Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[GlennB]

I am north of Dehli now, in the home of a wealthy man. I am using his computer. He has internet access.

You appear to be keeping a very unusual schedule over there in <cough> "Delhi". What work are you doing?

 

[ArmillarySphere]

The VAB is not exactly a top-secret facility. I don't know if that's just the movies, but my impression is that it was open to contractors, guided tours and even some of the press. Even without that, there were hundreds of workers there. Swapping out the LM (wouldn't those Grumman guys be ticked off if they saw it) and placing something else that just happens to fit the mountings for it in its place would be ... challenging. There's a CSM stack sitting on top of it, you know, and only one crane to work with.

P1K keeps making up these hypotheticals, but I don't see him stop and think what any of them would entail.

 

[drewid]

W Joseph Wampler said people in Houston told him the Eagle was at 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east many hours before the astronuats took off.

[Citation Needed]


and 2
What are the coordinates of the LM now?

I've asked you this before so I'm not actually expecting an answer.

Brave Sir Robin.

Take a shot at my trajectory analyses. Debunk my fraud claim. I would like to see it.

Careful what you wish for. Twice you've done this and twice taken a pounding. Looking for strike three?
Patience kid.

 

[Patrick1000]

Coordinates

[Citation Needed]


and 2
What are the coordinates of the LM now?

I've asked you this before so I'm not actually expecting an answer.

Brave Sir Robin.

Have been working with the coordinate numbers as they were formally recognized post Apollo 11 in the Trajectory Report and Mission Report. 0.6875 north and 23.505 east. Same as 00 41' 15" and 23 26' 00". You can find others, both before these were published and after, but they are all fairly close to these, and since these are the "official" numbers from the trajectory report and Mission report based on post flight analysis of the 16mm film, I believe it makes sense to stick with these as the official recognized "Tranquility Base Location" for the purposes of this thread.

You are in a better position to look up the alternatives, the non Mission Report, non Trajectory Report numbers.

 

[Toke]

His entertainment value is dropping.

 

[Patrick1000]

NASA numbers

I have been working with the coordinate numbers as they were formally recognized post Apollo 11 in the Trajectory Report and Mission Report. 0.6875 north and 23.505 east. Same as 00 41' 15" and 23 26' 00". You can find others, both before these were published and after, but they are all fairly close to these, and since these are the "official" numbers from the trajectory report and Mission report based on post flight analysis of the 16mm film, I believe it makes sense to stick with these as the official recognized "Tranquility Base Location" for the purposes of this thread.

You are in a better position to look up the alternatives, the non Mission Report, non Trajectory Report numbers.

An Apollo team member, in response to one of my inquires, gave me these as the official Tranqility Base coordinates.

00 38' 23.9994" adding the correction of 2' 25" would give 00 40' 49" north
23 30' 00" subtracting 4' 17" would give 23 25' 43" east

That's 850 feet or so from the other "Tranquilty Base Coordinates".

The same source had a NASA reference/Apollo 11 Mission reference, not Mission Report, not Trajectory Report, and claimed these were used at lift off;

00 47' 24" north
23 24' 22.3194" east.

I viewed the source as very reliable.

 

[Patrick1000]

Actually you are wrong

[Citation Needed]


and 2
What are the coordinates of the LM now?

I've asked you this before so I'm not actually expecting an answer.

Brave Sir Robin.


Careful what you wish for. Twice you've done this and twice taken a pounding. Looking for strike three?
Patience kid.

I queried NASA as to why the Mission Report/Trajectory report numbers were other than those that H. David Reed must have used in his solution for the LM trajectory and they informed me they "were at a loss" to explain the discrepancy, and acknowledged there was indeed a discrepancy they could not reconcile, referring to the two different data sets as "not squaring".

So I believe my point, at least as far as it goes with the NASA historians whom I contacted are concerned, stands drewid.

 

[Patrick1000]

see 2607 above

[Citation Needed]


and 2
What are the coordinates of the LM now?

I've asked you this before so I'm not actually expecting an answer.

Brave Sir Robin.


Careful what you wish for. Twice you've done this and twice taken a pounding. Looking for strike three?
Patience kid.

Sorry drewid, see 2607 above. I contacted NASA Apollo historians about the H. David Reed issue and the discrepancy. See note above.

 

[dafydd]

His entertainment value is dropping.

I've had him on ignore for a while now. Boring.

 

[Patrick1000]

I was informed by an Apollo historian that my correction application was appropriate

By the way drewid, I was informed by the Apollo historian whom I contacted that my employment of the correction factors listed in the table 5-IV footnote "a" of the Mission Report was appropriate. I was also informed the correction factors apply to the "targeted" numbers as well. This, I had previously assumed not to be the case.

 

[SezMe]

Also, if you are frustrated by my inability to engage ...

You entirely missed my point. I am not frustrated by your inability to engage, I am amazed by all the posters here who do engage with you as if you are a rational person who is willing to listen. Demonstrably, you are neither. Yet folks keep on keeping on as if you are. Raises the question of who is the more demented....including me, as this post attests.

 

[Patrick1000]

Targeted coordinates with corrections

The targeted coordinates listed in the Mission Report drewid are;

0.691 north and 23.72 east. Adding/subtracting corrections gives;
0.731 north and 23.65 east, equivalently;

00 43' 51" north and 23 39' 00" which were the intended landing site coordinates more or less as listed in the Mission Report in an earlier section. So adding and subtracting the correction factors does "give back" the originally intended landing site coordinates per the Mission Report.

The intended or targeted site as given in the Press Kit was slightly different.

 

[Patrick1000]

Touche'

You entirely missed my point. I am not frustrated by your inability to engage, I am amazed by all the posters here who do engage with you as if you are a rational person who is willing to listen. Demonstrably, you are neither. Yet folks keep on keeping on as if you are. Raises the question of who is the more demented....including me, as this post attests.

TOUCHE' , I get your point. Do not know why I am so active either. And with that, will have to go for some time now. Thanks.

 

[Multivac]

Come on now Multivac, that's a pretty teensey weensey reflector for such a big fat rocket. Don't you think they brought up somptin' a bit bigger than that? Going all that way with such a big "spaceship", the unmanned craft must have been packing more than a midget LRRR. Let your imagination go a little buddy. It's the only way to get at the truth here with so many lies floating about in this zero G ungrounded world of Apollo.

Yes, I agree that they took something bigger with them - two human beings.

Edit: That's two human beings landed on the moon. Obviously the rocket also carried Michael Collins, the command module, LEM, food, water, fuel etc.

 

[drewid]

An Apollo team member, in response to one of my inquires, gave me these as the official Tranqility Base coordinates.

00 38' 23.9994" adding the correction of 2' 25" would give 00 40' 49" north
23 30' 00" subtracting 4' 17" would give 23 25' 43" east

That's 850 feet or so from the other "Tranquilty Base Coordinates".

The same source had a NASA reference/Apollo 11 Mission reference, not Mission Report, not Trajectory Report, and claimed these were used at lift off;

00 47' 24" north
23 24' 22.3194" east.

I viewed the source as very reliable.

I don't view you as reliable. You have been shown up as lying previously.

And I noticed you dodge the first question. You claim Lick had the correct coordinates before the launch. You have never shown any evidence for this.

Brave Sir Robin.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If you are curious what I think about the new lunar orbital shots, I have seen those, someone brought them to me. They show nothing. No flag, no ALSEP, no lander. I hope that is not a question I see again. I will give the same answer. I see no flag, no ALSEP, no lander.

LOL @ "someone brought them to me". Patrick's fantasy about how one communicates in India in 2011 is charmingly silly. I suppose he imagines an eager boy in uniform running all the way from the telegraph office with a packet of facsimile documents. I hope he got a good tip and a pat on the head.

Dude, you looked it up on the internet. We know it, you know we know it. It is not helping your already-vanished chances of convincing anybody that anything else you say is remotely credible.

Turning to the pictures themselves, they show precisely what they should show assuming Apollo is absolutely real and exactly as documented. No more, no less. Bleating about being unable to see detail which these pictures would never be expected to capture will avail you nothing. Your objection is stupid. You fail.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

...You claim Lick had the correct coordinates before the launch. You have never shown any evidence for this.

He's being deliberately ambiguous. He means before the launch of the LM ascent stage from the moon, not the launch of Apollo 11 from earth. He still won't say what time Lick got their coordinates, though.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I think the most useful thing Partick could do with his ever-expanding collection of coordinates is present them in a neat table.

It would be good to see them listed, showing how and when each figure is supposed to have been derived and, importantly, what his reference was. After all, there's a world of difference between a figure from a contemporaneous document or report showing the figures actually being used and a recollection from years later which would inevitably mean the storyteller had to look the numbers up somewhere else.

 

[Patrick1000]

This speaks for itself.




I have more from Joseph Wampler, and at least for now, will choose not to share it here. He gave me permission to share anything I wished to share. Donald Beattie likewise gave me permission to do the same. The NASA historian I was/am in contact with said I could not use his/her name unfortunately.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Yep, that speaks for itself: Prof Wampler doesn't mention anywhere there exactly when Lick observatory received the coordinates from NASA.

So when you told us that he did, what were you talking about?