I can do arithmetic.
You don't need to make them up - they happen in reality all of the time.
Yes, 'he may well be in trouble' is about as serious as the situation got. So what does one do in that situation - pull the plug and account to your superiors and the tax-paying public for a lack of courage that you were specifically selected against later? No, you keep a cool head and continue on in the hope, if not expectation, that fortune, if not probability, will play a fair hand. After all, when one looks at the terrain where the landing took place, it wasn't particularly hazardous, which I'm sure came as no major surprise to those involved. Why do you insist that descending the LM onto an uncharted patch of the Moon (with no atmosphere) is any harder than
putting a C-130 on the back of a carrier in moderately rough seas some SIX YEARS BEFORE APOLLO?
You see, this highlights your problem (well, one of your problems). Your tendency is to think in extremes. You might think this somewhat satirical, but I think it actually belies your true mindset.
I really don't see why you're making such a big issue of this (other than clutching at straws). I suspect there are millions of people displaying such demeanour towards events in their lives that you and I can only look on with awe. Have you ever seen war veterans under interview recount their tales of danger and heroics? Do they still seem scared, agitated, anxious 65 years on? Would you really expect them to?
And your qualifications in psychology would be what, exactly? Please describe a 'real astronaut' to us, by reference to living examples, specifically citing recorded behaviour during times of stress, such as during the LM landing.
It becomes 'very dicey'. This is the basis of your argument that it simply couldn't be done, because it became 'very dicey'?!
You mean just like landing a light aircraft on an unmade strip? There's a trick to doing things like that P1K - it's called 'looking'!
Going off course isn't the issue. Finding a reasonable spot to land is the issue. As it happens it proved to be less of a challenge than it might have been. So what? What's the big deal? You never parked a car into a tight spot? It's far from impossible - a little skill and vigilence usually wins the day.
I am not a psychologist, but I can do arithmetic. The telemetry data as reported in the Mission Report is fraudulent. Has to be. Can't have it both ways. Can't say these are the coordinate solutions and then not tell Collins to look there. Can't say these are the coordinate solutions, when the Flight Dynamics Officer on duty at the time of the Eagle's launch, H. David Reed, wrote in his very own book chapter on the subject, NO THEY ARE NOT, I NEVER SAW THOSE NUMBERS.
I am not a psychologist, but I can do grade school math and so can easily solve the coordinate confusion riddle. Not because I am any smarter than anyone else, but simply because I go where the numbers and associated facts lead. I am not afraid of what the numbers show. I am not afraid to follow the numbers to where they inevitably lead us. And they most decidedly do not lead to the moon, as you should by now be well able to see Southwind17, not by a long shot.
We know Apollo fraudulent with metaphysical certitude because the contradiction, the internal incoherence that is Apollo can ONLY BE RESOLVED BY ACKNOWLEDGING THE OBVIOUS, ITS VERY FRAUDULENCE.
If people write numbers in reports such as the Apollo 11 Mission Report to intentionally deceive us, then we must acknowledge that quite simply this is indeed the case. It hardly makes any sense to pretend the authors of these reports honest, the astronauts honest. What good does it serve anyone now? There are many things which threaten us, including Russian ICBMs still, but Beaver Cleaver grew up long ago, graduated from CAL with a degree in philosophy and lives very much outside of a tv set now. The world wears a different face i dare say, as indeed does outer space itself.
I may find here and there as I go over things that I have made small, simple mistakes with my numbers, but my analysis as outlined above and as continues to evolve is very very solid. It cannot possibly be other than true because it is based on NASA's own reports.
In my above analysis I only used one document, the Apollo 11 Mission Report, and showed within that very singular document , it is said that the landing site coordinates in real-time were believed to be in such and such a place and then in another table down range a page or two, we find a completely different story, that the landing site was in a completely different place altogether. Don't pee on my back and tell me it is raining, even if we are pretending to be in outer space here. They try and fool us by writing the coordinates 3 different ways Southwind17, conventional decimal notation, in radians and then using the "military map" with the missing I and O. So am I fooled? NO. Were the 20 something flight officers fooled including the lead FIDO, H. David Reed? YES YES YES!!! Shall we not leave such foolishness and move on to better things Southwind17? Have we not played this silly pretend game long enough? Armstrong for one would feel relieved.
I am not a psychologist, but I add well. I can do arithmetic. Even when I make a mistake, I can go back , do it again, find my way to the truth, as I have done here.
My argument's basis is telemetry fraud, coordinate confusion, everything else follows, and it must follow for the telemetry fraud, the numbers game of Shyster, or whoever put it together, is OBVIOUS!!! and as such, is quite literally inescapable.
They lied to you Southwind17, that is if you ever believed it to begin with. Look at them! Listen to them! Alan Bean could not fly a space ship! Get a Grip dude! Get Real! The guy is sweet. He can sort of paint. He is NOT AN ASTRONAUT. Not in the sense of Apollo mythology.
Wake up and smell the TANG my friend!
