Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[excaza]

you know, getting your heiny burned by way of a hot pulse of ruby red monochrome.

Yet another lie you insist in perpetuating. Come back to reality, leave Star Trek behind.

 

[abaddon]

Guess my last post eliminates the visor as a reason for not seeing stars

With the visor up there will be more ambient light striking his eyes, making it even more difficult to see stars.

Odd mistake for a doctor to make, don't you think?

 

[R.A.F.]

And there are plenty of other professional astronomers who say the same thing.

They say the landings were faked?

Oh, I see...they saw nothing of the sort.

Address the images COWARD.

 

[R.A.F.]

Doctor in what? Stupidity?

He's a doctor in space ignorance.

 

[Patrick1000]

This is great!!!! I feel, no I actually am, posting unopposed!!!

He's a doctor in space ignorance.

This is great!!!! I feel, no I actually am, posting unopposed!!!

I so love this thread you guys. You call me "dumb" and other names, and I post, for the most part, essentially unopposed, at least recently any way.

Slide rule sticks that produce only "tricks" and simulated styrofoam moon stones won't ever break my oh so very REAL bones, and of course your silly names will never hurt me.

So wadda' ya' think R.A.F., Neil's version "no stars"?, or his sycophantic, fawning, couldn't edit a high school newspaper if his inane NASA reporting career depended on it lap dog Jay Barbree's obviously regurgitated "stars EASILY seen Armstrong original bogus line contradiction"?.

Wadda' ya' think R.A.F.???????????

I say Jay is right, but for the wrong reason.

Diagnosis: Phony Journalist!

Not that he is in on the fix, he is just too dang primitive to think independently about anything.

Punishment: Jay is bannished and must edit outer Siberia's Nitkita Khrushchev High's school newspaper for the duration of his bogus career.

I wonder if they'll fly the astronauts out there, out there to Siberia for Jay's big 1 year anniversary editing that paper? Bet they would, only makes sense.

 

[twinstead]

This is great!!!! I feel, no I actually am, posting unopposed!!!

You are about as delusional as they come

 

[Garrison]

This is great!!!! I feel, no I actually am, posting unopposed!!!

I so love this thread you guys. You call me "dumb" and other names, and I post, for the most part, essentially unopposed, at least recently any way.

This is clearly some new definition of the word 'unopposed' I am not familiar with.

I think patrick is beginning to feel a little

 

[drewid]

Armstrong said they, the astronauts, were NEVER able to see stars from the surface of the moon Garrison. He also said the earth and the sun were the ONLY objects visible from the surface of the moon and from cislunar space(qualifying that just a tad with , "some reports of planets", that the commander suspects might be visible, as below).

Read the Patrick Moore interview quote carefully Garrison and please, do not take liberties and change the commander's words. That is exactly what he said , one can ONLY see the sun and earth, and he meant ever lovin' word of it, for good reason too.

During the Apollo 11 post flight press conference, BBC journalist Patrick Moore asks the Apollo 11 moonwalkers;

"when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the the stars and the solar corona in spite of the glare?"

Answering on behalf of NASA's trio of employees, neil Armstrong responded to Patrick Moore with;

"We were never able to see the stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the moon by eye, without looking through the optics. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see."

In 1970, Neil Armstrong was interviewed in a one on one setting by BBC journalist Patrick Moore. On this occasion, Moore again asked the question about the appearance of stars from the lunar surface. It's only natural. Of course we'd all like to know. It's what we're all familiar with here on earth, the stars, and it wasn't surprising that Moore asked this question first. He queried;

"Mr. Armstrong…Could you tell us something about what the sky actually looks like from the moon, the sun the earth the stars if any, and so on?"

Armstrong responded;

"The sky is a deep black when viewed from the the moon, as it is when viewed from cislunar space, the space between the earth and the moon. The earth is the only visible object other than the sun that can be seen , although there have been some reports of seeing planets. I myself did not see planets from the surface, but I suspect they might be visible."

Oh good grief that's even better. Posting quotes that debunk yourself.
Priceless, absolutely priceless.

I realise you have trouble with reading comprehension, would you like someone to translate those for you?

 

[mrbusdriver]

Patrick, you didn't answer the question....how long in duration were the laser pulses aimed from Earth at the LRRR while the astronauts were on the surface?

 

[dafydd]

You are about as delusional as they come

The ignore button comes in useful sometimes.

 

[Garrison]

I did not say one could not see stars from the surface of the moon, Armstrong did.

I did not say on the other hand one could EASILY see stars, Slayton/Shepard did.

Again I ask where did Armstrong say it was impossible to see stars rather than just that he didn't see any during his mission? Are you trying to pretend that his use of the word 'we' in some statement is meant to encompass all the lunar astronauts rather than just the crew of Apollo 11?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I don't think he can hear us any more.

I'm rather afraid he's lost it completely.

It might be kindest to just let him reply to his own posts from now on. That's when he's happiest.

 

[332nd]

I don't think he can hear us any more.

I'm rather afraid he's lost it completely.

It might be kindest to just let him reply to his own posts from now on. That's when he's happiest.

Oh he's just scrambling trying to with new ways to weasel out of his mistakes. It's kind of funny. For example his trying to convince US of his age by mentioning the '72Olympics & leaving out the event that truly shocked the world. It reels of "investi-google".

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I wonder if, when he bores of repeating himself, Patrick will tackle other topics.

For example, I'm sure if he looks hard enough he'd be able to find an offhand remark made long after the event which doesn't quite match the accepted chronology and therefore proves WW2 never happened. Or the Titanic never sank. Or Columbus never discovered America. Or neolithic man discovered iron and there was no copper or bronze age.

I think he should consider a new challenge as this one is plainly never going to go his way.

 

[Southwind17]

In 1970, Neil Armstrong was interviewed in a one on one setting by BBC journalist Patrick Moore. On this occasion, Moore again asked the question about the appearance of stars from the lunar surface. It's only natural. Of course we'd all like to know. It's what we're all familiar with here on earth, the stars, and it wasn't surprising that Moore asked this question first. He queried;

"Mr. Armstrong…Could you tell us something about what the sky actually looks like from the moon, the sun the earth the stars if any, and so on?"

Armstrong responded;

"The sky is a deep black when viewed from the the moon, as it is when viewed from cislunar space, the space between the earth and the moon. The earth is the only visible object other than the sun that can be seen , although there have been some reports of seeing planets. I myself did not see planets from the surface, but I suspect they might be visible."

Assuming these are accurate quotes, why did Moore qualify his question regarding seeing stars with 'if any'? Was it because Armstrong had previously advised that no stars could be seen from the surface, or is there another reason? Also, and I've probably missed this as I've not read back over the entire thread, but I'm surprised that only the Earth and Moon were apparently observable from cislunar space. Why was that?

 

[sts60]

It simply depends on whether your field of view is illuminated by the Sun. The same thing happens with any spacecraft. For a photographic analog, compare images from the ISS shot during orbital day, when parts of the sunlit station and/or Earth are in the field of view, to images during orbital night. The former show an inky black sky, the latter shows an inky black sky with stars, airglow, etc. Neither cameras nor the human eye have the dynamic range to properly image stars and sunlit objects at the same time.

IIRC, on one of the later Apollo missions a crewmember did take a few minutes during lunar EVA to stand in shadow, and deliberately manuever himself to exclude the sunlit lunar surface, and did of course see stars.

The entire "controversy" is simply confusing multiple contexts and sources to pretend there is some great contradiction, but instead what is presented is a cartoon view of how the Apollo missions, and space flight in general, really work. Whether this is done from incompetence or dishonesty you can judge for yourself; the OP has unfortunately displayed plenty of both. But this silly "stars" business is nothing new in the HB bizarro-world; one HB claimed that Challenger was destroyed to keep Christa McAuliffe from saying she could see stars in space. I wish I was kidding, but as you have seen in thread, stupidity has no real limits.

 

[Southwind17]

It simply depends on whether your field of view is illuminated by the Sun. The same thing happens with any spacecraft. For a photographic analog, compare images from the ISS shot during orbital day, when parts of the sunlit station and/or Earth are in the field of view, to images during orbital night. The former show an inky black sky, the latter shows an inky black sky with stars, airglow, etc. Neither cameras nor the human eye have the dynamic range to properly image stars and sunlit objects at the same time.

IIRC, on one of the later Apollo missions a crewmember did take a few minutes during lunar EVA to stand in shadow, and deliberately manuever himself to exclude the sunlit lunar surface, and did of course see stars.

Thank you for that sts60. But surely there were times during the journey that the conditions for seeing stars were favourable, similar to what you describe in relation to the ISS? I can certainly understand the issue with the moon walks.

 

[Patrick1000]

The Saddest and Sorriest Bunch of 20 Somptin' First Wave Geeks I Ever Saw

I just stumbled across something insanely profound today. Check this out, from the Apollo 11 Voice Transcript;

Time: 05 03 55 23

"CC: Columbia, Houston. Roger. Loud and clear. And if you would like to take it down, we have the latest position of Tranquility Base. Over.

CMP Go ahead.

CC: Roger. It's just west - at west crater, Juliett 0.5, 7.7. Over.

CMP: Understand that it is just west of the crater.
Juliett 0.5 and 7.7. Is that correct?

CC: Columbia, Houston. That is correct.

CMP: Okay. Thank you, Ron."

I intentionally left "Juliett" as Juliett. Of course the system there is Julian, as in Julius Caesar. Now I do not know this for an absolute fact, but a pretty close to sure fact. I don't believe a single one of those twenty something fight officers would know a pair of Julian based numbers if they were hit over the head with them. They work with conventional decimal based coordinates, and they worked in the degree/minutes/seconds system, like the Tranquility Base coordinates we are all so very familiar with; 0.6875 degrees north and 23 degrees 26 minutes 00 seconds. So whoever is pumping out these Julian figures, is not a rank and file flight officer like H. David Reed. It cannot possibly be Reed or one of his talented colleagues calculating this crazy stuff, right down there in the TRENCH. Right down there in real-time. Way too much trouble. Reed and his colleagues are engaged with other tasks, technical, but still relatively blue collar.

I went to my Starry Night Software program and cruised over to Tranquility Base. I punched in the date and time of the simulated Eagle launch; 07/21/1969 at 17:54 UT. My software gave 1 hour and 7.8 minutes as the "now" Julian based solution for the right right ascension(RA) of planet earth at that time and date("now", I presume refers to 07/21/1969). I converted to conventional decimal form and found 0.62037.

This is from the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal;

"121:08:05 Evans: And when the LM does his P22 on your transponder, well then, that'll be our last shot at the LM's position.

121:08:14 Collins: Rog. Understand. (Pause)

The LM crew will track the Command Module as it passes over the landing site for the last time prior to launch and, with the Command Module orbit well known, in principle the tracking data will help pin down the landing site. With the information available a half hour before launch - including the crew's descriptions of West Crater and Little West Crater and the returns from the laser reflectometer - at 123:55:23, Ron gives Mike a final LM location of J.5/7.7, which is only about 200 meters from the actual landing site at J.65/7.54. Mike will be too busy during that pass over the landing site to look for the descent stage."

So for the simulated launch, Collins got .5 as the RA and it ultimately proved to be .65. I got a right ascension figure of .620. So I did better with my software than that initial J.5 estimate for the right ascension that appears in the Voice Transcript record. Of course the numbers at this point do not seem to be all that critical anyway. The reason that I say this is because it would seem these are the numbers, the Julian system based numbers, the very numbers "they" are using for the launch. So for now, let's acknowledge that simple fact and see where it leads.

So the astronauts are sighting the earth! That is where the Julian figures come from. Which makes sense, because if one determines the right ascension and the declination for the earth on 07/21/1969 at 17:54 UT, the time of the simulated Eagle launch, then one would know the position of the Eagle, EXACTLY. Well exactly if you had good equipment. And in the pretend Apollo world, they did have good pretend equipment. Well it was real equipment, but they actually did not sight the earth and determine its right ascension and declination from the surface of the moon. So they have good pretend precision. Let's leave it at that.

My Starry Night 6 software gives 1 hour 7.8 minutes right ascension and 9.44 degrees declination for the earth from the moon on 07/21/1969 at 17:54. I haven't played around with the second number yet, the declination, so not sure why the discrepancy between the Voice Transcript Julian .5 and 7.7 (ultimately Julian .65 and 7.54).

However, it would appear regardless of the number specifics, though we do of course find ourselves very encouraged by the strong correlation between my right ascension calculation and those in the Voice Transcript and Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, we may conclude with confidence that there were 2 groups of people working in Houston on numbers that evening. Now H. David Reed and the other front line TRENCH FLIGHT BOYS, they are working with decimals and degree/arc/second coordinates. There is absolutely no evidence, never has been that these guys work in a Julian system, which is difficult as we all know. The computers might, and guys might look stuff up in tables, but Reed is not generating Julian based figures. Would expect he might not know what they were, or if he did, he would have understood Julian system stuff as machines/computers based, at least I would imagine that to be so.

So Reed and his SELECT, not to mention his DYNAMICS buddy, are working with one set of numbers, and coming up with stuff not too far from the LRRR(0.6875 north and 23 26 00 east). They are working on an "LRRR solution" in a sense. And at least one other person, most likely Emil Schiesser, the big shot mathematician/trajectory specialist(he probably needs no help with the deception angle stuff) is working in a much more difficult Julian based system on the launch solution, probably interacting with Reed directly, after all, Schiesser is his boss in a sense, his technical superior and better anyway.

And so my friends, we see how the HOUSTON TRENCH MEN were suckered and boy dontcha' feel for those guys. I am serious, really!

Lots and lots and lots and lots is explained by this. The astronauts, Aldrin anyway, claimed the LM star chart was critical in their finding themselves after becoming in a sense "lost". Well , if they are working with Schiesser in a simulated Julian context, then they have to use the AOT, and star chart in conjunction, to site e the earth. (Another idea would be they sighted, or better said, may have simulated a sighting of the CSM itself, but let's leave that since the numbers square so well with the earth for starters.)

So if Schiesser has the grunts crunching numbers to find the LRRR at 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east, that leaves him, Schiesser, free in a sense to "work with the astronauts" in pretending to sight the earth, and generate this Julian system based solution, and in so doing, determine the lunar position of the simulated Eagle and so forth.

Boy oh boy oh boy oh boy! now! don't we ever have coordinate confusion. What a Bird Hiding set up here! AND!!! it is important to note, this MUST be going on. It quite simply has to be the case. There is no other explanation. Reed was said to have been the man who solved for the Eagle launch. But looking at this!!!, we see they used a Julian system approach in generating the numbers that they needed to launch(right ascension of the earth at J.5 and declination of 7.7). Now that "from the lunar surface" Julian system earth sighting(J.5/7.7), that does not give the position of its sighter within 200 meters of "Tranquility Base" at 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east. Haven't done the numbers myself yet, but per the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, a sighting at Julian 0.65/7.54 would place that sighter right on the LRRR at 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east. So does not look as though J.5/7.7 would lead to a satisfactory Tranquility solution.

So, it is fake, has to be. David Reed and his colleagues find the LRRR, pretty close to 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east anyway, let's give Reed and his reverse radar solution credit here. Whilst down the hall, some guy, probably Schiesser, is pulling off this insanely imaginative ruse. He's working with the astronauts in their all pretending to obtain Julian system based numbers for the launch. What a guy! Gotta' give him credit. IT IS VERY VERY VERY CLEVER! Talk about losing the bird!

This is why the AOT solution is so at variance with the other solutions in the Mission Report. Remember the AOT north coordinate is 0.523? It's off, off from the others that is, off from the others collectively, for this very reason. That number came from the simulated Julian activities. Remember Neil Armstrong's "cross range"? From the Voice Transcript;

Time: 05 02 53 18

CDR : What figure is the crossrange and NOUN 76?

CC: Roger. Your crossrange for NOUN 76 - By the way, we may update this later, but now it is plus 0017. Over.

Well Collins' simulated pick up is coming in pretty much from due east to due west. The earth is at azimuth 272 or 273, so add 17 degrees and one gets 290 degrees. Collins is coming, and coming rather precisely, just 17 degrees cross range from the object the astronauts have been so very intently pretending to sight, the Earth.

And there really is no getting out of this for the NASA guys here. NASA's claim has always been unflagging. The claim has always been, REED solved for the launch, a claim made not only by NASA , but by Reed himself, a claim made by everybody. But Reed doesn't work in a Julian system, maybe his computers do some of that, but he wouldn't know what to do with Julian .5/7.7 on 07/21/1969 at the time of launch; 17:54 UT.

AND! We caught a fish, this time a big one, a great big big big big fat one!!! not!!! a tiny one like Bales. This time we caught a great big fat smart smart smart fish, a hoaxster of a fish no less. Boy isn't Schiesser ever lovin' clever, ain'tcha' Emil???????!!!!!!!

 

[ArmillarySphere]

I intentionally left "Juliett" as Juliett. Of course the system there is Julian, as in Julius Caesar.

Or, you know, it could refer to something completely different.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/LAM2_CMP-flown.jpg

 

[Humanzee]

Ugh....
Juliet is for J.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_phonetic_alphabet

But you knew this didn't you? This is from elsewhere. ApolloHoax forum I think. It took 3 minutes of lazy browsing to find.

To quote;
"At GET 123:55:36, the Capcom gave Collins the latest position of Tranquility Base: “It’s just west of West Crater, Juliet 0.5, 7.7.” So what does this mean? Collins had a lunar surface map that had a series of grid lines drawn across it. The lines were laid out in one-kilometer squares. The east-west lines were labeled A through W and the north-south lines were labeled 1 through 27. Juliet stood for the J line and 0.5 meant that the position was halfway between the J and K lines. The 7. stood for the #7 line and the .7 meant the position was 7/10s of the way between the 7 and 8 lines. This position is normally written as J.5/7.7.

After completion of the mission, the final estimated position of the LM was improved to J.65/7.52 after examining mission photos and film. This position was published in the post mission report as 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E, or 0.6875 N and 23.4333 E."