Only if we allow him to...I vote we don't...
Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga
- Thread starter Patrick1000
- Start date
- Status
Only if we allow him to...I vote we don't...
Another question.
So just where are you pulling that crossrange from? The one you are changing by a couple of orders of magnitude?
Just wondering, not that I think you're up to actually answering obviously.
R.A.F. used the phrase intellectual coward. I think he's half right.
I think he is just bored with that "theory" now; he has found something even sillier to occupy his imagination. No doubt he will bring it up again at some point, in the same way he can't leave the pooh alone.
I see what you did there.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
You have a point. There are too many unanswered questions that P1K continues to evade.
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
We can easily show the trajectory data to be phony, so too must be the rocks and pics
The Eagle's descent trajectory and landing site analysis can be found in the APOLLO MISSION 11, TRAJECTORY RECONSTRUCTION AND POSTFLIGHT ANALYSIS VOLUME 1, March 16 1970. Emil Scheisser was the mathematician/trajectory analyst primarily responsible for the work that appears here.
On page 7-64(page 75 overall of the report) we read that the 16mm photographic film analysis of the LM trajectory gave the analysts what they thought was the best estimate(BET) of the landing site coordinates. These coordinate numbers; 0.647 N and 23.505 E, were not available in real-time(07/20/1969), not available to NASA/Houston/Apollo Program personal until well after the astronauts returned from their "journey". Specifically, Scheisser and colleagues did not determine these to be the landing site best estimate/BET until days after the "Apollo 11 capsule splashdown", July 24 1969.
Here are the lines from the trajectory report in which Scheisser and colleagues endorse these coordinates as the best Eagle landing site coordinate estimate, page 7-64(page 75 overall);
"Note that both the BET #3 and the Onboard/MSFN H-S estimates are very close to the 16mm photo graphic estimate (accepted as the best estimate).
Since the data type being examined is a velocity measurement, it is most important that the reference trajectory be virtually free of velocity errors in the data arc. The onboard/MSFN H-S trajectory contains a large velocity error at landing where the BET #3 was constructed in such a manner that the velocities were zero at landing. Therefore, the BET #3 was chosen as the basic reference upon which to base the analysis of landing radar velocity residuals."
(The onboard/MSFN H-S coordinates listed in the Trajectory analysis Coordinate Table 7.11 are 0.655 N and 23.515 E)
The BET coordinates discussed in this section of the Trajectory Analysis Report were presented in an earlier NASA document, the Apollo 11 Mission Report, this published in November of 1969. As in the later published Trajectory Analysis Report of March 1970, the non-real-time photography determined/16mm film analysis coordinates of the November 1969 Apollo 11 Mission Report are listed in table 5-IV as 0.647 and 23.505. just as they appear in the Trajectory Report document.
As per the Mission Report, when these coordinates, expressed in the minutes/seconds of arc format, 00 38' 49" is the minutes/seconds of arc equivalent to 0.647 degrees, and 23 30' 18" is the minutes/seconds of arc equivalent to 23.505 degrees, are corrected per footnote "a)" of the Mission Report Table(quote of all 3 footnotes so appearing);
"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 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."
those corrections, as per footnote "a)" yield a 16mm postflight best landing site estimate of 00 41' 14" north and 23 26" 01' east.
The Apollo 11 Mission Report lists 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east as the trajectory to map correction adjusted postflight best estimate Eagle landing coordinates. We may view these solutions as equivalent for the case/matter at hand. 00 41' 15" and 00 41' 14" differ by 27 feet. From 240,000 miles away, they are an exact match. Likewise for the east coordinates 23 26' 01" and 23 26' 00".
Professor Wampler and the Lick Observatory Staff were given 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east on the very night of the landing, just shortly after the LRRR was set down. Yet the trajectory specialists, Emil Scheisser and colleagues, determining the landing site BET/best estimate did not have these numbers, by way of 16mm trajectory analysis until well after 07/24/1969. None of the real-time estimates discussed/listed in the Mission Report and Trajectory Analysis Report are similarly close to these numbers.
Lick Observatory had the numbers on the evening of 07/20, yet NASA claims the numbers were not known until after 07/24 when the Eagle trajectory 16mm film could be studied. We conclude, the Eagle's landing site was known before the Eagle even landed, as there was foreknowledge of the landing coordinates.
We conclude, someone inside of "NASA" but outside the formally acknowledged Apollo Program group, knew the landing site coordinates on the evening of the landing many days before they were said to have been determined by photo analysis, and so, this person was party to the Apollo 11 fraud. Based on this alone, we recognize the Apollo 11 trajectory data as fraudulent and the Mission fraudulent.
We shall quibble about rocks and pictures/photos later. Given the telemetry fraudulence and therefore Apollo 11 Mission fraudulence, we know the rocks were not brought back to the earth from the moon by astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin, though conceivably they are moon rocks. We also know given the fraudulence of the telemetry data and therefore the Apollo 11 Mission in general, all of the photography from the lunar surface is fraudulent. It was not taken by genuine moon walkers.
Our analysis of the coordinate data allows us to say these things with supreme confidence. They are in no way points of contention. They are not matters/issues in dispute.
The Eagle's descent trajectory and landing site analysis can be found in the APOLLO MISSION 11, TRAJECTORY RECONSTRUCTION AND POSTFLIGHT ANALYSIS VOLUME 1, March 16 1970. Emil Scheisser was the mathematician/trajectory analyst primarily responsible for the work that appears here.
On page 7-64(page 75 overall of the report) we read that the 16mm photographic film analysis of the LM trajectory gave the analysts what they thought was the best estimate(BET) of the landing site coordinates. These coordinate numbers; 0.647 N and 23.505 E, were not available in real-time(07/20/1969), not available to NASA/Houston/Apollo Program personal until well after the astronauts returned from their "journey". Specifically, Scheisser and colleagues did not determine these to be the landing site best estimate/BET until days after the "Apollo 11 capsule splashdown", July 24 1969.
Here are the lines from the trajectory report in which Scheisser and colleagues endorse these coordinates as the best Eagle landing site coordinate estimate, page 7-64(page 75 overall);
"Note that both the BET #3 and the Onboard/MSFN H-S estimates are very close to the 16mm photo graphic estimate (accepted as the best estimate).
Since the data type being examined is a velocity measurement, it is most important that the reference trajectory be virtually free of velocity errors in the data arc. The onboard/MSFN H-S trajectory contains a large velocity error at landing where the BET #3 was constructed in such a manner that the velocities were zero at landing. Therefore, the BET #3 was chosen as the basic reference upon which to base the analysis of landing radar velocity residuals."
(The onboard/MSFN H-S coordinates listed in the Trajectory analysis Coordinate Table 7.11 are 0.655 N and 23.515 E)
The BET coordinates discussed in this section of the Trajectory Analysis Report were presented in an earlier NASA document, the Apollo 11 Mission Report, this published in November of 1969. As in the later published Trajectory Analysis Report of March 1970, the non-real-time photography determined/16mm film analysis coordinates of the November 1969 Apollo 11 Mission Report are listed in table 5-IV as 0.647 and 23.505. just as they appear in the Trajectory Report document.
As per the Mission Report, when these coordinates, expressed in the minutes/seconds of arc format, 00 38' 49" is the minutes/seconds of arc equivalent to 0.647 degrees, and 23 30' 18" is the minutes/seconds of arc equivalent to 23.505 degrees, are corrected per footnote "a)" of the Mission Report Table(quote of all 3 footnotes so appearing);
"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 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."
those corrections, as per footnote "a)" yield a 16mm postflight best landing site estimate of 00 41' 14" north and 23 26" 01' east.
The Apollo 11 Mission Report lists 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east as the trajectory to map correction adjusted postflight best estimate Eagle landing coordinates. We may view these solutions as equivalent for the case/matter at hand. 00 41' 15" and 00 41' 14" differ by 27 feet. From 240,000 miles away, they are an exact match. Likewise for the east coordinates 23 26' 01" and 23 26' 00".
Professor Wampler and the Lick Observatory Staff were given 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east on the very night of the landing, just shortly after the LRRR was set down. Yet the trajectory specialists, Emil Scheisser and colleagues, determining the landing site BET/best estimate did not have these numbers, by way of 16mm trajectory analysis until well after 07/24/1969. None of the real-time estimates discussed/listed in the Mission Report and Trajectory Analysis Report are similarly close to these numbers.
Lick Observatory had the numbers on the evening of 07/20, yet NASA claims the numbers were not known until after 07/24 when the Eagle trajectory 16mm film could be studied. We conclude, the Eagle's landing site was known before the Eagle even landed, as there was foreknowledge of the landing coordinates.
We conclude, someone inside of "NASA" but outside the formally acknowledged Apollo Program group, knew the landing site coordinates on the evening of the landing many days before they were said to have been determined by photo analysis, and so, this person was party to the Apollo 11 fraud. Based on this alone, we recognize the Apollo 11 trajectory data as fraudulent and the Mission fraudulent.
We shall quibble about rocks and pictures/photos later. Given the telemetry fraudulence and therefore Apollo 11 Mission fraudulence, we know the rocks were not brought back to the earth from the moon by astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin, though conceivably they are moon rocks. We also know given the fraudulence of the telemetry data and therefore the Apollo 11 Mission in general, all of the photography from the lunar surface is fraudulent. It was not taken by genuine moon walkers.
Our analysis of the coordinate data allows us to say these things with supreme confidence. They are in no way points of contention. They are not matters/issues in dispute.
Last edited:
332nd
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 11,278
Wrong. The pics clearly prove man walked on the moon which is why you are afraid to address them.
What was Reeds most important contribution on the day?
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
How to fool flight officers and astronomers 101
Take a look at my last post there above, in which I detail the foreknowledge issue.
This analysis also provides one key to understanding how the flight dynamics people and the astronomers were fooled.
The flight dynamics officers such as H. David Reed and colleagues, dealt in decimal based coordinates, without the correction factors added in for the north coordinates, or subtracted out for the east coordinates, when those corrections applied. One of the important places they did not apply was with respect to the AOT derrived coordinates, but we can go to that issue later.
So the flight officers in Houston deal with decimal based coordinates, and the correction factors are not figured in. The astronomers, on the other hand, are given coordinates in minutes/seconds of arc format, and the correction factors are added or subtrated in.
In this way, coordinate confusion is generated around the 16 mm photography best estimate figures. They are given to the Lick Observatory people that very evening, 07/20/1969, but no one, except the few bad space apples in on the fraud, recognize the coordinates as the EXACT coordinates of Tranquility Base as determined by Emil Scheisser and the trajectory analysts days after the astronauts return to Earth. This, because the analysts too work in decimal form until they miraculously come up with their final solution.
This solution, Lo and Behold, is the very solution given to the Lick people on the big night, 07/20/1969, 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east.
With respect to the numbers, the fraud's perpetration is quite diverse. We can cover other elements of it later, but one of its key featutres is this, the decimal/minutes-seconds of arc switching. Utilizing this ploy enables the fraud perpetrators to pass the exact Tranquility Base coordinates to the astronomers at Lick Observatory while at the same time the flight dynamics people believe the coordinates are not known with any degree of accuracy and it is they who are actually crunching the numbers to come up with a best estimate. As we see, nothing could be further from the truth. The fraud people have the numbers all along. They just pass them to the Lick staff in a different, and as it turns out, not so eaily recognized alternative format.
Take a look at my last post there above, in which I detail the foreknowledge issue.
This analysis also provides one key to understanding how the flight dynamics people and the astronomers were fooled.
The flight dynamics officers such as H. David Reed and colleagues, dealt in decimal based coordinates, without the correction factors added in for the north coordinates, or subtracted out for the east coordinates, when those corrections applied. One of the important places they did not apply was with respect to the AOT derrived coordinates, but we can go to that issue later.
So the flight officers in Houston deal with decimal based coordinates, and the correction factors are not figured in. The astronomers, on the other hand, are given coordinates in minutes/seconds of arc format, and the correction factors are added or subtrated in.
In this way, coordinate confusion is generated around the 16 mm photography best estimate figures. They are given to the Lick Observatory people that very evening, 07/20/1969, but no one, except the few bad space apples in on the fraud, recognize the coordinates as the EXACT coordinates of Tranquility Base as determined by Emil Scheisser and the trajectory analysts days after the astronauts return to Earth. This, because the analysts too work in decimal form until they miraculously come up with their final solution.
This solution, Lo and Behold, is the very solution given to the Lick people on the big night, 07/20/1969, 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east.
With respect to the numbers, the fraud's perpetration is quite diverse. We can cover other elements of it later, but one of its key featutres is this, the decimal/minutes-seconds of arc switching. Utilizing this ploy enables the fraud perpetrators to pass the exact Tranquility Base coordinates to the astronomers at Lick Observatory while at the same time the flight dynamics people believe the coordinates are not known with any degree of accuracy and it is they who are actually crunching the numbers to come up with a best estimate. As we see, nothing could be further from the truth. The fraud people have the numbers all along. They just pass them to the Lick staff in a different, and as it turns out, not so eaily recognized alternative format.
Last edited:
"I see no ships" - Nelson
No, no. It was 9:12 PM in New Delhi when he posted. Probably enjoying his after dinner tea, he was. After a spirited discussion with his 50-ish colleagues and a busy day of "de-tersing" important UN documents.
Nah, he was sneaking in a post after homeroom. Probably bumping into other kids as he was walking to class and keying at the same time.
I think that he posted it from the back of a dog sleigh somewhere in the Yukon,while dictating important missives to his secretary. It's a hard and busy life being a Renaissance man.
Where's Patrick this week?
It's a bit like Where's Wally...
Wait a minute. You are saying that flight officers and people who were working daily throughout the Apollo process with coordinates would be CONFUSED by conversion from dec to radian, or presentation of a coordinate plus an adjustment as versus a coordinate with the adjustment applied?
You mean, seriously, you think that the navigational specialists, some of the best spacecraft navigation people in the world at that time, couldn't do addition if it wasn't done for them?
Seriously?
By the by, no matter how large your wall of text grows, it still rests a very shaky foundation; the unsubstantiated claim that Wampler had a certain set of arbitrary coordinates prior to the time you believe anyone else could have calculated them.
If you were actually interested in constructing an argument, as opposed to attempting to throwing up wads of convincing-looking but ultimately meaningless text in hopes of swaying your audience, you would show exactly WHEN Wampler got his information, and what it was, and demonstrate that you can show that from verifiable sources.
By the by...assuming there was a conspiracy, what is the rationale for telling Lick early, when they didn't return success in pinging the LRRR until much later (until, in fact, after every one of your barriers to their having the correct coordinates have already been passed)?
And why would you make a huge effort to hide it from flight personnel (who were less likely to be giving interviews) when you made no effort to prevent the Lick astronomers from telling everyone they had the coordinates early?
"Hey, don't worry about the SEC finding out about those junk bonds! But make sure the elevator operator never learns anything....."
And why would you make a huge effort to hide it from flight personnel (who were less likely to be giving interviews) when you made no effort to prevent the Lick astronomers from telling everyone they had the coordinates early?
"Hey, don't worry about the SEC finding out about those junk bonds! But make sure the elevator operator never learns anything....."
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,334
I see what you did there. No, we can't view them as equivalent. You are pretending that, during the mission, Lick were given coordinates derived from post-mission analysis. They weren't. If they had been, the numbers would be the same. You obviously fail. While it's impressive if the figures agree very closely, the numbers are not the same, which they would be if they had been copied.
In all your verbosity and obfuscation, I believe you have not yet conclusively demonstrated exactly when they were given these figures.
Then your grasp of logic is as weak as your ability to construct an argument.
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,334
Has Patrick ever addressed the issue of whether photographic estimate figures refer to post-mission 16mm film analysis, as he assumes, or to real-time comparison with pre-mission photographic mapping?
I don't recall his doing so.
Since he has steadfastly refused to address his misunderstanding on the similar issue of what radial velocity means, I think it's safe to assume he's just wrong unless he provides better evidence.
Last edited:
Of course not. Despite the fact that Reed mentions the geologists using photography to find their coordinates.
This argument about the coordinates derived from the film could only be made if the film was genuine. Which, in your view it isn't. Once again, you rely on evidence from the missions you want to prove fake.
"Oh look, if I accept this bit as true but assume all the rest is lies then I can PROVE all the rest is lies". Welcome to the world of Dr Sock's Logic.
I'm not just puzzled, I'm astounded, especially after the numerous efforts you, I and others have made to try to get answers from him. His behaviour is becoming increasingly idiotic, in my opinion.
PATRICK1000: I repeat below post 2154 about Drewid's and my questions that you have been avoiding for many days and many pages of your nonsense. We have repeatedly referred you to them and you have repeatedly ignored us. You are making me believe too that you are a coward. I am growing tired of silliness.
Post 2154 said:
matt.tansy
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2007
- Messages
- 991
The only thing you have detailed in this entire thread is your lack of proper and thorough research. You have not even attempted to identify the man in Houston who passed the coordinates to Lick.
- Status