Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga
- Thread starter Patrick1000
- Start date
- Status
Is anyone else growing a little tired of this utterly childish, totally disrespectful, insulting and abominable crap from our resident conspiracy theorist? I have only included a sample from the one post, and not every utterance of that ilk. It is one thing to take the mickey now and then (I do it myself), but it is another thing altogether to carry on like this. On one occasion he admitted it was wrong of him to used ad hominems, and now he goes right back to doing exactly that. I have to wonder if the guy is not only nuts, but a drunk. He certainly behaves like one at times. It would be nice if he could grow up a little and act reasonably like the "doctor in his fifties" that he claims to be.
I suggest that he apologises for this behaviour.
Last edited:
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,247
I see Patrick has absolutely nothing new to say, but says it at enormous length anyway, in an attempt to put as much screen space as possible between us and his last embarrassing failure.
We may need to keep reminding readers that Patrick couldn't recognise that "Juliet" was a NATO phonetic alphabet rendering of the letter "J", and so didn't grasp that it was part of a grid reference: row "J" on a lunar map carried by the astronauts.
Patrick's frantic Googling for any mention of "Juliet" in a navigational context led him only to "Julian" which is a reference to the year length used in recent years to fix the celestial reference frame used by astronomers. Not the same as Juliet, but <shrug> close enough for Patrick to go galloping off in the wrong direction. (Aside: The reference needs aligning every few decades. In the Apollo era, astronomers had not yet adopted Julian years for convenience of calculation and were still using Besselian years, making even the "Julian" reference irrelevant.)
Having swotted up for a few moments, Patrick then composed a frankly hilarious post (#3078) where he pompously declared that of course NASA should have been able to pinpoint the exact position of the LM using the Julian calendar. I think it's my favourite Patrick post so far, as he pretends to understand the navigational technique he handwaves about when it is absolutely, painfully plain that he is talking absolute garbage and no such thing exists.
We may need to keep reminding readers that Patrick couldn't recognise that "Juliet" was a NATO phonetic alphabet rendering of the letter "J", and so didn't grasp that it was part of a grid reference: row "J" on a lunar map carried by the astronauts.
Patrick's frantic Googling for any mention of "Juliet" in a navigational context led him only to "Julian" which is a reference to the year length used in recent years to fix the celestial reference frame used by astronomers. Not the same as Juliet, but <shrug> close enough for Patrick to go galloping off in the wrong direction. (Aside: The reference needs aligning every few decades. In the Apollo era, astronomers had not yet adopted Julian years for convenience of calculation and were still using Besselian years, making even the "Julian" reference irrelevant.)
Having swotted up for a few moments, Patrick then composed a frankly hilarious post (#3078) where he pompously declared that of course NASA should have been able to pinpoint the exact position of the LM using the Julian calendar. I think it's my favourite Patrick post so far, as he pretends to understand the navigational technique he handwaves about when it is absolutely, painfully plain that he is talking absolute garbage and no such thing exists.
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,247
little grey rabbit
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2010
- Messages
- 3,164
I hate to agree with the Hoaxsters here, but I have to second this demand.
Patrick should stick to classy and sophisticated insults; like posting from Mummy's basement. That one never grows old. No, no, I really mean it.
little grey rabbit
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2010
- Messages
- 3,164
What's in a name?
Multivac
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2011
- Messages
- 2,121
Patrick1000;7592293 Children know Collins is wrong. So why would the pilot of the Columbia simulator lead kids astray like that? Of course they have the Lunar Science for Kids Web site now said:
I'm currently reading Carrying The Fire, could you please tell me which page this statement is made on. Thanks.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
He hasn't read it.
"Patrick": who said anything about zombies? I merely questioned your existence because it is my opinion that you're a group of high school kids in the SFO area. I base that on the timing and maturity of your posts, along with some hints that you've dropped as to where you're from. For all I know, you could actually be a board-certified physician, but several of my contemporaries are and none of them express themselves the way you do.
Now, you do realize that you've come full circle, don't you? That the the Apollo 11 mission could not have happened because no one knew to some level of sigma (that you've never specified) precisely where the Eagle had landed, thus a safe rendezvous couldn't have been effectuated. And since a safe rendezvous couldn't happen, we didn't go to the Moon. After all the thousands of words, this is what your argument boils down to.
Since I was a kid, I'd always assumed that the timing of the launch from the Moon was based on knowing the location of the LM to within some acceptable level of accuracy and tolerating the fuel cost. Thanks to some real experts here, along with Reed's account, it is abundantly clear that the launch window merely had to be determined by ensuring that the LM knew where it was in relation to the CSM. With all due respect to the real rocket scientists and other experts on these boards (sts60, Jay Windley, and Bob B. immediately come to mind), it's as simple in concept as solving for x in algebra.
Now, since you brought up bathroom facilities again, I'm going to give you a double challenge:
1) Tell us the weight penalty of every pound that is hauled to the Moon and back That is, how much fuel do you have to burn to take something there and then bring that same mass back.
2) Show us that you can behave like a respectful adult and answer without any snide asides. Quite frankly, even if I felt your ideas had merit, you'd have lost me by your presentation style.
-----
ETA: sorry, my own eyes glazed over when you started that "Fuzzy Buzzy" foolishness. I thought you meant I thought you were a zombie. But that's what happens when you add a lot extraneous nastiness to an argument; people go past it to try to get to real content.
Now, you do realize that you've come full circle, don't you? That the the Apollo 11 mission could not have happened because no one knew to some level of sigma (that you've never specified) precisely where the Eagle had landed, thus a safe rendezvous couldn't have been effectuated. And since a safe rendezvous couldn't happen, we didn't go to the Moon. After all the thousands of words, this is what your argument boils down to.
Since I was a kid, I'd always assumed that the timing of the launch from the Moon was based on knowing the location of the LM to within some acceptable level of accuracy and tolerating the fuel cost. Thanks to some real experts here, along with Reed's account, it is abundantly clear that the launch window merely had to be determined by ensuring that the LM knew where it was in relation to the CSM. With all due respect to the real rocket scientists and other experts on these boards (sts60, Jay Windley, and Bob B. immediately come to mind), it's as simple in concept as solving for x in algebra.
Now, since you brought up bathroom facilities again, I'm going to give you a double challenge:
1) Tell us the weight penalty of every pound that is hauled to the Moon and back That is, how much fuel do you have to burn to take something there and then bring that same mass back.
2) Show us that you can behave like a respectful adult and answer without any snide asides. Quite frankly, even if I felt your ideas had merit, you'd have lost me by your presentation style.
-----
ETA: sorry, my own eyes glazed over when you started that "Fuzzy Buzzy" foolishness. I thought you meant I thought you were a zombie. But that's what happens when you add a lot extraneous nastiness to an argument; people go past it to try to get to real content.
Last edited:
CptColumbo
Just One More Question
A short list of books that I found helpful on the subject:
Genesis: The Story Of Apollo 8 by Robert Zimmerman
Lost Moon: The Perilous Voyage of Apollo 13 by Jeffrey Kluger and James Lovell
Dragonfly: NASA and the Crisis Aboard the MIR by Bryan Burrough (really about NASA in the 1990s, but also covers the early history)
Moon Shot: The Inside Story of America's Apollo Moon Landings by Jay Barbree, Alan Shepard and Deke Slayton
A Man on the Moon: The Voyages of the Apollo Astronauts by Andrew Chaikin
Two Sides of the Moon: Our Story of the Cold War Space Race by David Scott and Alexei Leonov
The Last Man on the Moon: Astronaut Eugene Cernan and America's Race in Space by Eugene Cernan and Donald A. Davis - I particularly like this book as it is on of the few astronaut auto-biographies that doesn't pull any punches, and is openly critical of himself and parts of the program.
Genesis: The Story Of Apollo 8 by Robert Zimmerman
Lost Moon: The Perilous Voyage of Apollo 13 by Jeffrey Kluger and James Lovell
Dragonfly: NASA and the Crisis Aboard the MIR by Bryan Burrough (really about NASA in the 1990s, but also covers the early history)
Moon Shot: The Inside Story of America's Apollo Moon Landings by Jay Barbree, Alan Shepard and Deke Slayton
A Man on the Moon: The Voyages of the Apollo Astronauts by Andrew Chaikin
Two Sides of the Moon: Our Story of the Cold War Space Race by David Scott and Alexei Leonov
The Last Man on the Moon: Astronaut Eugene Cernan and America's Race in Space by Eugene Cernan and Donald A. Davis - I particularly like this book as it is on of the few astronaut auto-biographies that doesn't pull any punches, and is openly critical of himself and parts of the program.
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
Real Time Past Tense
Take the MSFN solution for example, it was a real time solution because the data with respect to the Eagle's landing site was collected and available in real time to use as/if they pleased.
On the other hand, and as astronaut Armstrong pointed out in the authorized biography, what was done was done. The flight was over, "past tense". Once the Eagle was "on the ground", there was no way to get any more MSFN data on its simulated lunar point of rest.
The pictures not so. They could keep looking and looking and looking until they made up their minds. So the pictures/film are not "real time". And in the case of pictures, the solution was "future tense", after the astronauts returned.
Take the MSFN solution for example, it was a real time solution because the data with respect to the Eagle's landing site was collected and available in real time to use as/if they pleased.
On the other hand, and as astronaut Armstrong pointed out in the authorized biography, what was done was done. The flight was over, "past tense". Once the Eagle was "on the ground", there was no way to get any more MSFN data on its simulated lunar point of rest.
The pictures not so. They could keep looking and looking and looking until they made up their minds. So the pictures/film are not "real time". And in the case of pictures, the solution was "future tense", after the astronauts returned.
Last edited:
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
I really do feel silly.
I really do feel silly now. I had gone through all that time and trouble studying NASA's own manuals, documents on reference frames for space travel, finding things in space. I read almost all of NASA'S, "THE GUIDANCE , FLIGHT MECHANICS AND TRAJECTORY OPTIMIZATION REPORT".
http://psas.pdx.edu/RocketScience/N...ANICS_AND_TRAJECTORY_OPTIMIZATION_Volume1.pdf
It's not as though the Julian Date issue is of little importance to trajectory and navigational specialists or anything. (page 88)
or that the navigation/trajectory specialists writing NASA's own manual wouldn't be thinking along the lines I alluded to above.
I really do feel silly now. I had gone through all that time and trouble studying NASA's own manuals, documents on reference frames for space travel, finding things in space. I read almost all of NASA'S, "THE GUIDANCE , FLIGHT MECHANICS AND TRAJECTORY OPTIMIZATION REPORT".
http://psas.pdx.edu/RocketScience/N...ANICS_AND_TRAJECTORY_OPTIMIZATION_Volume1.pdf
It's not as though the Julian Date issue is of little importance to trajectory and navigational specialists or anything. (page 88)
or that the navigation/trajectory specialists writing NASA's own manual wouldn't be thinking along the lines I alluded to above.
Last edited:
332nd
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 11,278
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
More, Boy Do I Really Feel Silly
I mean why bother studying any of this stuff from the manual?
Why bother studying how real scientists would go about locating an orbiting command module or finding themselves on the surface of a planet?
Or bother finding out how to find out where one is anywhere in the universe?
Boy oh boy did I ever feel silly after I spent all that time studying NASA's own stuff and learning how to find things in space, learning about the importance of Julian and Besselian "systems".
Then you guys told me about the map, and I did go to the original(copy) of the voice transcript recording, and sure enough, both the cap com and Michael Collins say "Juliett" as plain as you ever want to hear it in a recording of a simulated conversation taking place over a simulated 240,000 miles.
So must be the case that Shyster did use the map. To be honest now, I don't think Shyster would understand that manual of NASA's, the Guidance/Flight Mechanics/Trajectory Manual, very complicated stuff. Easier just to have Neil and the Glassy Eyed Ph.D Zombie look out of the window there at Space Mountain in Orlando, tell you some hokey jive and then take out your map and mark whatever place you like. In this case where an LRRR is parked.
Makes a lot more sense to me. A lot easier. Took me 2 or 3 weeks to get through that stupid manual. This way, one just makes up whatever he or she likes. I mean it's not as though any of this is real anyway.
I mean why bother studying any of this stuff from the manual?
Why bother studying how real scientists would go about locating an orbiting command module or finding themselves on the surface of a planet?
Or bother finding out how to find out where one is anywhere in the universe?
Boy oh boy did I ever feel silly after I spent all that time studying NASA's own stuff and learning how to find things in space, learning about the importance of Julian and Besselian "systems".
Then you guys told me about the map, and I did go to the original(copy) of the voice transcript recording, and sure enough, both the cap com and Michael Collins say "Juliett" as plain as you ever want to hear it in a recording of a simulated conversation taking place over a simulated 240,000 miles.
So must be the case that Shyster did use the map. To be honest now, I don't think Shyster would understand that manual of NASA's, the Guidance/Flight Mechanics/Trajectory Manual, very complicated stuff. Easier just to have Neil and the Glassy Eyed Ph.D Zombie look out of the window there at Space Mountain in Orlando, tell you some hokey jive and then take out your map and mark whatever place you like. In this case where an LRRR is parked.
Makes a lot more sense to me. A lot easier. Took me 2 or 3 weeks to get through that stupid manual. This way, one just makes up whatever he or she likes. I mean it's not as though any of this is real anyway.
Last edited:
Look telemetry
see the data is not lost
Houston has it all
or
Where is the data?
Telemetry saves the day
Houston has it all
(probably better form)
Last edited:
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
So what you are saying is that you are not man enough to admit when you were dead wrong.
Those posts you made will not go away, you know.
They are out there for all to see for years.
- Status