Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[abaddon]

So tsig, knowing what you do now, what do you think? Would that be a worry for someone like "astronaut Armstrong", going way off course like that and flying over utterly unfamiliar territory. It would appear that in studying for a genuine landing, the navigation people thought the most the astronauts could handle would be the study of 40,000 square meters, 0.04 square kilometers worth of moon.

Ol' Neil flew over 51 million square meters worth of a navigational specialist's nightmare.

What do you think tsig? What do you say about Neil discounting the seriousness of his predicament there on "the moon"?

I don't know what tsig thinks, but I know you are talking utter rot.

 

[SUSpilot]

"Patrick" - in what way were they in peril, as you contend? Specifically, how would a skilled pilot with good eyesight not be able to pick out a good landing site?

 

[Garrison]

It is a quote that contradicts Commander Armstrong, nothing more, nothing less.

Armstrong and the Apollo 11 Mission as it presents itself in the official narrative, say that being off course by 4 and a half miles was no big deal. This information which I now present demonstrates clearly nothing could be further from the truth.

Safety mandated landing within 200 meters of a thoroughly studied and well anticipated targeted site, not 7200 meters from a site where one would not have a clue as to what one was up against at that moment of truth.

So for Armstrong to claim that he went that far off course, and that as a consequence, it was no big deal, is to intentionally mislead us, is to lie to us.

From my quotes above, the navigational experts considered 2000 meters off course unacceptable. 7200 meters off course, dealing with 51 million square meters of unstudied moon, this would have presented a great danger to the astronauts were any of it real, real in a threatening way. For Armstrong and Aldrin, 07/20/1969 was a day of a LM landing simulation, not a day where they participated in the first bonafide manned lunar landing

Of course there was no danger, Armstrong was correct in that. But there was no danger because none of this ever happened, not in any real sense anyway. Armstrong's life was never on the line, as he was never on the moon. Were that to have been the case, he would have acknowledged his flying off course and landing 4 and a half miles from the intended landing site was significant indeed. He never did this, and so we may confidently conclude, he never walked on the moon.

Except it doesn't it simply means that they defined a narrow target zone, an objective point for them to aim at, a bullseye on the target if you like. That they missed the bullseye was not catastrophic, to my layman's understanding they landed in an 'outer ring', which as everyone else has pointed was no big deal, and you have demonstrated no understanding of the mechanics of orbital rendezvous that would allow you to contradict that view.

 

[drewid]

Indeed, the flown map has a pre-printed ellipse on it covering several square kilometers, which is the expected landing zone.

 

[Patrick1000]

Enough of you abaddon, go away and take your supersillyous nonsense with you!

I don't know what tsig thinks, but I know you are talking utter rot.

Enough of you abaddon, go away and take your supersillyous nonsense with you!

I quote NASA's own scientists, show how the JPL staff discovered mascons in response to navigational accuracy worries as described above. I show how were the "Apollo 11 landing" authentic, there would have been plenty to worry about as Armstrong drifted miles long to the east and then some to the south of his pretended intended spot of rest, the originally targeted landing site.

So much unstudied and utterly unrecognizable territory would have passed below him. I have shown that it was a fact, the astronauts were alleged to have practiced, alleged to have drilled, alleged to have studied, for a landing, under the assumption that it would occur no more than 200 meters from the planned site.

Had Armstrong experienced the landing he claims to have, we would see the fear of those frightening 4 and a half miles reflected back to us from his eyes. It is simply not there. He most certainly does not know such unique and supreme fear. He never heard the moon breath. He most certainly did not walk upon that hallowed surface.

You have less than little to say, so say no more abaddon!

 

[drewid]

So much unstudied and utterly unrecognizable territory would have passed below him.

BS, they landed within the ellipse, all of which had been studied and mapped.

You I have less than little to say

FTFY

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Had Armstrong experienced the landing he claims to have, we would see the fear of those frightening 4 and a half miles reflected back to us from his eyes. It is simply not there. He most certainly does not know such unique and supreme fear.

A career as a test pilot would use up a lifetime's worth of "unique and supreme fear" flying untested aircraft to find their failure points.

 

[Patrick1000]

I dare say that is not what we are learning now drewid, or is Paul Muller lying?

BS, they landed within the ellipse, all of which had been studied and mapped.


FTFY

I dare say that is not what we are learning now drewid is it? or is it the case that scientist Paul Muller is making this up, lying?

You are like abaddon with your so very much of nothing, of zero. So set in your decrepit ways of thinking. Hear what these people are telling you drewid, scientists like Muller. They are saying ever so clearly, Neil Armstrong lied to us all.

But then again, he never claimed to be Abraham Lincoln cloaked in 10 layers of aluminized mylar, now did he?

Like abaddon you too drewid, you have ever so ever so ever so little less to say!

 

[Patrick1000]

They would have been worried, there would have been fear!

Except it doesn't it simply means that they defined a narrow target zone, an objective point for them to aim at, a bullseye on the target if you like. That they missed the bullseye was not catastrophic, to my layman's understanding they landed in an 'outer ring', which as everyone else has pointed was no big deal, and you have demonstrated no understanding of the mechanics of orbital rendezvous that would allow you to contradict that view.

Your point changes nothing Garrison. We see from the above comments by Muller himself, no astronaut was prepared in any sense to drift 4 and a half miles from the targeted site. I grow weary myself watching you all wrestle your own pathetic gods.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Indeed, the flown map has a pre-printed ellipse on it covering several square kilometers, which is the expected landing zone.

But Patrick is not interested in the actual landing zone, because it's much easier to support his specious argument by talking instead about the 200m accuracy which the LM was expected to be able to achieve. He ignores the fact that the crew knew they were overflying their intended landing point and that they rejected it as unsafe. He deliberately uses terms like "off course" to imply wrongly that the crew were lost or out of control.

In other words, as per usual, he's got nothin'.

 

[Garrison]

Your point changes nothing Garrison. We see from the above comments by Muller himself, no astronaut was prepared in any sense to drift 4 and a half miles from the targeted site. I grow weary myself watching you all wrestle your own pathetic gods.

No we see you once again misrepresent the material you quote out of context. I've tried explaining it the simplest of terms I could think of, and no great surprise you reject it despite having been time and again shown on this thread to have made grievous mistakes, 'Juliet' comes to mind, and to have stated outright falsehoods. If you are so weary Patrick feel free to go away and find a forum where they will embrace your ignorance and ineptitude.

 

[Garrison]

But Patrick is not interested in the actual landing zone, because it's much easier to support his specious argument by talking instead about the 200m accuracy which the LM was expected to be able to achieve. He ignores the fact that the crew knew they were overflying their intended landing point and that they rejected it as unsafe. He deliberately uses terms like "off course" to imply wrongly that the crew were lost or out of control.

In other words, as per usual, he's got nothin'.

Patrick continually puts forward a view of Apollo in which everything must be done to perfection, there are no margins of error, contingencies or compromises built in to the system in his alternate universe so when he encounters them in the real Apollo he simply announces it must be a fraud.

 

[drewid]

Your point changes nothing Garrison. We see from the above comments by Muller himself, no astronaut was prepared in any sense to drift 4 and a half miles from the targeted site. I grow weary myself watching you all wrestle your own pathetic gods.

You've been proved wrong so many times, what on earth makes you think you're right this time? Ego?

 

[R.A.F.]

Were the astronauts to actually try and engage me in debate on that day, 08/12/1969, over the issue of their bogus lines about their lost bird, I'd subject them to the harshest intellectual dope slapping those clowns, or anyone present in that Houston auditorium that day had ever experienced or had ever born witness to. I would relish the opportunity. It would be so outta' this world delicious!

Yeah...I'd love to see an ignorant ass such as yourself get the crap beat out of him...that would be delicious...

 

[drewid]

The thing is Patrick, you don't actually want to post "unopposed", If you did you'd be elsewhere (glp or Ickes). You want validation, and that's not going to happen unless you up your game considerably and actually come up with real proof of something.

Given that we're nearly at post 3500 in this thread alone, and you've failed to prove anything either on this forum, or on any other you've posted on over the last few months, I can't see that happening.

 

[R.A.F.]

Haven't seen a serious response yet.

Troll thinks he deserves a serious response to a nonsense question.

Address the images, COWARD.

 

[R.A.F.]

I grow weary myself watching you all wrestle your own pathetic gods.

What "jibberish" is this??

As far as "gods" are concerned, the name "Neil Armstrong" will be remembered for as long as there is history, and nothing you can do, Patrick, can ever change that.


As always...ADDRESS THE IMAGES, COWARD.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Your point changes nothing Garrison. We see from the above comments by Muller himself, no astronaut was prepared in any sense to drift 4 and a half miles from the targeted site. I grow weary myself watching you all wrestle your own pathetic gods.

Armstrong was a test pilot. Landing in random locations was old hat for him. I would expect someone your supposed age to be a trifle more up-to-speed.

B'sides, he landed exactly where he was supposed to land -- ON THE MOON!

 

[Garrison]

The thing is Patrick, you don't actually want to post "unopposed", If you did you'd be elsewhere (glp or Ickes). You want validation, and that's not going to happen unless you up your game considerably and actually come up with real proof of something.

Given that we're nearly at post 3500 in this thread alone, and you've failed to prove anything either on this forum, or on any other you've posted on over the last few months, I can't see that happening.

I was thinking the same thing, and he doesn't just want the sort of pats on the back he might get at GLP, he knows they are as worthless as a canned laughter track on a sitcom. He needs it from a forum like this where he faces real opposition, unfortunately for Patrick it's not going to happen.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Same for Icke forum, where teh usual suspects (a cluster of sockpuppets) whirl around congratulating one another between bong hits.

I would kinda agree he is posting "unopposed" because most of hte things he posts are not worth reading.