• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
Southwind17 said:
Out of interest, what would posters here recommend as the best written accounts of the Apollo 11 mission, if not all of the Apollo missions, and possibly DVDs too? I'm thinking from a technical perspective, addressing the challenges faced/overcome, training, technology, physics, etc., but not too techy.

All recommendations and suggestions gratefully received...
Click to expand...


For reading material, my first recommendation is the same as before -- the Apollo Lunar Surface Journals, but also the Apollo Flight Journals. For DVDs the Spacecraft Films DVD set.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.html
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/
http://www.spacecraftfilms.com

For instance, I checked the landing film on DVD No. 1 last night and found I was wrong about West Crater not being visible. It is, between 11:14 and 11:56, but we don't see down into it.

I'll list below the landmarks I could see (most unidentified) and where to see a few actions of the LM. I've also linked two transcripts, air-to-ground and Public Affairs Officer, and onboard recorder, to the film on the DVD, if anyone would like a copy.

As for not being too techy, you can hardly avoid that if you really want to know about Apollo. The entire thing is highly techy and a fair bit of it is Rocket Science.

The best overall view of Apollo would probably be Andrew Chaikin's book, "A Man on the Moon."

Keep in mind that these things are secondary sources, so not always 100% reliable.

That's one of Patrick1000's many faults -- he insists that his secondary source for information about Lick is accurate, but he never answers questions about exactly when Lick received the coordinates and exactly which ones, because he can't. Be he goes on and on and on and on insisting he's right, as we all can see. He also insists he has proved various things but certainly has few clues about how to present a proof or what constitutes proof, which includes properly answering all the questions of doubters.
 
Last edited:
Spacecraft Films Apollo 11 DVDs -- Landmarks in the Lunar Landing Film

00:32 Wide rille with narrow extension
00:52 Small, shallow rille
01:06 Large, shallow crater with smaller ones before and after
01:57 Two medium craters
02:37 Hill
02:50 Two pairs of medium craters
03:23 Hill
03:29 Hill and steep-walled crater
03:46 Small, shallow crater with smaller pair
04:00 Crater or hill
04:12 Hills and medium deep, round crater
04:41 Old, shallow crater or depression
04:52 Assortment of small craters, three forming a triangle
05:01 Boot Hill
05:16 Two craters beyond Boot Hill
05:30 Maskelyne W
05:59 Sidewinder rille
06:09 Roll commences
06:27 Horizon in view
06:46 Horizon disappears
07:41 Horizon reappears
09:44 Crater – Cat's Paw?
10:38 Pitch forward
10:42 Old crater with small newer one
11:14 Three craters in line, West Crater at left
11:56 West Crater disappears at top
12:12 West Crater boulder field at top.
12:38 Three small craters in a line
12:51 Small crater
12:58 East Crater at top
13:37 Small crater on WNW edge of East Crater



Spacecraft Films Apollo 11 Lunar Landing Film

Note: Most DVD times are those of audio track 3, air to ground and Public Affairs Officer. The onboard recorder on audio track 2 is not always synchronised with track 3, so ground elapsed times for it are not always in sequence.

00:00 - Title: Apollo 11 Lunar Landing – Multiple Audio Tracks – 16mm LMP Window
00:00 - Chapter 1
00:07 102:31:32 Duke: Eagle, Houston. If you'd like to try high gain, pitch 212, yaw 37. Over.
00:21 102:31:45 Aldrin: Roger. I think I've got you on high gain now.
00:24 102:31:49 Duke: Roger.
00:32 - Film: Wide rille with narrow extension
00:34 102:31:59 PAO (Ward): Coming up on one minute to ignition.
00:39 102:32:03 Aldrin: Say again the angles, though.
00:41 102:32:05 Duke: Roger.
00:41 102:32:06 Aldrin: I'll set them in to use them before we yaw around.
00:44 102:32:08 Duke: Rog. Pitch 212, yaw plus 37.
00:52 - Film: Small, shallow rille
00:54 102:32:19 Aldrin (on-board): Copied.
00:59 102:32:22 Armstrong (on-board): Okay. What else is left to do here?
01:01 102:32:25 Aldrin (on-board): Engine Arm, Descent. 40 seconds.
01:06 - Film: Large, shallow crater with smaller ones before and after
01:07 102:32:30 Aldrin: Omnis in.
01:11 102:32:34 Armstrong (on-board): Is the camera running?
01:12 102:32:35 Aldrin (on-board): Camera's running.
01:21 102:32:44 PAO (Ward): Current altitude about 46,000 feet, continuing to descend. [46,000 is incorrect – still above 50,000 feet.]
01:24 102:32:42 Aldrin (on-board): Okay, ...
01:27 102:32:50 Armstrong (on-board): Okay, the Override at five seconds.
102:32:55 ** LM altitude 50,000 feet.
01:35 102:32:58 Armstrong (on-board): Descent Armed.
102:32:58 ** LM propellant settling firing started (ullage maneuver).
01:38 102:33:03 Aldrin (on-board): Altitude light's on.
01:42 102:33:05 Armstrong (on board)... proceed.
102:33:05.01 ** LM powered descent initiation — engine ignition. Altitude 48,814 feet, inertial velocity 5,560 feet per second.
01:44 102:33:08 Aldrin (on-board): Proceed. 1, 0 -
01:45 - Chapter 2
01:46 102:33:11 Armstrong (on-board): Ignition.
01:47 102:33:11 Aldrin: Ignition... Ten percent ...
01:57 102:33:19 Armstrong (on-board): Just about on time.
01:57 - Film: Two medium craters
02:01 102:33:20 Armstrong (on-board): You got the Overrides On?
02:12 102:33:25 Aldrin (on-board): Light is on. 24, 25, 26. Throttle up. Looks good!
102:33:31 ** LM throttle to maximum thrust. Altitude 48,725 feet, velocity 5,529 fps.
02:20 102:33:47 Duke: Columbia, Houston. We've lost them. Tell them to go aft Omni. Over.
02:23 102:33:44 Armstrong (on-board): Okay.
02:25 102:33:46 Aldrin (on-board): ...'s holding.
02:31 102:33:51 Collins: They'd like you to use the Omni.
02:37 - Film: Hill
02:43 102:34:01 Aldrin (on-board): Okay, we're reading… stay with us, Mike.
02:46 102:34:05 Collins: Say again, Neil?
02:47 102:34:07 Aldrin: I'll leave it in Slew.
02:48 102:34:09 Armstrong: Relay to us.
02:50 102:34:10 Aldrin: See if they have got me now. I've got good signal strength in Slew.
02:50 - Film: Two pairs of medium craters
02:54 102:34:13 Collins: Okay. You should have him now, Houston.
02:56 102:34:16 Duke: Eagle, we got you now. It's looking good. Over.
03:03 102:34:23 Duke: Eagle - -
03:03 102:34:24 Aldrin (on-board): Okay, rate of descent looks good.
03:05 102:34:25 Duke: Eagle, Houston. Everything is looking good here. Over.
03:11 102:34:29 Aldrin: Roger. Copy.
03:15 102:34:34 Duke: Eagle, Houston. After yaw around, angles: S-Band pitch, minus 9, yaw plus 18.
03:23 - Film: Hill
03:28 102:34:51 Aldrin: Copy.
03:29 - Film: Hill and steep-walled crater
03:38 102:34:55 Armstrong (on-board): Okay. Two minutes; going good.
03:41 102:34:59 Aldrin: AGS and PGNS agree very closely.
03:43 102:35:01 Armstrong (on-board): RCS is good. No flags. DPS pressure is good...
 
Last edited:
Southwind17 said:
DVDs too?
Click to expand...


Some DVDs that are excellent for a layperson's overview of the missions, easy to obtain and cheap, are the official movies commissioned by NASA for each of the missions. Unfortunately, due to them not being copyrighted, there are many very shoddy versions around, taken off tatty and faded movie films or poor-quality videos, and some of them are highly condensed, nowhere near the original 27 minutes or so.

One reasonable-quality set is "The American Space Odyssey" (4 DVDs) and another is "Space - 10 Space Programmes on 5 Discs."

An excellent TV docu-drama, well worth having, is "From the Earth to the Moon" (4 DVDs, 12 parts, and fronted by Tom Hanks). That name might set Patrick1000 off into another bizarre rant.

Beware with the NASA films though -- The HBs make much ado about the same area and time, a few seconds or minutes apart on Apollo 16, being shown for separate EVAs on subsequent days. If they actually knew their stuff, they would know that this is very common in documentaries. Film and video clips are often used "for illustration" and are not actually of the exact same subject or time being portrayed.

One thing I love seeing in the Apollo 13 movie is one of the MOCR guys (Will Fenner, White Team Guido, from memory) doing sums on a piece of paper with a pencil.

Please let me know if you find a good-quality copy of the full "Apollo 12: Pinpoint for Science" movie (HQ 197 - 28 min 12 sec) on DVD - I never have, and only have it on video tape.

I have done detailed spreadsheets of these movies, identifying personnel, dialogue, etc. Again, anyone is welcome to a copy.

Sample ([-] is for unidentified personnel):
Apollo 16: Nothing So Hidden
0:00:00 Start
- Chapter 4 The American Space Odyssey 3
0:00:05 16 April 1972 — Sunrise, launch spectators, launchpad
0:00:22 Breakfast
0:00:27 John Young eating breakfast
0:00:33 Ken Mattingly reading cartoons
0:00:39 Charles Duke reading newspaper
0:00:44 22 April 1972
0:00:57 Rover moving — 16mm film
0:00:57 GET 143:04:54 Young: "This is going to be a good day, Charlie."
0:01:05 GET 143:35:53 Duke: "Yow! Whooo! Man, that was a great big skid. We're doing 10 clicks, Tony."
0:01:14 GET 143:40:36 Duke: "Covered me with dust on that one."
0:01:16 Farouk El Baz wrote on a blackboard: "There is nothing so far removed from us to be beyond our reach or so hidden that we cannot discover. — Rene Descartes."
0:01:43 Title, "Apollo 16: Nothing So Hidden"
0:01:49 GET 143:39:02 Duke: "Almost like a freshly-plowed field that's been rained on."
0:01:51 End of 16mm film
0:01:53 Two days before, on 20 April 1972, "A real cliffhanger."
0:02:03 Gyroscope problem
0:02:17 Liftoff
0:02:53 [-]
0:02:54 [-]
0:02:56 [-]
0:02:57 CSM docking with LM
0:03:14 Gordon Fullerton
0:03:16 GET 3:21:53 Docking
0:03:19 Lunar orbit — "Sweet 16 has arrived."
0:03:30 GET 96:13:31 20 April 2005 — CSM and LM undocking
0:04:03 CSM viewed from LM
0:04:11 View of moon from orbit
0:04:17 "No circ." (No circularisation burn)
0:04:20 Jim Irwin
0:04:22 [-]
0:04:24 CSM above moon
0:04:39 Jim McDivitt
0:04:44 Flight Director Gerald D. Griffin
0:04:47 Ed Mitchell
0:04:49 Jim Irwin
0:04:51 Deke Slayton
0:04:53 [-]<Same as 0:58:51 & 1:31:54>
0:04:58 Fred Haise
0:05:01 CSM and Earth above the moon
0:05:14 Jim McDivitt
0:05:18 Ed Mitchell, Deke Slayton and Stu Roosa
0:05:25 Jim McDivitt
0:05:28 Alan Shepard
0:05:30 Ed Mitchell and Stu Roosa
0:05:33 [-]
0:05:35 Don Puddy, Ed Mitchell and Deke Slayton
0:05:37 Gerry Griffin
0:05:38 [-]
0:05:40 Deke Slayton
0:05:44 Dale D. Myers (briefly), Chris Kraft, Jim McDivitt, [-]
0:05:53 CSM
0:05:57 LM above the moon
 
Last edited:
Patrick1000 said:
His words and demeanor after his "return to earth" didn't/don't match this face. In this case, the timber of a single word is worth a thousand bogus pictures.
Click to expand...


Oh, sure. In fact, all three of those Apollo 11 astronauts have been permanently glum -- never cracked a smile in their lives. They must be so ashamed of their "accomplishment." I mean, just look at them -- utterly miserable!!!!!! Here's the PROFF, staring you in the face. It's DIS-GUSTING!!!!!!!!!!!:

KSC-69PC-429, 24 July 1969
Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin... through the window of the mobile quarantine van. 24 July 1969. Scan by Ken Glover
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/ap11-KSC-69PC-429.jpg

S69-21365, 24 July 1969
Armstrong, Collins, and Aldrin (left to right) in their Isolation van on-board the recovery ship U.S.S Hornet being greeted by U.S. President Richard M. Nixon. 24 July 1969. Scan by Kipp Teague.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/ap11-S69-21365.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/ap11-S69-21365HR.jpg

S69-40147, 27 July 1969
Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Mike Collins (left to right in the Isolation Van) with their wives, Pat Collins, Jan Armstrong, and Joan Aldrin (left to right?), on arrival at Ellington Air Force Base, Texas, on 27 July 1969. Scan by Kipp Teague.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/ap11-S69-40147.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/ap11-S69-40147HR.jpg

S69-41360, 10 August 1969
Neil Armstrong greets friends after being released from quarantine. Deke Slayton is in the doorway behind Neil. In an October 2003 e-mail, Neil writes: "The lady with her hand on my shoulder is Deke's wife, Marge." 10 August 1969. Scan by J.L. Pickering.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/ap11-S69-41360.jpg

S69-33876
Mike Collins during a press conference. Scan by Kipp Teague.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/ap11-S69-33876.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/ap11-S69-33876HR.jpg
 
Last edited:
For a general overview, I would also recommend the series of books by Colin Burgess and Francis French:

Into That Silent Sea
In the Shadow of the Moon
Footprints in the Dust

For technical matters, there are numerous books:

How Apollo Flew to the Moon
Stages to Saturn
Chariots for Apollo
Where No Man Has Gone Before
Gemini - Steps to the Moon
Apollo - The Lost & Forgotten Missions
Moon Lander - How We Developed the Apollo Lunar Module
US Spacesuits
Live TV From The Moon

and most importantly the NTRS.
 
Last edited:
Of Mice, and Men, and Moon, and Its Rocks and Photos

I've written about this before, but since Michael Cook brought it up, and given the importance of the issue, it is certainly worth going over again. Rocks and pics are for the most part a diversion, a waste of time.

The two sides stand toe to toe over a mound of photos. Apart from the "astronauts" themselves, was there a single official story advocate that witnessed the taking of those pictures? NO! With respect to our side, those of us with instincts that say the pics are big time fake, was a one of us around on the moon to serve witness to the photos not having been taken? NO! Can any one of us HB types prove the photos are inauthentic based solely on photographic considerations? NO! So people waste time fighting over an unresolvable aspect of the hoax controversy, photo authenticity.

Likewise with the rocks. Can anyone from our side, the HB side, demonstrate based solely on the examination of the rocks themselves, that they were not collected by astronauts during Apollo Missions 11,12,14,15,16,17? NO! Can anyone from the official story side prove, based solely on examination of the rocks, that the rocks were so collected, collected by Apollo astronauts during Missions 11,12,14,15,16,17? NO!

This diversion, this waste of time, fighting over photo authenticity and rock authenticity per se, fighting over photos and rocks as providing evidence, or counter evidence, evidence in and of itself for confirming or countering the claims for Apollo landing authenticity, this all favors the official story side.

I have said it before and will say it again, the official story side, Neil Armstrong included, their perspective verges on almost, but not quite, not caring less about this matter. So what if the rocks are fake? So what if the pics are fake? Apollo is theater for a reason, and as long as people don't talk about, don't write about THE REASONS, don't talk about, don't write about Apollo's dynamic, don't talk about, don't write about the motivation for "space fraud", then the official story side has protected that aspect of Apollo which is by far the most important, the most vital, the most revealing, the most dangerous and THREATENING aspect to the keepers of this great secret. It, THE REASON, is the only thing that matters, the reason why they did it, why they hoaxed this. What was the payoff?

Main stream "Hoax Advocates" like Bart Sibrel could easily be disinformation plants, or if not "plants", viewed as not only harmless, but as in a sense helpful to the official story side.

Who cares if Bart Sibrel says the evidence for hoax can be found in the pics, in the rocks, in videos? Who cares if he says the USA hoaxed Apollo out of some sense of prideful vanity, our motivation being to simply show the Russians up? This is meaningless. So what? Who cares? I do not!, and few would, should or do care.

I do not mean to slam Sibrel, or implicate him as a plant directly. He may well be sincere, well intentioned, and very much into searching for TRUTH. My point is however that he attacks the problem from a meaningless, toothless vantage. His results have no purchase, no chance for meaningful return. As such, he may as well be working for the other side, the official story advocate side, as this type of "debate", fighting over pictures and rocks, does not yield paydust of any sort, none for either side for that matter. And again, as such, this type of debate, with rocks and pics serving as subject matter, doing little or nothing to advance the issue for our side, the HB side, is particularly significant because it is our side that is working to change public opinion. So this ridiculous rock/photo stalemate forever works to favor the established narrative, that the landings were indeed authentic.

This is not to say the photos and rocks are irrelevant. They either were or were not taken from and collected on the moon respectively, and in this sense, they are evidence of some truth. But can we know that truth simply from the study of the rocks and pics? NO! Their study in isolation proves disappointing, disappointing mostly for our side, and rewarding for the other. HBs waste their time, trying to dislodge these elements from their official story moorings, not easy when public opinion says the moon landings did occur, and so, the photos and rocks are de facto authentic. They tend to almost always be viewed through the prism of Apollo authenticity as a given.

Studying the official story narrative on the other hand, is a method which does provide a dividend for the HB side, and a big one at that. If the official story says H. David Reed came on duty the morning of 07/21/1969 to find that the position of the Eagle and its dynamic relationship to the allegedly orbiting Columbia was not well defined, yet we find within that very same official narrative, another altogether opposing claim, that the Eagle's landing site coordinates were reasonably well known despite the contradictory initial perspective, then we are on to something, a contradiction, an internal incoherence. And if this inconsistency, this internal incoherence, is followed carefully enough, it will not only prove to us beyond any doubt that the Apollo 11 Mission is fraudulent given the bogus trajectory/flight dynamics data that are uncovered by way of such study, but the contradictions, the internal incoherence of the official narrative, also show us what Apollo was up to, shows us Apollo's dynamic, its motivation. In this case, hiding equipment from potentially roving eyes, equipment that was parked on the moon for military purposes.

So we know the rocks are fake, fake in that Neil Armstrong did not bring a one back to Earth. We know this because the telemetry is fraudulent, has to be. Can't have fake telemetry and real rocks now can you? Of course not. Same with the photos. They were not taken on the moon. Can't have fake telemetry or bogus medical evaluations, bogus or altogether lacking environmental reports on a command module filled with air spiced with astronaut stool(Apollo 8) and at the same time genuine pictures. They simply are incompatible. They don't go together.

Because there never was an appropriate environmental report on the Borman diarrhea problem, we know Borman never read from Genesis on Christmas Eve in 1968 from 240,000 miles away. Frank was much closer. AND we know the Apollo 8 astronauts did not take those photos from near the moon. Can't possibly be the case. How can you have a bogus medical evaluation and no environmental report on a critical problem and at the same time have genuine photos? Impossible. So we know the Apollo 8 pictures are not real.

Photos and Rocks are important, but not as evidence per se in the determination of "Apollo Authenticity". Critical narrative study is the key to unmasking the fraud, and it leads to ICBMs, satellites, military uses of LRRRs, and the instrumentation of the moon as a military platform. These are the topics the real guardians of the official story secrets wish not to hear debated. Rocks and photos in and of themselves? The official story side could almost not care less. Instrumenting the moon, using an LRRR for military purposes, using Apollo as cover for other military activities, well that is another matter indeed.
 
Last edited:
Tiger Teams, Navigation, and Apollo Inauthenticity

My oh my, hasn't this gotten interesting?!

Turns out, the tiger team set up to first investigate and then solve the landing site accuracy problem for NASA viewed 200 meters within target site planned distance as "safe", further out, not safe. This quote is from enotes, http://www.enotes.com/topic/Tiger_team;(For some reason, a direct link does not seem to work, for me anyway. Google, "Tiger Team, enotes.comReference", click on that and it will take you there.)

" Many Tiger Teams are informally constituted through managerial edicts. One of these was set up in NASA circa 1966 to solve the "Apollo Navigation Problem" and it makes an interesting story. The motivation was the discovery that current technology was unable to navigate Apollo at the level of precision mandated by the mission planners. Tests using radio tracking data from unmanned Lunar Orbiter spacecraft to evaluate circumlunar Apollo navigation were revealing errors of 2000 meters instead of the 200 that the mission required to safely land Apollo when descending from its lunar orbit. For example, Apollo astronauts were practicing landings in safe areas using the simulators at Houston. A tenfold increase in this error-bound implied a hundredfold increase in the target area, which then included unacceptably dangerous terrain. The mission was seriously at risk. This was a navigation problem and so five Tiger Teams were set up to find and correct the problem, one at each NASA center, from CalTech JPL in the west to Goddard SFC (GSFC) in the east. The Russians via Luna 10 were also well aware of this problem. There was an intentionally competitive aspect to this strategy, which was "won" by JPL in the spring of 1968 when it was shown that the problem was caused by the unexpectedly large local gravity anomalies on the moon arising from large ringed maria, mountain ranges and craters on the moon. This also led to the construction of the first detailed gravimetric map of a body other than the earth and the discovery of the lunar mass concentrations (Mascons).[2]"

Turns out the problem is so significant that in 1966, not one but FIVE TIGER TEAMS were set up, from CalTech to Goddard. A tenfold increase in the the distance from the target site missed would yield a 10 X 10, or one hundred fold increase in the target area which would then include unacceptably dangerous terrain.

So according to this enote article, it was not considered safe at all, by no means safe, not close to safe, were a LM pilot to miss a lunar surface target by 4 and a half miles as Apollo 11 allegedly did. Armstrong and others said no big deal we did not know where we landed. Well, NOT SO!!!!! say those navigational/technical experts that identified this problem, not to mention those at CalTech's JPL who were said to have at least conceptually solved the problem.

So according to NASA's own basic safety standard, by landing 4.5 miles/7200 meters from the targeted site, Neil Armstrong flew the Eagle simulator a distance of 36 times as far away as that of NASA's own safety standard distance of 200 meters. That additional simulated flying of Neil Armstrong and his Eagle translated into a simulated landing area 36 x 36 or 1296 times as big as that which was considered safe! The Eagle's landing so far away from its intended target site was a gross breach of NASA's own safety criteria!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This of course implies fraud. They set up tiger teams to deal with a 100 fold increased risk by increased area of exposure. Here we have over a 1200 fold increased area of exposure and so a flat out unacceptably increased risk, based solely on flying 4.5 miles distant from the intended and presumably well known target. The claim that it was no big deal, that it was safe, safe to land so far away from the intended landing site, is a claim which is simply not true!

Another important narrative inconsistency betraying the official story as lie and very much not a story of substance.
 
Last edited:
So Patrick, looks like you got busted over at BAUT...oops.

Meanwhile, you continue to search diligently for any iota of selected text that might add some self-perceived doubt to the Apollo landings. While ignoring the mountains of existing evidence.

what about the rocks? the tracking data from non-NASA sources? Why does the world know it happened, but you don't? Could it be YOU are completely wrong??!!
 
Any iota? I would read the above very carefully mrbusdriver.

mrbusdriver said:
So Patrick, looks like you got busted over at BAUT...oops.

Meanwhile, you continue to search diligently for any iota of selected text that might add some self-perceived doubt to the Apollo landings. While ignoring the mountains of existing evidence.

what about the rocks? the tracking data from non-NASA sources? Why does the world know it happened, but you don't? Could it be YOU are completely wrong??!!
Click to expand...

Any iota? I would read the above post, #3429, VERY carefully mrbusdriver. You now have a BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG PROBLEM ON YOUR HANDS. Not kidding. I hope that you are sitting down.
 
Except, Patrick, you fail to mention how they solved the navigation error problem.

I think that is called cherry picking.
 
Patrick1000 said:
So according to this enote article, it was not considered safe at all, by no means safe, not close to safe, were a LM pilot to miss a lunar surface target by 4 and a half miles as Apollo 11 allegedly did. Armstrong and others said no big deal we did not know where we landed. Well, NOT SO!!!!! say those navigational/technical experts that identified this problem, not to mention those at CalTech's JPL who were said to have at least conceptually solved the problem.
Click to expand...

So according to P1K, Armstrong, upon discovering the the intended landing site was a boulder field, should have been ordered by NASA to land in it anyway. He should not have been allowed to pilot the lander to a safe landing site.

Patrick, I find it unbelievable that you can post such utter rubbish.
 
Patrick thinks NASA identified a probably-safe landing site 200m across and assumes it was entirely surrounded by dangerous rocks which got ever bigger, denser and more jagged the further from the centre you strayed. He thinks the moon is like a video game.

Is this Patrick's weakest argument yet? The competition is fierce.
 
Last edited:
Tiger Teams and Landing Site Safety

Something else to mull over, related to my first "Tiger Team" post above; this from the book, FOOTHOLD IN THE HEAVENS, author, Ben Evens, page 116;


"The discovery of mascons was reported in the journal NATURE in August 1968by Paul Muller and Willian Sjogren of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, after studying radio tracking data from Lunar Orbiters. They reularly diverged from their predicted positions, sometimes by up to ten times greater than expected. From the perspective of trying to land on a specific point on the Moon, it was essential to understand how and where the mascons were located and how strong they were. Throughout the remainder of 1968, NASA operated a "Tiger Team" to address this question."


So, between the above article and this little supporting piece, landing 4 and a half miles from where planned would in all likelihood be viewed as indeed a big deal? VERY MUCH A BIG DEAL, A BIG DEAL THAT IS IF ONE IS CONCERNED AT ALL ABOUT SAFETY".
 
And I would say Armstrong did not stick a pin in the lunar map and then land with his eyes shut, so your vapour-thin argument evaporates in a puff of your own illogic.
 
Not thin, supports everything already written and confirmed.

Jack by the hedge said:
And I would say Armstrong did not stick a pin in the lunar mhutap and then land with his eyes s, so your vapour-thin argument evaporates in a puff of your own illogic.
Click to expand...

Not thin, pointing out that 5 teams of experts were working on this issue, the safety issue given the lack of landing accuracy, this simply supports what I have been writing all along.

The guy, Armstrong, is flying 4.5 miles from where he is supposed to go. They do not have detailed maps of the moon. Have you seen what was availabele to them? The lunar orbiter photos/images and so forth?

So that is safe? No big deal? Boulders all over the place? Armstronmg knew not where he was going in this imaginary flight.

We come to learn now that the honest people evaluating the safety aspects of all this viewed 200 meters, landing within 200 meters of a planned spot would be safe. For Apollo 11, one would think this to be all the more the case, all the more true, given the unfamiliarity with it all.

So landing 4 and a half miles from the intended site might be construed as marginally credible here, but to say that it did not matter, that it was no big deal, that is an obvious lie given what we know now, what we know now with regard to the TIGER TEAM focus on this very safety concern.
 
Last edited:
Haven't Seen a Serious Answer to my Question Yet Obviousman

Obviousman said:
You still ignore the solutions found to problems you pose, Patrick.

Why do you ignore those answers?
Click to expand...

How would Armstrong have answered my Apollo 11 Post Flight Simulation Press Conference hypothetical question Obviousman? Haven't seen a serious response yet.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom