SezMe
post-pre-born
I withdraw my post. Shouldn't post when really angry.
Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga
- Thread starter Patrick1000
- Start date
- Status
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Jrrarglblarg
Unregistered
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 12,673
Subtract another 2 years from P1K's age estimate. By my calcs this puts him at "9 years" earth time.
Is that a trolling attempt? I don't think it can be as it's not even slightly annoying.
Or maybe it's comedy. If it is it needs a bit of work but you're heading in the right direction.
That last self-debunking wall you posted, now that was funny. Do another one of those.
Last edited:
332nd
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 11,278
Another wall of text & somehow you managed to both avoid the question & continue projecting how you think a person should react, a person you don't even know.
The funny part is that you have several references as to his demeanor yet you are so busy trying to find ways to "de-terse" your posts it hasn't even crossed your mind to study them even though you think you're making a point with them!
Don't worry though, as someone who works in the field I'll explain it to you when I get some time.
grmcdorman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2007
- Messages
- 1,458
Another interesting bit for those learning from the thread: Jodrell Bank, a radiotelescope array in the UK, was able to monitor the Apollo 11 LM transmissions as they were landing.
While they didn't have the equipment to demodulate the transmissions, they did record the signal with sufficient accuracy that Armstrong's transition to horizontal flight over the bolder field can be detected in the Doppler shifts. (Other, independent stations - most notably an amateur HAM in the US - did have the appropriate equipment, and were able to listen to the traffic live).
They were also tracking Luna-15, which eventually crashed.
More on Jodrell Bank http://depletedcranium.com/fascinating-recording-of-apollo-11-at-jodrell-bank-released/
Edit: Found a graph of the Doppler trace: http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/multimedia/images/apollo11-eagle.html Note that a) they also have other data (specifically, the origin of the signal, which would be the Moon) and b) this only shows movement normal to the radiotelescope, which is not necessarily vertical on the Moon.
While they didn't have the equipment to demodulate the transmissions, they did record the signal with sufficient accuracy that Armstrong's transition to horizontal flight over the bolder field can be detected in the Doppler shifts. (Other, independent stations - most notably an amateur HAM in the US - did have the appropriate equipment, and were able to listen to the traffic live).
They were also tracking Luna-15, which eventually crashed.
More on Jodrell Bank http://depletedcranium.com/fascinating-recording-of-apollo-11-at-jodrell-bank-released/
Edit: Found a graph of the Doppler trace: http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/multimedia/images/apollo11-eagle.html Note that a) they also have other data (specifically, the origin of the signal, which would be the Moon) and b) this only shows movement normal to the radiotelescope, which is not necessarily vertical on the Moon.
Last edited:
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
I think so!
I think so!
I don't do Venus, don't do rocks, don't do photos and I've told you why. I do do trajectories/landing site coordinates among other things and those my friend are SO FAKE!
I think so!
I don't do Venus, don't do rocks, don't do photos and I've told you why. I do do trajectories/landing site coordinates among other things and those my friend are SO FAKE!
grmcdorman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2007
- Messages
- 1,458
I'm not your friend, and that post wasn't addressed to you.
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
Never claimed there were not genuine landing craft.
Never claimed there were not genuine landing craft operating about and landing upon the moon during the "Apollo Missions". My claim is that these are unmanned military craft instrumenting the moon for various and sundry purposes(some covered already, more to be discussed in subsequent posts).
Again, people ask, "If Apollo didn't happen, what did then?", and of course the answer as mentioned before is, "Apollo happened".
They didn't go through this ridiculous exercise for nothing. This was a serious big time operation, an operation to put equipment on the moon and presumably associated equipment in orbit around the earth. The military machines that carried sensing devices and so forth to the surface of the moon were of course more likely than not, the lunar modules themselves. Doesn't have to be, but makes the most sense.
This is how you make a ruse like this work. "Work" in the sense that apart from the missions being unmanned, they are genuine, real. Rockets built, and sent up, landers like the Grumman lunar module landing on the moon, flight dynamics officers like Reed calculating trajectories.
No one claims this is all fantasy, only that its execution and intent were other than that officially claimed by "NASA", and most of the 400,000 people involved, even the most highly educated ones such as the engineers designing the machines/rockets/landers, were unaware of the Apollo Program's ultimate purpose.
Never claimed there were not genuine landing craft operating about and landing upon the moon during the "Apollo Missions". My claim is that these are unmanned military craft instrumenting the moon for various and sundry purposes(some covered already, more to be discussed in subsequent posts).
Again, people ask, "If Apollo didn't happen, what did then?", and of course the answer as mentioned before is, "Apollo happened".
They didn't go through this ridiculous exercise for nothing. This was a serious big time operation, an operation to put equipment on the moon and presumably associated equipment in orbit around the earth. The military machines that carried sensing devices and so forth to the surface of the moon were of course more likely than not, the lunar modules themselves. Doesn't have to be, but makes the most sense.
This is how you make a ruse like this work. "Work" in the sense that apart from the missions being unmanned, they are genuine, real. Rockets built, and sent up, landers like the Grumman lunar module landing on the moon, flight dynamics officers like Reed calculating trajectories.
No one claims this is all fantasy, only that its execution and intent were other than that officially claimed by "NASA", and most of the 400,000 people involved, even the most highly educated ones such as the engineers designing the machines/rockets/landers, were unaware of the Apollo Program's ultimate purpose.
Last edited:
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2007
- Messages
- 4,452
I just have a couple of questions for Pat:
Do you actually believe your position? Do you honestly think the entire space program was/is a hoax?
I'll bet he either completely ignores this, or answers a very different question. We'll see.
Do you actually believe your position? Do you honestly think the entire space program was/is a hoax?
I'll bet he either completely ignores this, or answers a very different question. We'll see.
I think more and more people are deciding the same thing...
So why are you wasting time with all this other garbage? When are you going to present credible evidence for your "military apollo" idea???
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Na yaddi a dah. My daddy is bigger than your daddy, SO THERE! Now you are on permanent ignore. Pay more attention in school. Goodbye.
Last edited:
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
"Hoax", as in were they up to something else? Yes absolutely!
"Hoax", as in were they up to something else, something other than a manned moon landing? Yes absolutely! Of course I believe the points I argue to be true.
The problem with the use of the word "hoax" in this context is the term's having a more or less pejorative connotation. By that I mean a negative connotation in the sense that a hoax cannot be serious.
This is therefore an unfortunate use of the term, unfortunate because that which was done, Apollo, was of course very very serious, and as I have emphasized previously, may well have been done for such very good reasons that not a single one of us would object to NASA's having "hoaxed" the moon landings.
Let's do an example, a hypothetical, to get a feel for that. I am not saying this to be true with respect to details, but something along these lines may have occurred.
We know from well referenced material presented in previous posts that the Gaussian gravitational constant k2 and coefficients j and K for the 2nd and
4th harmonics were needed for ICBM trajectory calculations. Here again is a quote from a synopsis done on the talks given at the February 1957 Astronautics Conference;
"In the next presentation, Professor Samuel Herrick, of UCLA and Systems Laboratories, spoke on "Accurate Navigation of Intercontinental and Satellite Vehicles in the Earth's Gravitational Field." He emphasized particularly the need for accurate values of a primary gravitational constant, k2, and of the coefficients J and K of the second and fourth harmonics in the earth's potential.
Herrick pointed out first that Gauss' value of k2, for heliocentric orbits with the astronomical unit as unit of distance, was accurate to nine significant figures, whereas neither the laboratory value of G nor a laboratory unit of distance such as the meter would permit an accuracy of more than three or four significant figures.
The corresponding value for geocentric orbits, ke2, is best determined from values of the earth's equatorial radius and acceleration of gravity, taking into account J, K, and the effects of the earth's rotation and atmosphere. The last three are determined from theory with sufficient accuracy. J is best determined at present from astronomical sources, but a value consistent with the international value of the earth's flattening, f = 1/297, is in sufficiently close agreement to be adopted. The Army Map Service has recently determined a highly accurate value of the earth's equatorial radius. With these values and an independent study of sources of information on the acceleration of gravity, the speaker and his associates have recently determined an improved value of ke2. The difference between the improved value and that probably being used in ICBM trajectory calculations would amount to 3000 or 4000 feet at the end point. Herrick expressed the opinion that whereas studies of the Vanguard Satellite would almost certainly improve J, the outlook for ke was decidedly less hopeful. He also stated his belief that proposed methods in either special perturbations or general perturbations, though they might be sufficient for ephemeris calculations, would be inadequate to handle the highly accurate orbit calculations necessary for improving the geophysical constants and similar problems."
One can find more at;
http://astronauticsnow.com/history/astronauticssymposium/orbits.html
So with an instrumented moon, with an LRRR we CAN CALCULATE k2, THE GAUSSIAN GRAVITATIONAL CONSTANT to a much greater accuracy than ever before because we would be basing the calculations on the empiric measurement of the earth-moon system, not theoretical/simply equation based ephemeris numbers. Indeed, this is one of the big reasons, one of the "peaceful" reasons for the placement of the LRRR, to study gravity, to study gravity as it had never been studied before, and with that, we'd land the best EMPIRIC based value/determination for k2 anyone had ever seen, and in so doing, Ivan would be in more trouble than he had been than in the pre LRRR era.
So say the Russians have already parked an LRRR up there on the moon, before we did. Or say we know they are going to soon, such that they can calculate k2 better than us, and do other things, make other determinations related to ICBM trajectory concerns. Well, we are not going to stand around and let them do this now are we? Are we going to allow the Russians to have better numbers than we have for the programming of their ICBM guidance systems? I don't think so. Put an LRRR on the moon? You betcha'!!! I am all for it. I don't want to be speaking Russian.
So we go from there. Prior to the LRRR, there was no way to EMPIRICALLY make ephemeris determinations in the same sense, the more accurate sense it could be done with the LRRR. So Samuel Herrick's concern above, as quoted from the February 1957 astronautics symposium synopsis becomes addressable in the Apollo age. This is tip of the iceberg stuff. One can do lots lots more. Just calculating precise earth rotation rates/variabilities given Coriolis Effect concerns would help with ICBM targeting.
So Apollo is 'hoax" only in the sense that the program is not about landing men on the moon. It does not mean it is all a big joke, or prank, or is about one upping the Russians, bragging rights type stuff. US military and political interests would not take this type of risk if the payoff were only bragging rights. We landed and the Russians did not. They take this insane risk because the stuff they are parking up there gives us at least strategic parity, if not strategic advantage. The Russians are parking stuff too.
So, yes "hoax" in the sense that the Apollo Program is not about landing men on the moon. It is about instrumenting the moon, and instrumenting space in general, and doing this for military purposes. It is very much not a "hoax" if what you mean by that is Apollo was all some kind of publicity stunt. Absolutely not. This was and remains , very serious business.
"Hoax", as in were they up to something else, something other than a manned moon landing? Yes absolutely! Of course I believe the points I argue to be true.
The problem with the use of the word "hoax" in this context is the term's having a more or less pejorative connotation. By that I mean a negative connotation in the sense that a hoax cannot be serious.
This is therefore an unfortunate use of the term, unfortunate because that which was done, Apollo, was of course very very serious, and as I have emphasized previously, may well have been done for such very good reasons that not a single one of us would object to NASA's having "hoaxed" the moon landings.
Let's do an example, a hypothetical, to get a feel for that. I am not saying this to be true with respect to details, but something along these lines may have occurred.
We know from well referenced material presented in previous posts that the Gaussian gravitational constant k2 and coefficients j and K for the 2nd and
4th harmonics were needed for ICBM trajectory calculations. Here again is a quote from a synopsis done on the talks given at the February 1957 Astronautics Conference;
"In the next presentation, Professor Samuel Herrick, of UCLA and Systems Laboratories, spoke on "Accurate Navigation of Intercontinental and Satellite Vehicles in the Earth's Gravitational Field." He emphasized particularly the need for accurate values of a primary gravitational constant, k2, and of the coefficients J and K of the second and fourth harmonics in the earth's potential.
Herrick pointed out first that Gauss' value of k2, for heliocentric orbits with the astronomical unit as unit of distance, was accurate to nine significant figures, whereas neither the laboratory value of G nor a laboratory unit of distance such as the meter would permit an accuracy of more than three or four significant figures.
The corresponding value for geocentric orbits, ke2, is best determined from values of the earth's equatorial radius and acceleration of gravity, taking into account J, K, and the effects of the earth's rotation and atmosphere. The last three are determined from theory with sufficient accuracy. J is best determined at present from astronomical sources, but a value consistent with the international value of the earth's flattening, f = 1/297, is in sufficiently close agreement to be adopted. The Army Map Service has recently determined a highly accurate value of the earth's equatorial radius. With these values and an independent study of sources of information on the acceleration of gravity, the speaker and his associates have recently determined an improved value of ke2. The difference between the improved value and that probably being used in ICBM trajectory calculations would amount to 3000 or 4000 feet at the end point. Herrick expressed the opinion that whereas studies of the Vanguard Satellite would almost certainly improve J, the outlook for ke was decidedly less hopeful. He also stated his belief that proposed methods in either special perturbations or general perturbations, though they might be sufficient for ephemeris calculations, would be inadequate to handle the highly accurate orbit calculations necessary for improving the geophysical constants and similar problems."
One can find more at;
http://astronauticsnow.com/history/astronauticssymposium/orbits.html
So with an instrumented moon, with an LRRR we CAN CALCULATE k2, THE GAUSSIAN GRAVITATIONAL CONSTANT to a much greater accuracy than ever before because we would be basing the calculations on the empiric measurement of the earth-moon system, not theoretical/simply equation based ephemeris numbers. Indeed, this is one of the big reasons, one of the "peaceful" reasons for the placement of the LRRR, to study gravity, to study gravity as it had never been studied before, and with that, we'd land the best EMPIRIC based value/determination for k2 anyone had ever seen, and in so doing, Ivan would be in more trouble than he had been than in the pre LRRR era.
So say the Russians have already parked an LRRR up there on the moon, before we did. Or say we know they are going to soon, such that they can calculate k2 better than us, and do other things, make other determinations related to ICBM trajectory concerns. Well, we are not going to stand around and let them do this now are we? Are we going to allow the Russians to have better numbers than we have for the programming of their ICBM guidance systems? I don't think so. Put an LRRR on the moon? You betcha'!!! I am all for it. I don't want to be speaking Russian.
So we go from there. Prior to the LRRR, there was no way to EMPIRICALLY make ephemeris determinations in the same sense, the more accurate sense it could be done with the LRRR. So Samuel Herrick's concern above, as quoted from the February 1957 astronautics symposium synopsis becomes addressable in the Apollo age. This is tip of the iceberg stuff. One can do lots lots more. Just calculating precise earth rotation rates/variabilities given Coriolis Effect concerns would help with ICBM targeting.
So Apollo is 'hoax" only in the sense that the program is not about landing men on the moon. It does not mean it is all a big joke, or prank, or is about one upping the Russians, bragging rights type stuff. US military and political interests would not take this type of risk if the payoff were only bragging rights. We landed and the Russians did not. They take this insane risk because the stuff they are parking up there gives us at least strategic parity, if not strategic advantage. The Russians are parking stuff too.
So, yes "hoax" in the sense that the Apollo Program is not about landing men on the moon. It is about instrumenting the moon, and instrumenting space in general, and doing this for military purposes. It is very much not a "hoax" if what you mean by that is Apollo was all some kind of publicity stunt. Absolutely not. This was and remains , very serious business.
Last edited:
Southwind17
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 5,154
No problemo
But isn't that somewhat of a contradiction? Why, having such 'precision capability', was such a large landing elipse planned for, and indeed needed?
Two questions P1K:
- Do any records exist to substantiate Kelly's recollection that they were lost only for the first few hours, or are you simply relying on his recollection?
- Regardless of the accuracy of Kelly's recollection, could you please explain why Houston not knowing the location of the LM was mission critical?
No problemo to you too.
So you're saying that we had the capability, but simply chose not to attempt a manned landing? Is that what you're claiming?
Jrrarglblarg
Unregistered
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 12,673
What you've "told" us makes no sense. The physical evidence presented establishes a coherent, internally and externally consistent story. You also don't "do" telemetry, reception of audio signals by civilians, sighting and photography of Apollo craft in orbit, during TLI, and in cislunar space.
Why?
Because, like the irrefutable 840 lbs of rocks and soil, like the irrefutable photographs of venus, like the irrefutable photographs of Earth weather patterns from the Apollo craft which match satellite photos and terrestial weather maps, they present a massive body of evidence that space craft with humans aboard went to the moon and came back.
Instead, what you "do" is flail on untersely about nothing in particular.
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
Lost the whole time
Thomas Kelly is correct about the Eagle being lost. However, incorrect about the duration of its having been unaccounted for. We know for a fact that the the Eagle's location was never known to within any reasonable degree of accuracy until just before its simulated launch. This is because H. David Reed, the Fight Dynamics Officer responsible for the launch trajectory, and in need of landing site coordinates to "time" the launch, says this was the case. This was Reed's job. He is/was the highest authority. We have lots of references supporting this notion that the Eagle's position was unknown, and Reed tells us it wasn't known well enough to launch the thing until a bit before it did take off. This is coorborated by the Voice Transcript record where Collins doesn't get accurate coordinates, J .5/7.7, until right before the launch.
You don't have to know where the Eagle is necessarily, exact landing site coordinates wise, but if you do, if you do have accurate landing site coordinates, then the launch is a "piece of cake", at least so Reed says. If you do not have landing site coordinates, you still need to figure out the relationship, the dynamic relationship between the Eagle and the command module. If you do not have this, the ships cannot rendezvous. It is mission critical because without a successful rendezvous, you have two dead astronauts, either dead on the moon, or dead in lunar orbit.
They had the ability to land stuff on the moon, but it was much harder and may well have been impossible to successfully land people on the moon with 1960s vintage technology. Apollo was military. There was no need to land people based on the goals of Apollo as a military mission, and so actually landing men, was simply not done for that reason alone. There was no reason to risk the lives of men on this stuff.
Additionally, it probably was the case that it couldn't be done, a manned lunar landing in 1969, or if it could, the risk was viewed as simply too great, insane.
The goal was to land equipment, probably a modified lunar lander and/or other stuff.
No problemo
But isn't that somewhat of a contradiction? Why, having such 'precision capability', was such a large landing elipse planned for, and indeed needed?
Two questions P1K:
- Do any records exist to substantiate Kelly's recollection that they were lost only for the first few hours, or are you simply relying on his recollection?
- Regardless of the accuracy of Kelly's recollection, could you please explain why Houston not knowing the location of the LM was mission critical?
No problemo to you too.
So you're saying that we had the capability, but simply chose not to attempt a manned landing? Is that what you're claiming?
Thomas Kelly is correct about the Eagle being lost. However, incorrect about the duration of its having been unaccounted for. We know for a fact that the the Eagle's location was never known to within any reasonable degree of accuracy until just before its simulated launch. This is because H. David Reed, the Fight Dynamics Officer responsible for the launch trajectory, and in need of landing site coordinates to "time" the launch, says this was the case. This was Reed's job. He is/was the highest authority. We have lots of references supporting this notion that the Eagle's position was unknown, and Reed tells us it wasn't known well enough to launch the thing until a bit before it did take off. This is coorborated by the Voice Transcript record where Collins doesn't get accurate coordinates, J .5/7.7, until right before the launch.
You don't have to know where the Eagle is necessarily, exact landing site coordinates wise, but if you do, if you do have accurate landing site coordinates, then the launch is a "piece of cake", at least so Reed says. If you do not have landing site coordinates, you still need to figure out the relationship, the dynamic relationship between the Eagle and the command module. If you do not have this, the ships cannot rendezvous. It is mission critical because without a successful rendezvous, you have two dead astronauts, either dead on the moon, or dead in lunar orbit.
They had the ability to land stuff on the moon, but it was much harder and may well have been impossible to successfully land people on the moon with 1960s vintage technology. Apollo was military. There was no need to land people based on the goals of Apollo as a military mission, and so actually landing men, was simply not done for that reason alone. There was no reason to risk the lives of men on this stuff.
Additionally, it probably was the case that it couldn't be done, a manned lunar landing in 1969, or if it could, the risk was viewed as simply too great, insane.
The goal was to land equipment, probably a modified lunar lander and/or other stuff.
Last edited:
They did figure out where the LM was in relation to the CSM. They used the radar. Reed himself, in the very same book you cite, said so.
Why is it so very important to you that you "prove" we didn't land on the Moon, to the point where you cherry pick and distort the historical record and ignore self-consistent physical and photographic evidence, current photos of the landing sites, etc.? Do you resent the success? Are you afraid to admit you're wrong? Are you delusional? Have you convinced yourself that the people of my generation and the one just ahead of mine couldn't have been that smart? Or what?
- Status