Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[abaddon]

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

"supersillyous" Oh dear, spelling -1

I quote NASA's own scientists, show how the JPL staff discovered mascons in response to navigational accuracy worries as described above.

Yet fail to understand.

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.

Yet fail to understand the control theLMP had.

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

Wrong.

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.

Now you are out the far side of wrong.

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

Your wall of text approach is transparent, we all see you, and we all see the questions you avoid, because you have no answers.

Surely you realise we are laughing at you?

 

[R.A.F.]

Hear what these people are telling you drewid, scientists like Muller. They are saying ever so clearly, Neil Armstrong lied to us all.

"If" that is what he is saying, then he is as ignorant as you are...

...you have ever so ever so ever so little less to say!

Well, once we've pointed out how ignorant you are, what else is there to say??

ADDRESS THE IMAGES, COWARD.

 

[R.A.F.]

Surely you realize we are laughing at you?

I don't know...he has demonstrated a "capacity for ignorance" I didn't think possible.

 

[tsig]

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

Yep. Given the subject of many of his posts he's quite literally talking crap. He's also taking the piss so all in all all we have here is potty humor.

 

[R.A.F.]

...all in all all we have here is potty humor.

Which only reinforces the notion that we are talking to a child.

 

[Patrick1000]

The intentional misspelling was meant to be interpreted as pun, back on topic now.

"supersillyous" Oh dear, spelling -1



Yet fail to understand.


Yet fail to understand the control theLMP had.





Now you are out the far side of wrong.



Your wall of text approach is transparent, we all see you, and we all see the questions you avoid, because you have no answers.

Surely you realise we are laughing at you?

The intentional misspelling was meant to be interpreted as pun, back on topic now.

I am OK with your laughter, my point stands and I believe it stands well. I am learning the details of the astronauts' training and am finding that it strongly supports my position. Witness the testimony of scientist Muller abaddon.

 

[Patrick1000]

In all honesty RAF

"If" that is what he is saying, then he is as ignorant as you are...



Well, once we've pointed out how ignorant you are, what else is there to say??

ADDRESS THE IMAGES, COWARD.

In all honesty RAF, I have already addressed the images to the best of my ability. I do not see an ALSEP. I do not see a flag. I do see white opaque regions. There are dark serpentine marks running about.

As evidence in and of itself for authentic lunar landings, I must respectfully reject it all. For me, it is not proof of anything, only that such a picture was taken, and absolutely nothing more.

 

[Patrick1000]

Perhaps you have "studied" Apollo longer than me RAF, but.....

Which only reinforces the notion that we are talking to a child.

Perhaps you have "studied" Apollo longer than me RAF, but my ideas are maturing and indeed make good honest sense. Time will tell which of the two of us to be the more perceptive and so the wiser.

 

[Patrick1000]

We all joke about it in our own way, but it is a serious objection on my part

Yep. Given the subject of many of his posts he's quite literally talking crap. He's also taking the piss so all in all all we have here is potty humor.

We all joke about it in our own childish ways, both your side and mine tsig. But it is a serious objection on my part, my objecting to Borman's Apollo 8 medical evaluation as having been legitimate, as having been competent. As I find it to be neither, neither legitimate, nor competent, and being a physician myself, I see the Borman illness as all will one day come to know it, as evidence of fraud.

 

[abaddon]

In all honesty RAF,

No, no honesty

I have already addressed the images to the best of my ability.

And your ability was found wanting.

I do not see an ALSEP. I do not see a flag.

Because you are wantonly ignorant.

I do see white opaque regions. There are dark serpentine marks running about.

Ya mean like tracks?

As evidence in and of itself for authentic lunar landings, I must respectfully reject it all. For me, it is not proof of anything, only that such a picture was taken, and absolutely nothing more.

There is no respect there.

 

[Garrison]

Perhaps you have "studied" Apollo longer than me RAF, but my ideas are maturing and indeed make good honest sense.

Neither good, nor honest, nor sense.

Time will tell which of the two of us to be the more perceptive and so the wiser.

Time long since has, and shown you to be an ignorant fool.

 

[SUSpilot]

I've noticed that whenever I ask a very simple question that only requires a simple answer, "Patrick" won't/can't answer it.

So I'll ask again: what specifically was so dangerous about landing more than 200 meters from the intended target?

Please don't say "asked and answered". Tell me, in plain English, without a wall of text, just what the problem would have been?

 

[Patrick1000]

The area was an unknown, not studied by the astronauts.

I've noticed that whenever I ask a very simple question that only requires a simple answer, "Patrick" won't/can't answer it.

So I'll ask again: what specifically was so dangerous about landing more than 200 meters from the intended target?

Please don't say "asked and answered". Tell me, in plain English, without a wall of text, just what the problem would have been?

Simple enough to answer SUSpilot.

Say you are a LM pilot. You have studied the 200 X 200 square meter map of your targeted landing site for 6 months. Your mind operates ever so effectively, like nothing less than the map reading computer in a modern day cruise missile. You drill and drill and drill daily, practicing your landings, practicing touching down in that 200 X 200 meter patch of terrain. Your confidence level is to the moon.

Then, for reasons out of your control, at the time of the actually landing, at the time of truth's great moment, you are forced to begin your landing approach 20,000 feet west of the originally intended, originally targeted site. (This is exactly what was said to have happened to Armstrong in his Eagle, and Armstrong was drifting to the south as well.) This is no longer a drill and your life is very much on the line as is that of your colleague in the LM with you.

You now have no idea what you will find in terms of topographical detail, 4 miles downstream now of where you had almost been certain you would be. The autopilot carries you to an area strewn with 5 to 20 foot boulders and numerous irregularly shaped craters. Your rate of descent is not what you thought it would be, at least so your landing radar is telling you. Having overflown your originally targeted site, you are in a stronger local gravitational field than you or anyone had anticipated that you would find yourself in.

Nothing has gone as planned, and now you are trying to land this thing in a place where there simply is no room at all to touch down without impacting at least one fairly large boulder.

A very credible scenario.

 

[frenat]

Because pilots never have to land somewhere they've never seen before right?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

...A very credible scenario.

Only if you assume NASA trained the astronauts to recognise one 200m square of lunar surface and had no contingency whatever if they failed to land on it.

Since that isn't true, your scenario is worthless.

 

[Laton]

Because pilots never have to land somewhere they've never seen before right?

More than that even, apparently pilots never brief on, or study, alternate landing areas in case of an emergency.

 

[Southwind17]

Because pilots never have to land somewhere they've never seen before right?

To be fair, I think landing in a boulder field would rate the chances of success pretty slim, with an abort being the more sensible option. The thought of getting back outa there unscathed, if at all, would be pretty daunting, to say the least. Putting a plane or chopper down on an unknown runway, field, or even a highway fair enough.

That said, from what I've seen, they didn't exactly land in a boulder field, and the descent footage shows plenty of open spaces between sparsely separated craters that, to a trained astronaut, would be pretty much a routine day at the office, I'd say.

Whilst P1K's argument has some validity, the actual impact of his argument seems to be out by a factor similar to that on which he's seeking to depend for disputing a safe landing.

 

[Patrick1000]

Worthless no, a great deal of merit yes.

Only if you assume NASA trained the astronauts to recognise one 200m square of lunar surface and had no contingency whatever if they failed to land on it.

Since that isn't true, your scenario is worthless.

Of course a pilot would be prepared to deal with the unexpected. Indeed, it is the very reason a man like Neil Armstrong would be select for a genuine moon landing were such a feat actually within the capabilities of June and Ward Cleaver's America.

Armstrong was a former X-15 pilot, one of the best, if not the best. Surely he would be able to improvise.

But the point of course first of all is were this to have actually happened, would the story be told as it was? And the answer is an emphatic NO! Armstrong would have related an experience qualified by fear and uncertainty. He knew not what 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east would look like. Sure he was said to have studied maps, but had he studied in detail tens of millions of square meters worth of lunar landscape in all directions about the originally intended target site? Well indeed he did not. Of course he did not.

Furthermore, in the story as related by Armstrong himself, neither he nor Aldrin have the opportunity to observe in even a cursory fashion the topology which is passing beneath them. In Armstrong's own words, he is dealing with the clearing of alarms, and so doesn't even begin to notice where he is. As a matter of fact, this is the very reason he gives for not knowing where they landed.

And even under the best of circumstances, starting 20,000 feet downrange, without alarms going off, now heading for boulders instead of flats, flying a bird you'd never flown before, mascons feigning at you from this and that direction. Fuel supply limited. Well the whole story is preposterous, absurd, ridiculous, never happened, could not have possibly have ever happened.

This is why the astronauts appear as they do, not as Hilary and Norgay, but simply as nervous men. It is all quite tragic really now here at the end of their lives.

 

[dafydd]

''supersillyous" ROLFLMAO. Dr. Patrick!

 

[slyjoe]

June and Ward Cleaver's America was over by 1969. Like the 1966 navigation issue - our OP seems to have a distorted view of time and/or history.