggests it was the seconal(sleeping pill) that made him sick to begin with and then goes on to unbelievably say he took a half a pill a second time to sort of test it out, see if that is what made him sick to begin with, to see if that is what caused the problem the fist time.
I think this finding finally lays this nonsense to rest. Diarrhea all over the spaceship, risking your colleagues' health, jeopardizing the safety of the entire mission, AND HE TAKES SECONAL A SECOND TIME!!!!?????
This man is not an astronaut, and he is in absolutely no way under a doctor's supervision.
Last edited:
matt.tansy
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2007
- Messages
- 991
That's one way to interpret it, if you're a pussy. The proper way to interpret it is it wasn't that big of a deal.
We've all seen "examples" of your "knowledge" of space and the space program, and you're simply in no position to make such a determination.
In other words, we just don't care what your ignorant opinion "is". The Apollo missions happened "as advertised", and you need to get a clue.
Jrrarglblarg
Unregistered
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 12,673
Why not? This seems like a natural segue from your gravity "calculations."
Life Magazine in 1969 would not discuss crapping in even tangential language. Thanks for confirming your age, or lack thereof. Even if Borman/his ghost writer were to have turned in a draft with mention of diarrhea the Life editors would cheerfully red-pen those words and sentences.
gee, that seems like SCIENCE in action to me, which is what they were in space to do
Oh My Eleventy God! Poop ALL OVER THE SPACE SHIP!!! SOMEONE OPEN THE DOOR!!11!
Uh. Half a pill = 1/4 the original dose. That seems like science at work, under the supervision of trained professionals.
Which you are not -- trained, nor professional.
Opinions are not facts.
Last edited:
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
More on lack of knowledge with respect to transoceanic distances.
In earlier posts I referenced an Apollo 11 40th Anniversary article from a U.C. Santa Cruz Newsletter in which one of the Lick Observatory professors, Joseph Wampler, commented upon the military uses of lunar ranging. Such ranging could be employed in the measurement of theretofore unknown terrestrial distances, such as across the great oceans, which at the time had never been "mapped", certainly not in any modern 21st century sense. Here is the relevant quote again, from the UC Santa Cruz News letter article "Apollo 11 anniversary: Lick Observatory scientists recall landmark experiment 40 years ago"
July 27, 2009 Professor Wampler;
"The Russians knew very accurately the distance between Russian cities and between cities within the United States, but they didn't know the distance between the U.S. and Russia," explained Joe Wampler, professor emeritus of astronomy, who coordinated the experiment for the observatory. "Having an accurate measure of the distance to the moon at a moment in time would've given them that information. I was kind of upset about that, because we went into this as a scientific experiment. We weren't doing it for national security."
Looking into the subject of "how well the Earth had been mapped" by the mid 20th Century, I found myself surprised to read with regard to Terrestrial Reference Frames(TRFs) that land mass distances in many instances were not known well, let alone the distances across oceans. This is from the UK Publication A GUIDE TO COORDINATE SYSTEMS IN GREAT BRITAIN, Dec. 2010;
"Before the 1950s, coordinate system TRFs contained many angle measurements but very few distance measurements. This is because angles could be measured relatively easily between hilltop primary control stations with a theodolite, but distance measurement was very difficult. A consequence of this was that the shape of the TRF was well known, but its size was poorly known. The distance between primary control stations was established by measuring just one or two such distances, then propagating these through the network of angles by trigonometry (hence the name ‘trig pillars’)."
So people knew angles well, but distances between nodes on coordinate systems(the midwest to Moscow by way of ICBM) much less well, and sometimes not well at all when it came to mid 20th Century measurements of distances across the great oceans.
In earlier posts I referenced an Apollo 11 40th Anniversary article from a U.C. Santa Cruz Newsletter in which one of the Lick Observatory professors, Joseph Wampler, commented upon the military uses of lunar ranging. Such ranging could be employed in the measurement of theretofore unknown terrestrial distances, such as across the great oceans, which at the time had never been "mapped", certainly not in any modern 21st century sense. Here is the relevant quote again, from the UC Santa Cruz News letter article "Apollo 11 anniversary: Lick Observatory scientists recall landmark experiment 40 years ago"
July 27, 2009 Professor Wampler;
"The Russians knew very accurately the distance between Russian cities and between cities within the United States, but they didn't know the distance between the U.S. and Russia," explained Joe Wampler, professor emeritus of astronomy, who coordinated the experiment for the observatory. "Having an accurate measure of the distance to the moon at a moment in time would've given them that information. I was kind of upset about that, because we went into this as a scientific experiment. We weren't doing it for national security."
Looking into the subject of "how well the Earth had been mapped" by the mid 20th Century, I found myself surprised to read with regard to Terrestrial Reference Frames(TRFs) that land mass distances in many instances were not known well, let alone the distances across oceans. This is from the UK Publication A GUIDE TO COORDINATE SYSTEMS IN GREAT BRITAIN, Dec. 2010;
"Before the 1950s, coordinate system TRFs contained many angle measurements but very few distance measurements. This is because angles could be measured relatively easily between hilltop primary control stations with a theodolite, but distance measurement was very difficult. A consequence of this was that the shape of the TRF was well known, but its size was poorly known. The distance between primary control stations was established by measuring just one or two such distances, then propagating these through the network of angles by trigonometry (hence the name ‘trig pillars’)."
So people knew angles well, but distances between nodes on coordinate systems(the midwest to Moscow by way of ICBM) much less well, and sometimes not well at all when it came to mid 20th Century measurements of distances across the great oceans.
Last edited:
And again, I doubt the distances across oceans were unknown by more than a few hundred feet, most likely far less. We knew the radius of the Earth, we'd sailed the oceans, we'd flown across the oceans, and we had overflown them with satellites. To say they were unknown by anything more than that, especially for the purpose of targetting something that was often designed to detonate at altitude is ludicrous. Especially when you consider how accurate some of the reentrys of Mercury, Gemini and various probes were based solely on orbital mechanics.
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,404
By happy coincidence, a couple of days ago I was standing at one of those old British Trig Points, admiring the view across the Firth of Forth and contemplating the very high tides caused by the new moon.
Back on topic, I note that your reference specifically states "before the 1950s" and not "before the 1970s", as it surely would do if the Apollo LRRR's had been required to improve distance measurement.
So your post helps debunk your own argument.
Jrrarglblarg
Unregistered
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 12,673
What??? When did we get a new one? What happened to the old one? Nobody told me about this.
Crap, now we gotta do the Apollo program all over again to land on the NEW moon!!!
slyjoe
Illuminator
Indeed.
To get the "distance across the oceans", Patrick thinks we would use a reference (the moon) that we didn't know the precise location of (for certain values of precise).
What would be the SEP for triangulating from earth stations to the moon Patrick? And what does "well" and "poorly" mean in your quote?
And he thinks the moon's gravity has more of an effect than the earth's?
Did anyone notice that ICBMs for Russia wouldn't fly across the oceans anyway?
slyjoe
Illuminator
What??? When did we get a new one? What happened to the old one? Nobody told me about this.
Crap, now we gotta do the Apollo program all over again to land on the NEW moon!!!
You didn't get the memo?
To Patrick we would have to FAKE the landing on the new moon.
slyjoe
Illuminator
JohnG
Pedantic Bore
It appears Patrick has gone to his happy place and is no longer even pretending to consider all of your responses. Maybe everyone just needs to back away from him slowly and let him rant in peace and solitude?
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,404
What??? When did we get a new one? What happened to the old one? Nobody told me about this.
Crap, now we gotta do the Apollo program all over again to land on the NEW moon!!!
The old one was just looking untidy. All covered in space junk. The shiny new hollow one gives the Illuminati somewhere safe to store all their stolen gold. Of course this makes it rather heavy, which accounts for the high tides...
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Good idea. The thread has reached saturation point.
- Status