Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Garrison]

It's very roughly 03:00 where you claim to be.

What line of work are you in?

Given his difficulties with issues of navigation and trajectory it's possible Patrick intended to travel to India and instead wound up in Indiana.

 

[R.A.F.]

...debunk this.

Why is it so hard for you to understand where the burden of proof lies?

Apparently your learning "curve" is a flat line.


Why haven't you answered my question in post #2686...do you need more time?

 

[R.A.F.]

Ya know what, Patrick...you haven't once mentioned MASCONS, which is the reason why A11 landed "long".

...also, why no mention of A12 which landed within 600 feet of the surveyor spacecraft??

Talk about a "pinpoint" landing.

 

[R.A.F.]

This is ALL POST FLIGHT ANALYSIS! NOT RELEVANT!

If you head gets any bigger, it's going to explode...

I guess it would be "redundant" to mention that YOU don't get to decide what is, or isn't relevant...

 

[R.A.F.]

Oh..almost forgot...ADDRESS THE IMAGES, COWARD.

 

[fess]

Since Patrick last stated that he would not be posting for a while, presumably to “work”, he has made over 50 posts… in less than 24 hours.

Where can I find a job like that?

 

[grmcdorman]

Well, that seems to have been a lie^*, then... so we can dismiss all of Patrick's claims without bothering to evaluate them. And the sources for them, as well.

What? Why are you all looking at me like that? That's what he does with Apollo: one lie means that everything is a lie.

* Or at least inconsistent with his other statements.

 

[frenat]

Since Patrick last stated that he would not be posting for a while, presumably to “work”, he has made over 50 posts… in less than 24 hours.

Where can I find a job like that?

First you have to go back to high school, then you have to move in with your parents.

 

[grmcdorman]

Since Patrick last stated that he would not be posting for a while, presumably to “work”, he has made over 50 posts… in less than 24 hours.

Where can I find a job like that?

First you have to go back to high school, then you have to move in with your parents.

To be fair, there are some jobs, such as night watchman, that can allow time to do that. Not the job he claims to have, though.

 

[SUSpilot]

Tell ya' what, will do your questions next time I get on regardless of the trajectory stuff which obviously heated up big time, OK. Got to work, sorry.

Hey, Pat, ol' pal! Remember me? I asked that question about relay sites and radio propagation from the Moon and no one noticing and all that, remember? You were gonna get back to me, even though the ol' trajectory thing heated up again. Kinda disappointed, but I guess I understand, what with your sleep deprivation from posting at 03:30 and all...

 

[drewid]

Go to my post #1178, it gives all of the real-time coordinates that NASA had to work with. I added and subtracted the correction factors.

If you would rather start from scratch and do it on your own, you can download a copy of the Mission Report for yourself, just google it, Apollo 11 Mission Report. All the possible coordinate solutions are found in table 5-IV. It was published in November of 1969. We have been working with these numbers all along here. There is no mystery to what they are or where they came from.

Other specifics regarding these numbers and another table of the same can be found in the Apollo Mission 11 Trajectory Report, published March 16 1969. Also can download this from the net.

Try the Mission Report first Jack by the hedge, or look at my post 1178.

I'd download it yourself Jack

Patrick, if you're going to point people at 1178 you should at least do them the courtesy of pointing out the problems with it.

 

[Kiwi9]

Wampler and Remington Stone blasted away all night...
"We blasted away all night but detected no return signal whatsoever. Things got pretty subdued later in the evening as it became apparent we had a problem."

Ha, ha, ha! Your misuse and misunderstanding of this quote really show you how much you know about Apollo 11, Pattydash.

I suggest you find out what the local time was at Lick when the LRRR was placed by certain astronauts on the moon. And find the time the sun set at Lick. And finally, find the time the moon set at Lick.

When you return to us, tell us how Lick could have possibly "blasted away all night" at a moon which had set.

It seems pretty clear to me that they mean "all the time the LRRR site was visible from Lick," but they certainly don't mean "all night, from dusk (or from when the LRRR was placed) to dawn."

Do your homework, Slappydash, and stop trying to take all of us for suckers. You talk nonsense and we know it. Except for you, that is.

Hint: There were barely three hours between sunset and moonset from Lick. That's hardly all night, is it? And they tell us they couldn't "find" the entire moon in bright sky, so considering that they probably couldn't do much once the moon got near the horizon, they probably tried for much less than three hours. Perhaps not even two hours, depending on how long it took for the sky to darken.

As Dunning and Kruger express in their paper, you are so unskilled that you don't know it, and you have an overinflated opinion of your abilities. In fact, if you flatly deny that you have ever done anything mentioned in the paper, you clearly have Dunning-Kruger Syndrome.

Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it.

http://people.psych.cornell.edu/~dunning/publications/pdf/unskilledandunaware.pdf


And by the way: Will you ever tell us in your own words what you believe H. David Reed accomplished the morning a certain lunar module lifted off from the moon with two astronauts on board? Two astronauts who did what you claim was impossible, which again shows how much you know.

And how did the rendezvous radar get switched on so Reed could do what he claims? Did the moon-goblins turn it on, or did an astronaut? Then, what did that rendezvous radar make contact with above the moon? It wouldn't be something that you claim could never have been there, would it? And finally, what did the "rendezvous radar in reverse" pinpoint on the moon with sufficient accuracy for it to lift off? It wouldn't be something else that you claim couldn't have been there, would it?

Ha, ha, ha!

 

[Tolls]

So they were off by 200m when the Eagle took off from the moon.
How does that affect the LRRR?
Doesn't the laser have a large footprint once it gets to the moon? Significantly larger than 200m diameter?

And wouldn't that mean that the coordinates therefore were good enough to target the LRRR? Or have I misunderstood how that thing worked?

 

[Kiwi9]

A description by the Commander of a double crater about 6 to 12 meters in size and south of the lunar module shadow plus the identification of West crater, the hill to the west, and the 21- to 24-meter crater reported behind the lunar module, formed a unique pattern from which the landing site was determined to within about 8 meters

In fairness to Pattydash, he correctly points out that the identification of East crater, behind the LM, was not made by Neil Armstrong until the CSM was on its way back to earth.

It was through Neil doing this that the geologists, lead by Gene Shoemaker, were able to come up with a 12 to 20 metre determination:

From the Apollo Flight Journal:

151:41:28 Armstrong: Well, aside from the one big one that we went over, I guess there were none in our area. I took a stroll back after putting up the EASEP, and while Buzz was starting to unpack [likely means 'pack up'] the documented sample, took - took a stroll back to a crater behind us that was maybe 70 or 80 feet in diameter and 15 or 20 feet deep, and took some pictures of it. It had rocks in the bottom of pretty good size, considerably bigger than any that were out on the surface, but there was no - we apparently, at 15 feet or so, had not gotten below the regolith. We were essentially showing no bedrock, at least in the walls of the crater at that depth. Over.

From "First on the Moon - A Voyage with Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins, Edwin E. Aldrin Jr", written with Gene Farmer and Dora Jane Hamblin, epilogue by Arthur C. Clark. Michael Joseph Ltd, London (1970) -- Hardcover, pages 333 and 433:

Page 333: ARMSTRONG: ...I took a stroll back to a crater behind us that was maybe seventy or eighty feet in diameter and fifteen or twenty feet deep. And took some pictures of it. It had rocks in the bottom...

That did it; the geologists had the answer. The crater Armstrong mentioned had no name. But it was on the lunar maps, and Eagle's landing site could be pinpointed beyond a doubt. The geologists had been fairly sure a few hours after touchdown. Later Dr. Eugene Shoemaker said, "Had Neil told us about the small crater behind the LM, we could have pinpointed them right then within twelve to twenty meters."

Page 433: The identification of the exact landing site did not become official until the early morning of 29 July 1969, after the onboard 16mm landing film had been received and processed in the Lunar Receiving Laboratory. The site was stated to be 0 degrees, 41 minutes, 15 seconds north latitude, and 23 degrees, 25 minutes, 45 seconds east longitude. The projected landing site in the flight plan had been 0 degrees, 42 minutes, 50 seconds north latitude, and 23 degrees, 42 minutes, 28 seconds east longitude.

However, Pattydash is wrong when he says,

...Armstrong does not look at that crater until right before he leaves the lunar surface and ends the EVA.

According to the ALSJ, Armstrong headed to East Crater at 111:10:49, and left the lunar surface at 111:37:32, 26 minutes and 43 seconds later. Definitely not right before he ended the EVA.

However, I'm a little confused as to why Pattydash is saying this in any case, because he claims that Armstrong was never on the moon, so he is using Armstrong on the moon to prove that Armstrong was never on the moon.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Occam's razor:

If there are inconsistencies between the contemporaneous NASA documentation and some recollections written decades later by a couple of guys from Lick observatory, my working assumption will be that the side with the vast, detailed and internally consistent body of technical documentation is probably more reliable.

Or, if you prefer to insist that someone must be perpetuating a BIG FAT LIE, then I am going to assume it's not the side which would require thousands of people to be in on a vast, pointless and utterly implausible conspiracy, and instead I'll assume two old astronomers re-telling their story after 30 or 40 years maybe fudged a few details.

I mean, you'd think I was insane if I reached the opposite conclusion, wouldn't you? That would be ridiculous.

 

[Erock]

For P1k eat this

I suggest you find out what the local time was at Lick when the LRRR was placed by certain astronauts on the moon. And find the time the sun set at Lick. And finally, find the time the moon set at Lick.

When you return to us, tell us how Lick could have possibly "blasted away all night" at a moon which had set.

It seems pretty clear to me that they mean "all the time the LRRR site was visible from Lick," but they certainly don't mean "all night, from dusk (or from when the LRRR was placed) to dawn."

Do your homework, Slappydash, and stop trying to take all of us for suckers. You talk nonsense and we know it. Except for you, that is.

Hint: There were barely three hours between sunset and moonset from Lick. That's hardly all night, is it? And they tell us they couldn't "find" the entire moon in bright sky, so considering that they probably couldn't do much once the moon got near the horizon, they probably tried for much less than three hours. Perhaps not even two hours, depending on how long it took for the sky to darken.

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneDay.php

Using the nearest town of San Jose California....

MOON 20th July 1969
Moonrise 11:51 a.m.
Moonset 11:37 p.m.
Moonrise 12:55 p.m. on following day

Elevation will make a couple of minutes difference at most.

EVA ended at 21:17 localtime.


Blasting away all night? Impossible. Now, since we can clearly and irrefutably demonstrate a BIG inaccuracy in their account, does this suggest that 40 years after the fact, they cannot be recalling it correctly?

Take your time now

 

[Patrick1000]

The Moon as a Military Satellite

Been a long time time since I took physics from Dr. Jeong in college, but I do remember how laser works, at least the basic principles.

I'm more interested in how these two quotes reconcile: I thought you were talking about relay stations and radio propagation.

SUSpilot,

Sorry for the digression. I had made you a promise and did not follow through. I had gotten upset when drewid and others implied I was in some way being intentionally misleading with respect to my claim pointing out that Tranquility Base's coordinates were not known prior to the Eagle's launch from the surface of the moon. The charge of intentionally misleading forum members upset me, and it was important to address before moving on. The charge had to do with the nonsensical implication that I was "mixing my launches" and was being ambiguous about whether I was referring to the Saturn V launch of Apollo 11 from Florida, or the Eagle's launch from the surface of the moon. At least I believe that is what my detractors were saying. The substance itself of the charge made little or no sense.

I believe I spent sufficient time and energy clearing the air with respect to that issue, which is an issue I shall return to in good time; coordinate confusion, bird hiding and the Eagle's bogus launch from God only knows where to vacuous destinations unknown. But you had asked an important question, I had promised to answer, and so I shall.

The moon's acknowledged "passive" use by US military personal over the years is certainly no secret. The navy employed "moon bouncing" signal transmission for ship to shore communication purposes as well as for communications between Annapolis Maryland and Hawaii. It was one of the first signal relay modalities developed to get around the "line of sight problem", or more appropriately, lack thereof.

In addition to its acknowledged use as a natural communication satellite for relay purposes, the monitoring of electromagnetic echoes from the lunar surface was one of the ways in which the United Staes was able to detect Soviet ICBM missile launches.

As a military platform, the moon is a great communications satellite. It is big, stable, slow moving, cannot be knocked out, equipment can be easily hidden on its surface(at least in the 60s). However, there are drawbacks to its passive use. These include, but are not limited to;

a) It is available only for 12 hours a day. (With a "satellite system", one could in a sense get around this however. By launching artificial satellites to compliment an "instrumented moon", one could have the best of both worlds.)

b) The moon's broad hemispherical surface leads to signal spreading. (This problem can be addressed by way of active transmission from the moon, just as one would do with a regular artificial satellite. In such cases, satellites serve as both receivers and transmitters.)

c) Surface irregularities on the moon's surface leads to multi path signal fading. (Again, this can be ameliorated by way of directly transmitting from the moon.)

In the case of Apollo, antennae were set up on the lunar surface , and just as now, satellites actively relay signals/transmissions to one another, so too, was this done in the 1960s and 70s, whether these were Soviet ICBM launch signals, or other transmissions. Active transmission allows for coding if/as desired.

The moon should be thought of in this sense as "just another satellite", by that I mean a satellite that both receives and transmits. Receives and transmits because the moon has been instrumented courtesy of the peaceful Apollo program.

The moon is on the other hand, not just another satellite. It is special, very very very special, because of its size, distance, stability, position. One cannot study gravity and earth rotation, measure distances across oceans, locate/target objects with a conventional 1969 vintage artificial satellite. The moon is flat out a way way way better platform, and this is why it was exploited for military purposes.

 

[excaza]

The moon is on the other hand, not just another satellite. It is special, very very very special, because of its size, distance, stability, position. One cannot study gravity and earth rotation, measure distances across oceans, locate/target objects with a conventional 1969 vintage artificial satellite.

Any particular reason why you insist on continuing to propagate this lie?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

...a) It is available only for 12 hours a day. (With a "satellite system", one could in a sense get around this however. By launching artificial satellites to compliment an "instrumented moon", one could have the best of both worlds.)

Or perhaps you could even realise that the hop to the moon and back becomes an unnecessary link, which both delays your communication and exposes your radio traffic to eavesdroppers.

 

[Patrick1000]

Artistic horror





"A win by an unsound combination, however showy, fills me with artistic horror."