Practice? This is the same person who thinks its suspicious that NASA was working on moonlanding proposals before Kennedy's speech, so it fits his previous pattern of wilful ignorance of the realities Apollo.
Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga
- Thread starter Patrick1000
- Start date
- Status
Practice? This is the same person who thinks its suspicious that NASA was working on moonlanding proposals before Kennedy's speech, so it fits his previous pattern of wilful ignorance of the realities Apollo.
Plus, if the conspiracy intended to convince everyone in the blockhouse that the landing was real (not simulated) would it not be a poor idea to demonstrate for them over and over how good a simulation you can do?
Isn't this a bit like showing off for the public the complete and detailed moon set before you try to fool them with a film made on same?
grmcdorman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2007
- Messages
- 1,458
Well, up-thread Patrick basically agreed that his fantasy "conspirators" were both super-competent in inserting trivial details (like Venus as a very faint dot in photos) and incompetent in inserting obvious giveaways (not as whistle-blowing, just "bad scripting"). So for Patrick this is no contradiction at all.
Obviousman
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2006
- Messages
- 652
The Primary Guidance, Navigation & Control System (PGNCS, more commonly abbreviated to PGNS and pronounced "pings") was designed to be able to deal with a fairly high workload. It would be able to deal with all the calculations coming in from the landing radar, or an abort was executed, calculate the required parameters to rendezvous with the CSM (the AGS - Abort Guidance System - was a backup for both landing and takeoff).
It could also cope - just - with doing both at the same time.
A checklist error was overlooked for Apollo 11: the rendezvous radar was left on, which meant that the PGNS was not only dealing with the landing but also trying to figure out the rendezvous with the CSM. It got overlooked partially because the rendezvous radar would not be actually transmitting, so it was expected that the PGNS wouldn't be calculating any abort data.
This normally would not have been a problem because the PGNS could just handle both.
Because the radar was not transmitting, some of the expected data was zero... and so the computer tried to perform some calculations which involved dividing by zero. This and the LMP asking for additional landing data threw PGNS over the line, and so at times it came up with the Programme Alarms 1201 or 1202 - the Executive Overflow. Fortunately, the designers had foreseen a situation where the computer might be overloaded and built in a safety, and if the 1201 or 1202 happened PGNS would dump non-essential tasks and concentrate on what it had been told were the critical tasks (in other words, load shedding for us aviation types). As long as the alarms were not continuous, PGNS could cope.
Last edited:
Multivac
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2011
- Messages
- 2,121
<snip>
Obviousman: thankyou for the detailed explanation. this is why I stick with threads like these, because there are always knowledgable people willing to take the time to post what they know.
mrbusdriver
Scholar
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 87
seems patty is just flailing at windmills now...it's sad to watch.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Greedo didn't even manage to get off a shot.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Or possibly the ladies razors from TPM.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Nice! What kind of timeshare?
Jrrarglblarg
Unregistered
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 12,673
So is Jabba the Hut some kind of multi-level marketing villain?
This would seem like irrational discussion, but the waffley and long-winded Episode 1 screen-crawl was all about some kind of incomprehensible tax dispute, so I assert that Jabba the Triple Diamond must have some serious leverage on Greedo.
This would seem like irrational discussion, but the waffley and long-winded Episode 1 screen-crawl was all about some kind of incomprehensible tax dispute, so I assert that Jabba the Triple Diamond must have some serious leverage on Greedo.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
This is turning into some derail.
Where is P1K? I am desirous of some more entertainment.
Anyone remember the song by Steam?
I reckon Mom and teachers had a serious word about the lack of homework assignments.
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
Anatomy of a fraud
TRUTH IN HISTORY AND IN PERSPECTIVE, THE NATURE OF APOLLO INAUTHENTICITY
Question: How many Apollo researchers does it take to prove the whole shebang bogus????
Answer: Two, one guy courageous enough to simply become more or less open minded, and in so doing judge the myth's "facts" on their genuine merit, or lack thereof. A second guy to encourage the first not to lose his nerve.
As readers of this thread have come to know, one of my main contentions with regard to demonstrating Apollo 11 Mission fraudulence has to do with the Apollo investigator's ability to demonstrate, and demonstrate rather easily as a matter of fact, that the Apollo 11 Tale, the Apollo 11 Official Narrative, is riddled with inconsistencies, points along NASA's route to the moon which are nothing more than points along a "map to nowhere". Being incompatible, being inconsistent with one another, these points, these events, mean absolutely nothing, nothing that is outside of their demonstrating Apollo to be fraudulent. These inauthentic non events exist in a state of striking internal tension with one another, and so exist in a striking tension with reality herself. As such, they serve to characterize the Apollo 11 Mission story as a story grounded in abject internal incoherence and cringing inauthenticity.
I shall examine in detail below one of these inauthentic "non events", that of Michael Collins' ride 'round and 'round the moon while allegedly searching, some say even frantically so, for his compadres playing charades, "playing astronauts", God only knows where. There are other places in the Apollo 11 narrative that also offer a grand opportunity for the deconstruction of Neil, but as is obvious, NASA's botched simulation of the first lunar landing on 07/20/1969, is so potent metaphorically, well it cannot be and should not be resisted for that reason alone.
And so, momentarily, I'll shall dig in and have at it again, showing how NASA and the astronauts at one and the same time pretended they'd sort of lost track of themselves, had become disoriented up there on that dimly lit grey rock, while also incredibly, and at the very same time, kinda' knew where the boys on the moon were all along. Simultaneously lost and found if you will.
As mentioned on numerous occasions previously, the dynamic driving this whacked out scenario has too do with the simple logistics of military NASA's inability to let on as to where their "astronauts" were pretending to be. Remember, the real goal of Apollo is not to land men on the moon, but rather, to instrument the moon for use as a military platform. The manned landing pretense provides the operation with cover under the guise of a peaceful operation. Huge rockets are needed to launch such large instrument packages, and Apollo presented as a voyage of discovery provides the public distraction necessary to plop one big thing down there on the lunar surface after another without people flipping out and saying, "Hey, wait a gosh dang minute or two!!!!! What the heck is going on with their launching all those rockets up there in space, around the earth, and toward the moon? Are you guys trying to blow somebody up?"
With the exception of the LRRR, the full complement of UNMANNED Apollo 11 equipment launched and ultimately landed on the lunar surface is not likely at Tranquility Base; 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east. The whole idea would of course be to keep as much secret as possible, including of course equipment location. You don't tell people where your ballistic missile submarines are hiding under the surface of the ocean now do you? And likewise, you don't tell people where your scientific military equipment is parked on the surface of the moon. One thing we do know for sure, there were no astronauts at Tranquility Base. You don't send and risk men to do a machine's job. And so, if "Tranquility Base's coordinates" had been known in real-time during the simulated Apollo 11 landing, someone, or something like the Russian probe LUNA 15 for example, could have taken a picture and shown the astronauts to NOT be there. Or, taken a picture and shown it to no one, but used the photo for themselves to document what if anything was in fact parked at the official landing site. Friends and foes alike were in a position to get the truant astronauts in big big big trouble if the coordinates had become known in Apollo 11 Mission real-time. Such is the case as laser light could have been targeted upon the astronauts, upon their LRRR while they were supposed to be "up there". If the so directed Tranquility Base laser light wasn't imaged a' la the imaging of such laser light by Surveyor VII, it would have proven the astronauts truant, and would have demonstrated that Uncle Sam had been up to something else entirely, perhaps something not at all peaceful.
The Russians were doing this stuff too of course. They started it before we did as a matter of fact. Part of the bird hiding of course had to do with keeping the Russians from knowing where our equipment was parked, as much as it was for not getting caught cutting class in outer space. The Apollo equipment landed on the moon was and is, military equipment. As such, knowledge of its whereabouts by any but the most trusted makes it "vulnerable". The equipment's handlers, at the very least, don't want anyone taking a look at it. If you did get a look at it, you might be able to figure out what it was up to and so forth, maybe figure out how to stop it from working.
So during the Apollo 11 Mission, NASA worked hard to land their military equipment under the guise of landing Neil Armstrong. The Eagle landed in that altogether curious way where one didn't know exactly where it was, where our military equipment was. On the other hand, NASA could not pretend itself to be completely clueless, as most of the flight officers, not to mention the engineers, the scientists and other highly educated principal players in the Apollo program didn't know they were landing military goods. They were under the impression that they were landing Neil, and it is in this important sense but ONLY this important sense that Apollo is "fake", a "hoax". Indeed, the fraud's success as a military operation to land equipment on the moon and thereby use the moon as a military platform depends on the Apollo flight officers, scientists, engineers and so forth being convinced it is all real, a bona fide manned lunar landing. It is from this aspect, this element of the fraud that its strength, its effectiveness, is derived. All these incredibly smart talented people saying , "Of course its real, of course there is no hoax! I myself worked on the thing. I designed the lander myself! I'm no one's fool!" On the other hand, for the very sake of these smart and talented and altogether duped participants, the Apollo 11 landing story must feature in real-time some element of knowledge with respect to Tranquility Base's location, the location of the Eagle's purported perch. Guidance people, flight officers, will be expecting data on the landing site. "What are its coordinates?", H. David Reed asks as soon as he steps in the door on 07/21/1969 and prepares to find a way to get the Eagle hooked back up with Michael Collins in his Columbia simulator. The scientists at Lick Observatory were planning to shoot a ruby red laser beam at the LRRR as soon as Armstrong and Aldrin set the thing down. Matter of fact, there were newspeople at Lick Observatory on the very night of the landing, print journalists and at least one public television crew. There they were at Lick Observatory on the very night of the first moon walk, waiting to report that the LRRR had been successfully targeted, successfully targeted that very night. This was actually what was expected, were the mission to have been fully authentic. So the Eagle must be "lost" with regard to NASA's mandate to hide its military assets, and at the same time "found" or "known" with regard to satisfying the expectations of guidance/flight officers, Lick Observatory scientists and other relevant and interested parties.
A real moon landing by Neil and the NASA boys would not feature this landing site cat and mouse aspect. It is the hallmark of Apollo 11 as an inauthentic Mission, in the same way as stumbling bumbling Alan Bean's breaking of the tv camera at the time of Apollo 12's simulated landing was the hallmark of that mission's inauthenticity. The name of the game in real estate they say is LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION, and that applies not only here terrestrially, but on the moon as well, though in the latter case, as regards one's military assets, one obviously would like to maintain the details as regards that great location a well kept secret.
So once again I'll prove Apollo's inauthenticity, its fraudulence by showing how the official narrative contained/contains two mutually exclusive "lines", line one; the Eagle is lost, line two; the Eagle was right over there the whole time and no big deal we lost a space ship and 2 astronauts. As the data/story that supports the "Eagle lost" perspective is incompatible with the data/story of the "Eagle found" perspective, we may conclude with absolute confidence that neither are true and the whole thing must have been made up. The one difference between this run through, this proof of the Apollo 11 fraud, and my previous posts on this subject, is that this particular analysis is more ambitious, more thorough, and as far as the official story goes, all the more devastating to the integrity of Apollo as the withering and fading lie that it is.
A story, a piece of history, a real life factual account, must by its very nature have consistency, internal coherence as a feature. On the other hand, all of the details of real life adventures are never known fully to the interested, and problems, puzzles and unresolved features of history's elements are inevitable. As such, the curious to some greater or lesser degree become confused from time to time as buffs study history from their own unique perch in the future looking back to a collection of presumed to be linked past occurrences. With space-time's every breath, no matter how deep, no matter how profound, no matter how mundane, no matter how day to day shallow, events become ever and ever and ever again all the more faint, hard to see and even once located, they can sometimes be difficult to resolve. So when studying history, we must be fair. We expect consistency and coherence as we listen to stories about those things which we come to know as "true", though we keep in mind that we cannot interrogate the events themselves in our search for truth, and some contradictions may be found that obtain in the case of real life events, some details may remain unknown with respect to those great moments in the lives of us all.
If we listen carefully to this story, the Apollo 11 story, and so we have, a story told to us in pieces big and pieces small, a story told to us by quite literally thousands of people, and interestingly, a story we ourselves tell, tell now to one another, a story we ourselves develop, just as we are developing it now, we hear a story that is little more than fantasy. We hear a story that is nothing more than quite untrue. Apollo was and is an important hero myth, but an altogether failed one. Apollo was to mid and late 20th century Americans a hero myth in the same sense of and serving the same purpose as Nja'ls Saga did in the case of 13th and 14th Century Icelanders, as the story of Gilgamesh did in the case of the ancient Sumerians, or as the Iliad and Odyssey did in the case of the Homeric Greeks. But Apollo as hero myth has ultimately failed, and its failure was inevitable. This because in its real-time telling, one of its real-time features was said to be its truth, its flesh and blood authenticity. And so we find ever so oddly that the Star Trek film THE WRATH OF KHAN succeeds where NASA's Apollo 11 tale does not. For in the case of the former, there was never any pretense that any of it was other than good ol' fashion Hollywood fun 'n' games. And so we also find ever so ever so ever so oddly that Leonard Nimoy succeeds where Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin do not. For in the case of the former, Mr. Spock never claimed off the set to be other than who he was/is.
My analysis of the Apollo 11 Mission Report document below will be difficult for some. It is harsh and devastating as it looks at NASA's empty and FALSE claims that have to do with Michael Collins' search for Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin as they were pretending to be on the surface of the moon. It is the story of bird hiding, Eagle lost, and simultaneously, Eagle found. It is an analysis that demonstrates without ambiguity Apollo's fraudulence. Let's begin.
MAKING SENSE OF MICHAEL COLLINS' MAP
My general approach here focuses on a detailed study of the now infamous "J Map". The map Michael Collins carried with him in lunar orbit. Of course it is the very same map to which his handlers refer in their advising Collins as to where he should look on the surface of the moon in order to find his colleagues. Actually, the map carries the notation LAM 2, June 1969 in its upper left hand corner. But I like to refer to it as the "J Map" and so I shall, this emphasizing the "Juliet" reference.
Armstrong and Aldrin's location it was said, had not been determined with anything remotely approaching certainty. Remember now, this is supposed to be the first lunar landing. The details regarding location is of tremendous historic significance. AND!!!, History aside, two men's lives are said to be at risk here. Safety, such as safety's concerns can be addressed under such unusual circumstances, mandates accuracy in location. Finally, from a practical standpoint, the location is important with regard to referencing for the Lick Observatory scientists where the LRRR is located, and with regard to referencing for geologists from where exactly on the moon the rocks had been collected.
Just below, a quote from pages 5-7 and 5-8 of the Apollo 11 Mission Report itself. Here the reader will find the general Michael Collins bird hunting situation described and referenced, figure 5-14. I'll be using this very Apollo 11 Mission report figure 5-14 of NASA's as my own primary reference in this deconstruction of the official narrative and demonstration of Apollo 11 inauthenticity. Here's the Mission Report quote;
"During the lunar surface stay, several unsuccessful attempts were made by the Command Module Pilot to locate the lunar module through the sextant using sighting coordinates transmitted from the ground. Estimates of the landing coordinates were obtained from the lunar module computer, the lunar surface gravity alignment of the platform, and the limited interpretation of the geological features during descent. Figure 5-14 shows the areas that were tracked and the times of closest approach that were used for the sightings. It can be seen that the actual landing site, as determined from films taken during the descent, did not lie near the center of the sextant field of view for any of the coordinates used; therefore, the ability to acquire the lunar module from a 60-mile orbit can neither be established nor denied. The Command Module Pilot reported it was possible to scan only one grid square during a single pass."
Let's take a look at the infamous "J Map" of NASA and Michael Collins a little closer. The map featuring the dot with the real-time(while the Apollo 11 simulated landing was actually in progress) best guess determination of the Eagle's position at J .5 /7.7. What I shall proceed to do is render the map fully readable by developing a method whereby specific latitude values may be assigned to the north-south grid lines A through W and specific longitude values to the east-west grid lines 1 through 28. With the map now readable in such a sense, we'll then be able to look at it in the same context that Collins and his handlers did and ask ourselves, "Was it in any way reasonable to ask Collins to look for the Eagle in this place or that place as he was alleged to pass over the general landing site area with each simulated turn of the pretend ship Columbia?" The answer to our question will be a most decided and resounding NO! We shall see that it would have made absolutely no sense to send Collins looking for Armstrong at these points of worse than wild guestimate. This flight of Collins 'round and 'round the moon with sextant in hand was nothing more than an intentional wild goose chase. And how now brown cow is one ever to find an Eagle may I ask when one's radar is set on registering the shape form and identity of wild geese? Well, we'll recognize this as fraud as sure as shoot my friends. Here are the details as to how I went about catching the astronauts with their pants down. Remember, the astronauts are "special" "special" "special" people and don't wear regular pants. So once caught like this with their pants down, it's an awful lot harder for the astronauts to pull 'em, cumbersome space suit pants, back up and cover their lying rumps.
The "J Map"; http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/LAM2_CMP-flown.jpg
From my previous analysis I knew each square was roughly 1.96 X 1.96 minutes of arc, and knew as well Tranquility Base had been ultimately determined by the NASA folks to correspond to a point on the "J Map" map at J .65/7.52, I was able to determine that the J latitude line corresponds to roughly 00 39' 58" in radians. Let's call it 00 40' 00", for the sake of this argument, such an approximation will be fine, it may turn out ultimately that that figure is even a better estimate of J than 00 39' 58" when all is said and done, but strict accuracy is far from critical here. I want to see where on this map Collins was instructed to look and ask the question, "Was it reasonable to ask him to look here?". So if my estimates of latitude and longitude do not meet USGS standards, its no big, the estimates will be more than satisfactory for the intended purpose.
So from J at 00 40' 00" N to 01 00' 00" N one notes 10.65 lines of latitude. 01 00' 00" is just a bit, by my estimate 0.35 map units below V. So 20 minutes of arc are marked by 10.65 lines of latitude gives 1.8779 minutes of arc per line of latitude. With this as my estimate, I'll run from J up to V and check my numbers to be sure things square. What follows are the latitude lines and the corresponding north coordinate given in radians. A triple slash /// will follow each latitude given in radians, and to the right of that slash, I'll give the same latitude in a conventional decimal representation. This way, we'll have all three north-south coordinate forms before us, the "J Map" letters, the corresponding latitude of that lettered line given in radians and then to the right of the same equivalent latitude written in conventional decimal form.
Think about and note how NASA intentionally presented their latitude and longitude numbers in various and sundry ways, radians here, decimal form there, map lettering and map numbering way over yonder, incessantly and very much intentionally obfuscating their claims as to where they intended the Eagle to land, where the simulated landing in fact occurred and where in the simulation they had Collins hunting for said stuffed bird on the surface of a moon that has still yet to feel the pressure of a man's boot or woman's stiletto.
0.8779 minutes of arc is equal to 52.674 seconds of arc, and so as I ascend from J to K and so on, I'll be adding 00 01' 52.674" to each prior latitude line as it had been rendered in radians.
J 00 40' 00" /// 0.667
K 00 41' 53" /// 0.698
L 00 43' 45" /// 0.729
M 00 45' 38" /// 0.761
N 00 47' 31" /// 0.792
P 00 49' 23" /// 0.823
Q 00 51' 16" /// 0.854
R 00 53' 09" /// 0.886
S 00 55' 01" /// 0.917
T 00 56' 54" /// 0.948
U 00 58' 47" /// 0.980
V 01 00 38 /// 1.011
And one can see this works out quite well. V is about 0.35 map units above the map's own mark of 01 00 00 north, and with each map unit of latitude being roughly 1.88 minutes of arc, .35 units is .658 minutes of arc or 39.48 seconds of arc. One sees my figure for V features 38 seconds of arc at its tale 01 00 38 north. So I have indeed a very good estimate of the equivalent radian representation for Michael Collins' "J Map".
I'll do the same thing for the latitude lines that are marked south of J. From J at 00 40 00 down to D .5 at 00 30 00 one notes 4.5 lines of latitude marked on the "J Map". Doing as I did before one notes 10 minutes of arc contained within 4.5 lines of latitude from D.5 north to This gives 2.22 minutes of arc per line of latitude, a little different than what I found doing this heading in the north direction. So moving from J down to E, I'll subtract for each "J Map" latitude line 2.22 minutes of arc, or equivalently 2 minutes and 13.32 seconds to give a useful "J Map" line determination in radians.
J 00 40' 00" /// 0.667
H 00 37' 47" /// 0.630
G 00 35' 33" /// 0.593
F 00 33' 20" /// 0.556
E 00 31' 07" /// 0.519
D 00 28' 53" /// 0.481
One notes that by adding half a "J Map" latitude equivalent to that last figure D there, adding half of 2 minutes and 13.32 seconds to 00 28 53, one gets 00 30 00 north. So my "J Map" latitudes as expressed in radians from top at V to bottom at D are excellent estimates. Not USGS perfect, but quite good enough for our exploration of this scam.
So there I have my latitude lines, E up to V in "J Map" letters, radians, and simple decimal notation. Now I'll do the rough equivalent for the lines of longitude. 23 30' 00" east is roughly at 7.7 on the "J Map" and 24 00' 00" east is at longitude mark 23 on the map. So that's 30 radians split into 15.3 map units. 30/15.3 gives 1.96 minutes of arc per "J Map" longitude line. One need not do an estimate for every one of the longitude lines appearing on the "J Map" as looking at figure 5-14 specific mention is only made of longitude lines 4.8 through 8.2. With that in mind, I shall now write the "J Map" longitude equivalents for lines 3 through 9 in radians and degrees as well. My nomenclature shall be as above "J Map" longitude line number spaces, radian equivalent /// decimal equivalent.
0.96 minutes of arc is equivalent to 57.6 seconds of arc. So from longitude line 3 through 9, I'll be essentially adding 1 minute and 57.6 seconds of arc to the prior longitude line radian equivalent. Since NASA's post flight determination of Tranquility Base placed the east-west longitude for the Eagle's alleged landing site at 7.52, we'll use that to reference 23 26' 00" east. As such, that gives longitude line 8 as 23 26' 56" Beginning with 3;
3 23 17' 08" /// 23.286
4 23 19' 05" /// 23.318
5 23 21' 03" /// 23.351
6 23 23' 00" /// 23.383
7 23 24' 58" /// 23.416
8 23 26' 56" /// 23.449
9 23 28' 53" /// 23.481
Our map's "measurements" are indeed a bit unusual. But these oddities have in a sense been forced on us. I began with the fact of Tranquility Base's known location being at J .65/ 7.52, given that fact and the fact that the squares measure more or less 2 minutes of arc on a side, one sees that in moving from longitude 7.52 east to 8.0, one moves equivalently, or in step by radians, from Tranquility Base at 23 26' 00" east to 23 26' 56" east. This is because .48 map units translates into 56 seconds of arc. Yet, surprisingly, when one looks at the top of the map, one sees NASA has marked 23 30' 00" east at roughly 7.6. So they tell us Tranquility Base is at map longitude 7.52, while at the same time they have a mark on the map at about 7.6 that indicates this latitude to be 23 30' 00". But if Tranquility Base really is at 7.52, well then, given the dimensions of this map, with each square more or less 2 minutes of arc on a side, then longitude 7.6 should be labeled 23 26' 09", not 23 30' 00". There is not much we can do about this. As we go along, we may find a devious motivation for this. For the time being we simply note it. We have "zeroed" our map on Tranquility Base more or less with "J Map" coordinates .65/ 7.52 corresponding to my coordinates 00 41' 13" north and 23 26' 00" east. The reason Tranquility Base on "my map" has a north coordinate of 00 41' 13" instead of 00 41' 15", is because as the reader recalls, I set the J latitude to 00 40' 00" north instead of my previously calculated and perhaps/perhaps not, more accurate J latitude of 00 39' 58". The difference is one that amounts to roughly 60 feet of latitude with each second of arc at the moon's equator representative of 27.6 feet given a moon circumference of 6790 miles.
Note also, the "boxes" on the map are not all equal in size. As mentioned, they are roughly 2 minutes of arc on a side, but as above, my calculations feature edges of roughly 1.88, 1.96 and 2.22 minutes of arc. This variation in edge dimension resulted from NASA's labeling. I assumed it to be their best guess and so have made my calculations accordingly.
GREAT BALLS OF UNMITIGATED COORDINATE CONFUSION, THE APOLLO 11 SIMULATED LUNAR LANDING MISSION REPORT
Let's turn to everyone's favorite piece of Apollo 11 Mission forged documentation, the Apollo 11 Mission Report. Table 5-IV provides us with the Lunar Landing Coordinates. Let's take a look first at the entry second from last, those coordinates listed as corresponding to the "lunar module targeted" site. We find listed there in table 5-IV; 0.691 north and 23.72 east. Let's see if that squares with the targeted landing coordinates as discussed earlier in the Mission Report on page 5-6. A quote from the report;
"The coordinates of the landing point, as obtained from the various real-time and post flight sources, are shown in table 5-IV. The actual landing point is 0 degree 41 minutes 15 seconds north latitude and 23 degrees 26 minutes east longitude, as compared with the targeted landing point of 0 degree 43 minutes 53 seconds north latitude and 23 degrees 38 minutes 51 seconds east longitude as shown in figure 5-10. Figure 5-10 is the basic reference map for location of the landing point in this report. As noted, the landing point dispersion was caused primarily by errors in the onboard state vector prior to powered descent initiation."
So the text of the mission Report indicates on page 5-6 that the targeted site was 00 43' 53" north and 23 38' 51" east. Let's convert those figures to decimal notation. Doing the appropriate calculations we find the equivalent decimal notation to be 0.731 north and 23.648 east. From the Mission Report "lunar targeted site" north figure of 0.691, we see if we add the appropriate decimal equivalent correction factor as per footnote a ("Following the Apollo 10 mission, a difference was noted (from the landmark tracking results) between the trajectory coordinate system and the coordinate system on the reference map. In order to reference trajectory values to the l:100 000 scale Lunar Map ORB-II-6 (lO0), dated December 1967, correction factors of plus 2'25" in latitude and minus 4'17" in longitude must be applied to the trajectory values.") of 0.04 degrees(equivalent to 2'25" in radians) and subtract the decimal equivalent correction factor of 0.07 degrees(equivalent to 4'17" in radians) we find indeed that 0.691 plus 0.04 gives 0.731 north and additionally 23.72 minus 0.07 gives 23.65 east. So we see that the "lunar targeted site" coordinates as they appear in table 5-IV of the Apollo 11 Mission Report are the very same coordinates as referenced on page 5-6 as the targeted coordinates. Note how they are "disguised" to intentionally confuse. The targeted landing site coordinates are written in table 5-IV in decimal form without the "correction factors", on page 5-6 where the targeted site is referenced in the flow of text, they are written in radian form with the correction factors included. All of this jive, here a decimal, there a radian, here a number in "trajectory form", there one in Lunar Map ORB-II-6 form" is all so much very intentional nonsense. But we have prepared ourselves well now for this cavalcade of numbers as presented by the Apollo 11 Mission "Inummerati", the clowns that perpetrated this aspect of the fraud.
Now, generally oriented and all the more certain that the footnote "a" correction for trajectory to map coordinates apply, I'll list all of the Apollo 11 Mission Report table 5-IV landing coordinate values in the following form;
"raw numbers" as they appear in the table /// numbers with correction factors appropriately added for the north coordinate and subtracted for the east /// radian equivalent of the corrected landing coordinate values /// "J Map" equivalent Letter/longitude number.
Table 5-IV, Lunar Landing Coordinates(a)
(a the table heading refers to application of footnote a correction factors)
1) Primary Guidance Onboard Vector
North 0.649 /// 0.689 /// 00 41' 20" /// J .709
East 23.46 /// 23.39 /// 23 23' 24" /// 6.20
2) Abort Guidance Onboard Vector
North 0.639 /// 0.679 /// 00 40' 44" /// J .390
East 23.44 /// 23.37 /// 23 22' 12" /// 5.587
3) Powered Flight Processor
North 0.631 /// 0.671 /// 00 40' 16" /// J .142
East 23.47 /// 23.40 /// 23 24' 00" /// 6.510
4) Alignment Optical Telescope
North 0.523 /// 0.563 /// 00 33' 47" /// F .203 (no correction 00 31' 23" /// E .142)
East 23.42 /// 23.35 /// 23 21' 00" /// 4.975 (no correction 23 25' 12" /// 7 .119)
5) Rendezvous Radar
North 0.636 /// 0.676 /// 00 40' 33" /// J .293
East 23.50 /// 23.43 /// 23 25' 48" /// 7.425
6) Best Estimate Trajectory Accelerometer
North 0.647 /// 0.687 /// 00 41' 13" /// J .647
East 23.505 /// 23.435 /// 23 26' 06" 7.551
7) Lunar Module Targeted
North 0.691 /// 0.731 /// 00 43' 52" /// L .06
East 23.72 /// 23.65 /// 23 39' 00" /// 14.102
8) Photography
North 0.647 /// 0.687 /// 00 41' 13" /// J .647
East 23.505 /// 23.435 /// 23 26' 06" /// 7.551
YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY ONE! MAKES LITTLE OR NO SENSE TO ME AS WELL! THE REMARKABLE ILLOGIC OF THE MICHAEL COLLINS LUNAR ORBITAL WILD GOOSE CHASE
I am only one step away from really getting down to business. As above, I have a LAM 2, or as I prefer to call it my "J Map" conversions. For any point on the map I can give coordinates in radians and conventional decimal notation. This, assuming Tranquility Base to be at J .65 / 7.52 and also assuming the grid edges are roughly 2 minutes of arc in dimension. With regard to the latter figure, that gives roughly 0.4 square miles per small "J Map" square. The larger "J Map" squares are 4 times as big or 1.6 square miles each.
Now I shall turn to the Apollo 11 Mission Report figure 5-14 which includes all of the "J Map" coordinates that allegedly were given to Collins as he did his simulated loop de loops about the moon. Each time Collins came 'round, he was said to have been fed a pair of map coordinates to serve as a clue. He was to search the area about the clue coordinates in the hope he'd spot the Eagle. As legend has it, he never did.
I shall do as I did previously with Apollo 11 Mission Report table 5-IV and list coordinates by way of all three forms of representation available to us now; radians, decimal notation and LAM 2 map or again as I like to call them "J Map" coordinates. I'll start with the "J Map" coordinates, the convention that I shall use here will be "J Map" coordinates as they were given to Collins /// equivalent coordinates in radians /// equivalent coordinates as expressed in degrees.
There are a couple of small difficulties worth mentioning. These have too do with the first two points Collins was given as references about which he was to search for the Eagle. Point 1 listed in the Command module sighting history figure is listed as simply 4 miles long. I'll take that to mean 4 miles west of the targeted east coordinate 23 38' 51". The second point Collins is allegedly directed to is also not as clear as one would like. No specific longitude is given for it. The entry in the Apollo 11 Mission Report figure 5-14 table simply reads P .7 to N .8 . I'll assume that again we are 4 miles down range of the targeted east landing site coordinate 23 38' 51". As each minute of arc represents 0.314 miles, 4 miles would be accounted for by 12.74 minutes of arc or 12 minutes and 44 seconds. So with regard to these first two points with their somewhat ambiguous longitudes, we'll take the Apollo 11 Mission Report authors to mean 23 26' 07" east which is of course about as good an estimate as any one could could possibly hope for. Mythical "Tranquility Base" was for all intents and purposes, exactly 4 miles downrange of the targeted east coordinate, 23 38' 51".
Figure 5-14, Command Module Sighting History Points
(PFPD is the distance from the Powered Flight Processor solution that typically would be considered the best available in real-time)
1) Four miles long of 00 43' 53" north and 23 38' 51" east
North L .071 /// 00 43' 53" /// 0.731
East 7.551 /// 23 26' 06" /// 23.435
PFPD 1.32 miles or 7020 feet
2) P . 7 to N .8
North from lat N . 8 northward to P .7 /// 00 49' 01" to 00 50' 42" /// 0.817 to 0.845
East 7.551 /// 23 26' 06" /// 23.435
PFPD 2.83 to 3.34 miles or 14,937 to 17,675 feet
3) North M .8 /// 00 47' 08" /// 0.786
East 8.2 /// 23 27' 20" /// 23.456
PFPD 2.40 miles or 12,646 feet
4) North P .2 /// 00 49' 46" /// 0.829
East 6.3 /// 23 23' 35" /// 23.393
PFPD 2.98 miles or 15,733 feet
5) North M .7 /// 00 46' 57" /// 0.7825
East 8.0 /// 23 26' 56" /// 23.449
PFPD 2.29 miles or 12,091 feet
6) North E .3 /// 00 31' 47" /// 0.528
East 4.8 /// 23 20' 39" /// 23.344
PFPD 2.89 miles or 15,236 feet
7) North K .9 /// 00 43' 35" /// 0.726
East 6.3 /// 23 23' 35" /// 23.393
PFPD 1.047 miles or 5528 feet
COORDINATE CHAOS AND CLEAR EVIDENCE FOR APOLLO 11 MISSION FRAUD IN THE APOLLO 11 MISSION REPORT'S PRESENTATION OF LANDING SITE COORDINATES(TABLE 5-IV) AND MICHAEL COLLINS LUNAR ORBITAL SEARCH COORDINATES (FIGURE 5-14)
Keep 2 things while sifting through this coordinate morass. First of all, the reason the morass exists to begin with is because it was intentionally created this way, presented to us this way on purpose. This, for the express purpose of confounding and confusing. The "Innumerati" the Apollo trajectory/numbers scam artists use radians, conventional decimal expressions, map coordinates which include both letters and numbers, the numbers not having anything at all to do with radian or decimal representations except in that they can be interconverted, and last but not least, the correction factor aspect of all this. With regard to this correction factor issue, coordinates appear in the Apollo literature in such a fashion that correction factors must be added/subtracted at times in order to compare the coordinates, in order to appreciate how the very same disguised figures were presented in other contexts.
Another way to say this, the reason I had to go through this pain in the rump with rendering the map readable and then expressing the coordinates in all three ways for each of their occurrences in table 5-IV and figure 5-14 has to do with the fact that somebody, the "Innumerati" scammers, most decidedly didn't want me or anyone else to do this in the first place, because in so rendering this table "readable", and figure 5-14 as "readable", the fraud becomes all the more evident.
The second important point to keep in mind as one looks at these numbers is that the scamming aspect of all this is not going to be glaring, these guys are slick and the fraud is fairly subtle. It has to be. Most of the important people being duped here are people like the flight officers themselves, most of them anyway. And again, this is how the perps get the thing to work. If the guys running the lunar landings, the landing of military equipment on the surface of the moon believe the official Apollo line to be true, the line that Apollo was about peaceful manned lunar landings, well then the charade artists are almost home free. The scientists, engineers, flight officers and equipment builders of Apollo will go out into the world during the time of the Apollo Missions as well as after all is said and done and reinforce Apollo's "reality" over and over and over, writing books, making movies, appearing on television and so forth. This is the reason why Apollo is accepted as true, as real. It is because of the Apollo workers belief in the truth of its events and the workers' impact on public consciousness during the Apollo program and in its aftermath.
So as I go through this little exercise of exposing a part of the Apollo numbers scam, keep in mind one is expecting relatively subtle stuff. Enough scamming to lose the Eagle as I have discussed again and again, but not so overtly scammy that the thing is implausible, not credible.
First of all, recall how H. David Reed indicated that none of the real-time solutions which were available to him; PGNS, AGS, powered fight processor/MSFN, maps/photos, targeted landing site were within 25,000 feet of his solution. Now the rendezvous radar solution is reported in the Apollo 11 Mission Report as 0.676 north and 23.43 east. As mentioned previously, and as emphasized on those prior occasions, all of the real-time solutions to which H. David Reed refers to in his writing appear in the Apollo 11 Mission Report, not 25,000 feet from his solution, but very close to his solution indeed. For example, the Powered Flight Processor/MSFN solution and the rendezvous radar solution as they appear in the Apollo 11 mission Report are roughly 840 feet apart. So right there we see how the flight officers, in this case FIDO Reed, are "seeing things"/saw things other than as they are/were presented in the Mission Report. Reed says the PGNS, AGS and Powered Flight Processor/MSFN were not even close to one another in terms of their values. All 3 of these solutions for the landing site coordinates were real time solutions, all 3 of these solutions would have been available to Reed when he stepped on duty that morning of 07/21/1969. Doing our own analysis based on the Mission Report numbers, we see that the PGNS, AGS and Powered flight solutions are all within 4 tenths of a mile of one another give or take. Now that is pretty dang good! 240,000 miles from simulated home and the numbers match up that well!!! Reed says this was not the case. He wrote not only were the solutions 25,000 feet/4.73 miles from his, but in addition, the real-time solutions available to him were at at significant variance from one another, so much so, it was this very fact that motivated Reed to chuck all these alternatives and use the rendezvous radar in reverse method to develop an independent launch solution(which included a landing site coordinate solution) in which Reed, as the all important launch FIDO, had confidence.
I've looked at this aspect of the numbers scam before, so nothing new here. But it is important to have gone over, because the numbers as they relate to the mad capped simulated ride of Michael Collins in his mad capped and ever so simulated hunt for his buddies is an altogether different story in and of itself, but one related nevertheless. I'll show you how.
Of the 7 points Collins was referred to, the only 2 which make any sense at all are 1) and 6). 1) because a person could argue they knew the Eagle floated 4 miles long. Looks like 4 miles long exactly, matter of fact. So I'll give them that one. 6) at coordinates 0.528 north and 23.344 east is fairly close to the AOT solution which was indeed a real time solution, so telling Collins to look there, look where the astronauts had "found themselves" with their telescope, well that makes sense. Even if they did wind up being in the simulated mission 3 miles from there(Tranquility Base's location), at least there would have been some logic to it.
That said, the other points in the figure 5-14 Collins wild goose chase list make no sense at all. He's looked first of all 4 miles downrange from the targeted landing site and does not find the Eagle. What would be your next move? Look at those areas where your tracking systems have located you. The PGNS, AGS and MSFN solutions all have located the Eagle to somewhere between latitudes J and K, and as a matter of fact, the Eagle's simulated perch does wind up being there at J .65. Why isn't Collins looking there? The PGNS, AGS and MSFN all have the Eagle at "J Map" longitudes 5,6,7. So why don't they tell Collins to look at J . 5 / 7 to begin with? Especially given the fact that 4 miles long puts one roughly at longitude 7.5? Why not tell Collins to look there, J .5 / 7.5? He would have found the thing. Found it that is if any of this nonsense were real.
So instead, in search orbits 2, 3, 4, 5, we find that Collins has been directed to look 2.3 to 3.3 miles north of their own real-time PGNS, AGS and MSFN data. And keep in mind, these guys believe in this data, at least they said they did. So why didn't they use it? The MSFN data gives coordinates 0.64 miles from "Tranquility Base". If they had fed those numbers alone, MSFN being considered typically the best tracker as it was simulated here, they would have "found the Eagle", one small square edge's distance away. One would think some might put a fair amount of stock in the AOT solution given that it is made with the Eagle actually on the ground there. That solution places the Eagle well south of the points Collins was directed to in tries 2, 3, 4, 5. How far south of those points? Well, even factoring in the north correction for the AOT solution, the difference between that point and the upper north latitude where they allegedly had Collins searching is 4.86 miles. More likely than not, it is this kind of discrepancy that Reed and the other presumably "on the up and up" fight officers see. One can hear them now, "Four and a half miles? How can the numbers be so different? I thought the tracking alternatives were said to have shown good agreement. Now what are we going to do? We don't even know where these guys are to within 3 or 4 miles with any certainty, if that?!!"
So Reed and the other flight officers must have been seeing numbers such as these, solutions 3, 4, 5 miles apart. They had to have been. The stories do not square, and for now, we do not assume blue collar FIDO types like Reed to be in on the scam for the most part. Schiesser yes, Reed no.
The last point that Collins was directed to there, 7), that makes no sense either. The north coordinate listed translates to 00 43' 35". What kind of sense does that make now? By this time they know for sure the Eagle has drifted well off line from its intended latitude. But 00 43' 35" is essentially the targeted latitude (00 43' 52"). This is only 17 seconds of arc south of the originally targeted latitude and so is only 470 feet south of where they intended to land. There is no way this hunt for the Eagle game can be real. Why would they direct Collins to the originally targeted latitude when they know by this time, getting close now to simulated splitting, doing their simulated launch, that the Eagle's pretended course was not only well down range, but drifted a fair amount laterally as well? Ridiculous!
So as tedious as the coordinate study and number crunching was/is, it all paid off. One can readily see that the trajectory/landing site data as presented in the Apollo 11 Mission Report is in tension with the account of events as given by H. David Reed as regards his experience as launch FIDO on the morning of 07/21/1969. The accounts are incompatible and so one concludes quite rightly, the Apollo 11 Mission Report is Fraudulent. In addition, we have discovered that within the Mission Report; table 5-IV and figure 5-14, there is inconsistency and coordinate incoherence. For were the document self consistent, we would have found Michael Collins, per figure 5-14, being referred to the "J Map" coordinates corresponding to the PGNS, AGS and most significantly the MSFN solutions as given in table 5-IV. As I demonstrated, had that been the case, Collins would have been instructed at the very least to look in and around J .5 / 7. So even without Reed's testimony, there is ample evidence for telemetry/landing coordinate number shuffling and fraud, for the numbers as presented make little sense given the story as told, especially in light of a comprehensive landing site coordinate assessment which includes as mine above does, all of the details from both table 5-IV and figure 5-14.
Finally, I should like to remind the reader to keep in mind the intentional game of misdirection being played here, coordinates appearing in radian form, conventional decimal form, map lettering/numbering, with and without the trajectory to map conversion/correction factors. It's enough to make one dizzy, as though he or she were orbiting the moon looking for a phony stuffed bird.
HISTORICAL INCONSISTENCIES AND INTERNAL INCOHERENCE IN PERSPECTIVE
Granting to the study of history, the inevitable "Holes in Details", the inevitable missing elements, granting some expectation of contradiction in the recounting of events by different people, the expectation of casual inconsistencies in the relating of the same story by different people and in the relating of the same story by way of differing methods and sources, one nevertheless anticipates reasonably good agreement with respect to the major features of a major story's telling. Such is of course the case with our expectations as regards the telling of the "First Manned Lunar Landing Story". Given the event's epic dimensions, it was a moment which had its pulse monitored with all the precision, intensity and care that mid Twentieth Century technology could muster. So with respect to this story's major elements, Apollo's main features, at least in in outline, these should be related to us, we the curious, as the main features of a truly epic and truly historic journey. The story of the first moon landing's authentically historic features SHOULD BE easily spottable as TRUE and authenticating, true and authenticating because the telling of this story should for the most part be marked by an unmistakable consistency and coherence. Yet, this is not what we find. Witness above the coordinate morass and the intentional associated deceptive element to it all.
We understand that though history herself is perfect, by that I mean events are events and so must have occurred in fact as they did, history's telling is understandably not so perfect. Acknowledging this, the careful reader of Apollo history nevertheless notes that the mainstream telling, the official narrative telling of the Apollo story can only be viewed as quite simply NOT TRUE. This, given the story's stark raving mad main feature inconsistencies and its blinding incoherence. Apollo can only strike the fair minded critical thinker as nothing more than inauthentic, remarkably inconsistent and altogether marked by a robust lack of contact with reality. As such, one can only see Apollo as a failed hero myth. A failed hero myth that continually floats more and more away from us, out of contact with truth, reality and meaning in our lives.
In the telling of this Apollo story to us by astronauts, engineers, flight officers, NASA administrators and space administration employees of every stripe, in the telling of this story to us by employees of the great aerospace companies that built Apollo's machines, in the telling of the Apollo story by print journalists, television journalists, popular and academic historians, scientists directly involved with Apollo and scientists commenting or studying Apollo "after the fact", in the telling of the Apollo story by friends and family members of those involved, the once removed witnesses of Apollo's great events, in this protean telling, this telling by myriad raconteurs, this telling by way of NASA documents, photos, telemetry data, rocks, personal anecdotes, interviews, news stories, television presentations, videos popular and serious/documentarian, books popular and serious/documentarian, in this story's telling, and despite the complex narrative's remarkable qualities, ever enlarging, ever morphing, ever becoming more and other than it was just moments ago, we find ourselves feeling very much entitled to and very much expecting consistency and coherence, expecting the stuff that marks an alleged real-life hero's saga as simply true. Not that we shouldn't expect both exaggerations and embellishments, understatements and elements of modesty both false and true. We of course should expect such. It is how these hero myths go, isn't it? Nevertheless, because this is HISTORY, HISTORY with a capital H, I, S,T,O, R, Y, history as in something extremely important, something that sure enough was said to have really happened, well then as such, the main features of this history must square, must meet the criteria of logic's calculus and that of common sense as well. That is after all what we demand in the case of HISTORY, with a capital H,I,S,T,O,R,Y.
Think carefully about the presentation above, utter coordinate chaos. This stuff never happened. It quite simply doesn't add up.
TRUTH IN HISTORY AND IN PERSPECTIVE, THE NATURE OF APOLLO INAUTHENTICITY
Question: How many Apollo researchers does it take to prove the whole shebang bogus????
Answer: Two, one guy courageous enough to simply become more or less open minded, and in so doing judge the myth's "facts" on their genuine merit, or lack thereof. A second guy to encourage the first not to lose his nerve.
As readers of this thread have come to know, one of my main contentions with regard to demonstrating Apollo 11 Mission fraudulence has to do with the Apollo investigator's ability to demonstrate, and demonstrate rather easily as a matter of fact, that the Apollo 11 Tale, the Apollo 11 Official Narrative, is riddled with inconsistencies, points along NASA's route to the moon which are nothing more than points along a "map to nowhere". Being incompatible, being inconsistent with one another, these points, these events, mean absolutely nothing, nothing that is outside of their demonstrating Apollo to be fraudulent. These inauthentic non events exist in a state of striking internal tension with one another, and so exist in a striking tension with reality herself. As such, they serve to characterize the Apollo 11 Mission story as a story grounded in abject internal incoherence and cringing inauthenticity.
I shall examine in detail below one of these inauthentic "non events", that of Michael Collins' ride 'round and 'round the moon while allegedly searching, some say even frantically so, for his compadres playing charades, "playing astronauts", God only knows where. There are other places in the Apollo 11 narrative that also offer a grand opportunity for the deconstruction of Neil, but as is obvious, NASA's botched simulation of the first lunar landing on 07/20/1969, is so potent metaphorically, well it cannot be and should not be resisted for that reason alone.
And so, momentarily, I'll shall dig in and have at it again, showing how NASA and the astronauts at one and the same time pretended they'd sort of lost track of themselves, had become disoriented up there on that dimly lit grey rock, while also incredibly, and at the very same time, kinda' knew where the boys on the moon were all along. Simultaneously lost and found if you will.
As mentioned on numerous occasions previously, the dynamic driving this whacked out scenario has too do with the simple logistics of military NASA's inability to let on as to where their "astronauts" were pretending to be. Remember, the real goal of Apollo is not to land men on the moon, but rather, to instrument the moon for use as a military platform. The manned landing pretense provides the operation with cover under the guise of a peaceful operation. Huge rockets are needed to launch such large instrument packages, and Apollo presented as a voyage of discovery provides the public distraction necessary to plop one big thing down there on the lunar surface after another without people flipping out and saying, "Hey, wait a gosh dang minute or two!!!!! What the heck is going on with their launching all those rockets up there in space, around the earth, and toward the moon? Are you guys trying to blow somebody up?"
With the exception of the LRRR, the full complement of UNMANNED Apollo 11 equipment launched and ultimately landed on the lunar surface is not likely at Tranquility Base; 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east. The whole idea would of course be to keep as much secret as possible, including of course equipment location. You don't tell people where your ballistic missile submarines are hiding under the surface of the ocean now do you? And likewise, you don't tell people where your scientific military equipment is parked on the surface of the moon. One thing we do know for sure, there were no astronauts at Tranquility Base. You don't send and risk men to do a machine's job. And so, if "Tranquility Base's coordinates" had been known in real-time during the simulated Apollo 11 landing, someone, or something like the Russian probe LUNA 15 for example, could have taken a picture and shown the astronauts to NOT be there. Or, taken a picture and shown it to no one, but used the photo for themselves to document what if anything was in fact parked at the official landing site. Friends and foes alike were in a position to get the truant astronauts in big big big trouble if the coordinates had become known in Apollo 11 Mission real-time. Such is the case as laser light could have been targeted upon the astronauts, upon their LRRR while they were supposed to be "up there". If the so directed Tranquility Base laser light wasn't imaged a' la the imaging of such laser light by Surveyor VII, it would have proven the astronauts truant, and would have demonstrated that Uncle Sam had been up to something else entirely, perhaps something not at all peaceful.
The Russians were doing this stuff too of course. They started it before we did as a matter of fact. Part of the bird hiding of course had to do with keeping the Russians from knowing where our equipment was parked, as much as it was for not getting caught cutting class in outer space. The Apollo equipment landed on the moon was and is, military equipment. As such, knowledge of its whereabouts by any but the most trusted makes it "vulnerable". The equipment's handlers, at the very least, don't want anyone taking a look at it. If you did get a look at it, you might be able to figure out what it was up to and so forth, maybe figure out how to stop it from working.
So during the Apollo 11 Mission, NASA worked hard to land their military equipment under the guise of landing Neil Armstrong. The Eagle landed in that altogether curious way where one didn't know exactly where it was, where our military equipment was. On the other hand, NASA could not pretend itself to be completely clueless, as most of the flight officers, not to mention the engineers, the scientists and other highly educated principal players in the Apollo program didn't know they were landing military goods. They were under the impression that they were landing Neil, and it is in this important sense but ONLY this important sense that Apollo is "fake", a "hoax". Indeed, the fraud's success as a military operation to land equipment on the moon and thereby use the moon as a military platform depends on the Apollo flight officers, scientists, engineers and so forth being convinced it is all real, a bona fide manned lunar landing. It is from this aspect, this element of the fraud that its strength, its effectiveness, is derived. All these incredibly smart talented people saying , "Of course its real, of course there is no hoax! I myself worked on the thing. I designed the lander myself! I'm no one's fool!" On the other hand, for the very sake of these smart and talented and altogether duped participants, the Apollo 11 landing story must feature in real-time some element of knowledge with respect to Tranquility Base's location, the location of the Eagle's purported perch. Guidance people, flight officers, will be expecting data on the landing site. "What are its coordinates?", H. David Reed asks as soon as he steps in the door on 07/21/1969 and prepares to find a way to get the Eagle hooked back up with Michael Collins in his Columbia simulator. The scientists at Lick Observatory were planning to shoot a ruby red laser beam at the LRRR as soon as Armstrong and Aldrin set the thing down. Matter of fact, there were newspeople at Lick Observatory on the very night of the landing, print journalists and at least one public television crew. There they were at Lick Observatory on the very night of the first moon walk, waiting to report that the LRRR had been successfully targeted, successfully targeted that very night. This was actually what was expected, were the mission to have been fully authentic. So the Eagle must be "lost" with regard to NASA's mandate to hide its military assets, and at the same time "found" or "known" with regard to satisfying the expectations of guidance/flight officers, Lick Observatory scientists and other relevant and interested parties.
A real moon landing by Neil and the NASA boys would not feature this landing site cat and mouse aspect. It is the hallmark of Apollo 11 as an inauthentic Mission, in the same way as stumbling bumbling Alan Bean's breaking of the tv camera at the time of Apollo 12's simulated landing was the hallmark of that mission's inauthenticity. The name of the game in real estate they say is LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION, and that applies not only here terrestrially, but on the moon as well, though in the latter case, as regards one's military assets, one obviously would like to maintain the details as regards that great location a well kept secret.
So once again I'll prove Apollo's inauthenticity, its fraudulence by showing how the official narrative contained/contains two mutually exclusive "lines", line one; the Eagle is lost, line two; the Eagle was right over there the whole time and no big deal we lost a space ship and 2 astronauts. As the data/story that supports the "Eagle lost" perspective is incompatible with the data/story of the "Eagle found" perspective, we may conclude with absolute confidence that neither are true and the whole thing must have been made up. The one difference between this run through, this proof of the Apollo 11 fraud, and my previous posts on this subject, is that this particular analysis is more ambitious, more thorough, and as far as the official story goes, all the more devastating to the integrity of Apollo as the withering and fading lie that it is.
A story, a piece of history, a real life factual account, must by its very nature have consistency, internal coherence as a feature. On the other hand, all of the details of real life adventures are never known fully to the interested, and problems, puzzles and unresolved features of history's elements are inevitable. As such, the curious to some greater or lesser degree become confused from time to time as buffs study history from their own unique perch in the future looking back to a collection of presumed to be linked past occurrences. With space-time's every breath, no matter how deep, no matter how profound, no matter how mundane, no matter how day to day shallow, events become ever and ever and ever again all the more faint, hard to see and even once located, they can sometimes be difficult to resolve. So when studying history, we must be fair. We expect consistency and coherence as we listen to stories about those things which we come to know as "true", though we keep in mind that we cannot interrogate the events themselves in our search for truth, and some contradictions may be found that obtain in the case of real life events, some details may remain unknown with respect to those great moments in the lives of us all.
If we listen carefully to this story, the Apollo 11 story, and so we have, a story told to us in pieces big and pieces small, a story told to us by quite literally thousands of people, and interestingly, a story we ourselves tell, tell now to one another, a story we ourselves develop, just as we are developing it now, we hear a story that is little more than fantasy. We hear a story that is nothing more than quite untrue. Apollo was and is an important hero myth, but an altogether failed one. Apollo was to mid and late 20th century Americans a hero myth in the same sense of and serving the same purpose as Nja'ls Saga did in the case of 13th and 14th Century Icelanders, as the story of Gilgamesh did in the case of the ancient Sumerians, or as the Iliad and Odyssey did in the case of the Homeric Greeks. But Apollo as hero myth has ultimately failed, and its failure was inevitable. This because in its real-time telling, one of its real-time features was said to be its truth, its flesh and blood authenticity. And so we find ever so oddly that the Star Trek film THE WRATH OF KHAN succeeds where NASA's Apollo 11 tale does not. For in the case of the former, there was never any pretense that any of it was other than good ol' fashion Hollywood fun 'n' games. And so we also find ever so ever so ever so oddly that Leonard Nimoy succeeds where Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin do not. For in the case of the former, Mr. Spock never claimed off the set to be other than who he was/is.
My analysis of the Apollo 11 Mission Report document below will be difficult for some. It is harsh and devastating as it looks at NASA's empty and FALSE claims that have to do with Michael Collins' search for Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin as they were pretending to be on the surface of the moon. It is the story of bird hiding, Eagle lost, and simultaneously, Eagle found. It is an analysis that demonstrates without ambiguity Apollo's fraudulence. Let's begin.
MAKING SENSE OF MICHAEL COLLINS' MAP
My general approach here focuses on a detailed study of the now infamous "J Map". The map Michael Collins carried with him in lunar orbit. Of course it is the very same map to which his handlers refer in their advising Collins as to where he should look on the surface of the moon in order to find his colleagues. Actually, the map carries the notation LAM 2, June 1969 in its upper left hand corner. But I like to refer to it as the "J Map" and so I shall, this emphasizing the "Juliet" reference.
Armstrong and Aldrin's location it was said, had not been determined with anything remotely approaching certainty. Remember now, this is supposed to be the first lunar landing. The details regarding location is of tremendous historic significance. AND!!!, History aside, two men's lives are said to be at risk here. Safety, such as safety's concerns can be addressed under such unusual circumstances, mandates accuracy in location. Finally, from a practical standpoint, the location is important with regard to referencing for the Lick Observatory scientists where the LRRR is located, and with regard to referencing for geologists from where exactly on the moon the rocks had been collected.
Just below, a quote from pages 5-7 and 5-8 of the Apollo 11 Mission Report itself. Here the reader will find the general Michael Collins bird hunting situation described and referenced, figure 5-14. I'll be using this very Apollo 11 Mission report figure 5-14 of NASA's as my own primary reference in this deconstruction of the official narrative and demonstration of Apollo 11 inauthenticity. Here's the Mission Report quote;
"During the lunar surface stay, several unsuccessful attempts were made by the Command Module Pilot to locate the lunar module through the sextant using sighting coordinates transmitted from the ground. Estimates of the landing coordinates were obtained from the lunar module computer, the lunar surface gravity alignment of the platform, and the limited interpretation of the geological features during descent. Figure 5-14 shows the areas that were tracked and the times of closest approach that were used for the sightings. It can be seen that the actual landing site, as determined from films taken during the descent, did not lie near the center of the sextant field of view for any of the coordinates used; therefore, the ability to acquire the lunar module from a 60-mile orbit can neither be established nor denied. The Command Module Pilot reported it was possible to scan only one grid square during a single pass."
Let's take a look at the infamous "J Map" of NASA and Michael Collins a little closer. The map featuring the dot with the real-time(while the Apollo 11 simulated landing was actually in progress) best guess determination of the Eagle's position at J .5 /7.7. What I shall proceed to do is render the map fully readable by developing a method whereby specific latitude values may be assigned to the north-south grid lines A through W and specific longitude values to the east-west grid lines 1 through 28. With the map now readable in such a sense, we'll then be able to look at it in the same context that Collins and his handlers did and ask ourselves, "Was it in any way reasonable to ask Collins to look for the Eagle in this place or that place as he was alleged to pass over the general landing site area with each simulated turn of the pretend ship Columbia?" The answer to our question will be a most decided and resounding NO! We shall see that it would have made absolutely no sense to send Collins looking for Armstrong at these points of worse than wild guestimate. This flight of Collins 'round and 'round the moon with sextant in hand was nothing more than an intentional wild goose chase. And how now brown cow is one ever to find an Eagle may I ask when one's radar is set on registering the shape form and identity of wild geese? Well, we'll recognize this as fraud as sure as shoot my friends. Here are the details as to how I went about catching the astronauts with their pants down. Remember, the astronauts are "special" "special" "special" people and don't wear regular pants. So once caught like this with their pants down, it's an awful lot harder for the astronauts to pull 'em, cumbersome space suit pants, back up and cover their lying rumps.
The "J Map"; http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/LAM2_CMP-flown.jpg
From my previous analysis I knew each square was roughly 1.96 X 1.96 minutes of arc, and knew as well Tranquility Base had been ultimately determined by the NASA folks to correspond to a point on the "J Map" map at J .65/7.52, I was able to determine that the J latitude line corresponds to roughly 00 39' 58" in radians. Let's call it 00 40' 00", for the sake of this argument, such an approximation will be fine, it may turn out ultimately that that figure is even a better estimate of J than 00 39' 58" when all is said and done, but strict accuracy is far from critical here. I want to see where on this map Collins was instructed to look and ask the question, "Was it reasonable to ask him to look here?". So if my estimates of latitude and longitude do not meet USGS standards, its no big, the estimates will be more than satisfactory for the intended purpose.
So from J at 00 40' 00" N to 01 00' 00" N one notes 10.65 lines of latitude. 01 00' 00" is just a bit, by my estimate 0.35 map units below V. So 20 minutes of arc are marked by 10.65 lines of latitude gives 1.8779 minutes of arc per line of latitude. With this as my estimate, I'll run from J up to V and check my numbers to be sure things square. What follows are the latitude lines and the corresponding north coordinate given in radians. A triple slash /// will follow each latitude given in radians, and to the right of that slash, I'll give the same latitude in a conventional decimal representation. This way, we'll have all three north-south coordinate forms before us, the "J Map" letters, the corresponding latitude of that lettered line given in radians and then to the right of the same equivalent latitude written in conventional decimal form.
Think about and note how NASA intentionally presented their latitude and longitude numbers in various and sundry ways, radians here, decimal form there, map lettering and map numbering way over yonder, incessantly and very much intentionally obfuscating their claims as to where they intended the Eagle to land, where the simulated landing in fact occurred and where in the simulation they had Collins hunting for said stuffed bird on the surface of a moon that has still yet to feel the pressure of a man's boot or woman's stiletto.
0.8779 minutes of arc is equal to 52.674 seconds of arc, and so as I ascend from J to K and so on, I'll be adding 00 01' 52.674" to each prior latitude line as it had been rendered in radians.
J 00 40' 00" /// 0.667
K 00 41' 53" /// 0.698
L 00 43' 45" /// 0.729
M 00 45' 38" /// 0.761
N 00 47' 31" /// 0.792
P 00 49' 23" /// 0.823
Q 00 51' 16" /// 0.854
R 00 53' 09" /// 0.886
S 00 55' 01" /// 0.917
T 00 56' 54" /// 0.948
U 00 58' 47" /// 0.980
V 01 00 38 /// 1.011
And one can see this works out quite well. V is about 0.35 map units above the map's own mark of 01 00 00 north, and with each map unit of latitude being roughly 1.88 minutes of arc, .35 units is .658 minutes of arc or 39.48 seconds of arc. One sees my figure for V features 38 seconds of arc at its tale 01 00 38 north. So I have indeed a very good estimate of the equivalent radian representation for Michael Collins' "J Map".
I'll do the same thing for the latitude lines that are marked south of J. From J at 00 40 00 down to D .5 at 00 30 00 one notes 4.5 lines of latitude marked on the "J Map". Doing as I did before one notes 10 minutes of arc contained within 4.5 lines of latitude from D.5 north to This gives 2.22 minutes of arc per line of latitude, a little different than what I found doing this heading in the north direction. So moving from J down to E, I'll subtract for each "J Map" latitude line 2.22 minutes of arc, or equivalently 2 minutes and 13.32 seconds to give a useful "J Map" line determination in radians.
J 00 40' 00" /// 0.667
H 00 37' 47" /// 0.630
G 00 35' 33" /// 0.593
F 00 33' 20" /// 0.556
E 00 31' 07" /// 0.519
D 00 28' 53" /// 0.481
One notes that by adding half a "J Map" latitude equivalent to that last figure D there, adding half of 2 minutes and 13.32 seconds to 00 28 53, one gets 00 30 00 north. So my "J Map" latitudes as expressed in radians from top at V to bottom at D are excellent estimates. Not USGS perfect, but quite good enough for our exploration of this scam.
So there I have my latitude lines, E up to V in "J Map" letters, radians, and simple decimal notation. Now I'll do the rough equivalent for the lines of longitude. 23 30' 00" east is roughly at 7.7 on the "J Map" and 24 00' 00" east is at longitude mark 23 on the map. So that's 30 radians split into 15.3 map units. 30/15.3 gives 1.96 minutes of arc per "J Map" longitude line. One need not do an estimate for every one of the longitude lines appearing on the "J Map" as looking at figure 5-14 specific mention is only made of longitude lines 4.8 through 8.2. With that in mind, I shall now write the "J Map" longitude equivalents for lines 3 through 9 in radians and degrees as well. My nomenclature shall be as above "J Map" longitude line number spaces, radian equivalent /// decimal equivalent.
0.96 minutes of arc is equivalent to 57.6 seconds of arc. So from longitude line 3 through 9, I'll be essentially adding 1 minute and 57.6 seconds of arc to the prior longitude line radian equivalent. Since NASA's post flight determination of Tranquility Base placed the east-west longitude for the Eagle's alleged landing site at 7.52, we'll use that to reference 23 26' 00" east. As such, that gives longitude line 8 as 23 26' 56" Beginning with 3;
3 23 17' 08" /// 23.286
4 23 19' 05" /// 23.318
5 23 21' 03" /// 23.351
6 23 23' 00" /// 23.383
7 23 24' 58" /// 23.416
8 23 26' 56" /// 23.449
9 23 28' 53" /// 23.481
Our map's "measurements" are indeed a bit unusual. But these oddities have in a sense been forced on us. I began with the fact of Tranquility Base's known location being at J .65/ 7.52, given that fact and the fact that the squares measure more or less 2 minutes of arc on a side, one sees that in moving from longitude 7.52 east to 8.0, one moves equivalently, or in step by radians, from Tranquility Base at 23 26' 00" east to 23 26' 56" east. This is because .48 map units translates into 56 seconds of arc. Yet, surprisingly, when one looks at the top of the map, one sees NASA has marked 23 30' 00" east at roughly 7.6. So they tell us Tranquility Base is at map longitude 7.52, while at the same time they have a mark on the map at about 7.6 that indicates this latitude to be 23 30' 00". But if Tranquility Base really is at 7.52, well then, given the dimensions of this map, with each square more or less 2 minutes of arc on a side, then longitude 7.6 should be labeled 23 26' 09", not 23 30' 00". There is not much we can do about this. As we go along, we may find a devious motivation for this. For the time being we simply note it. We have "zeroed" our map on Tranquility Base more or less with "J Map" coordinates .65/ 7.52 corresponding to my coordinates 00 41' 13" north and 23 26' 00" east. The reason Tranquility Base on "my map" has a north coordinate of 00 41' 13" instead of 00 41' 15", is because as the reader recalls, I set the J latitude to 00 40' 00" north instead of my previously calculated and perhaps/perhaps not, more accurate J latitude of 00 39' 58". The difference is one that amounts to roughly 60 feet of latitude with each second of arc at the moon's equator representative of 27.6 feet given a moon circumference of 6790 miles.
Note also, the "boxes" on the map are not all equal in size. As mentioned, they are roughly 2 minutes of arc on a side, but as above, my calculations feature edges of roughly 1.88, 1.96 and 2.22 minutes of arc. This variation in edge dimension resulted from NASA's labeling. I assumed it to be their best guess and so have made my calculations accordingly.
GREAT BALLS OF UNMITIGATED COORDINATE CONFUSION, THE APOLLO 11 SIMULATED LUNAR LANDING MISSION REPORT
Let's turn to everyone's favorite piece of Apollo 11 Mission forged documentation, the Apollo 11 Mission Report. Table 5-IV provides us with the Lunar Landing Coordinates. Let's take a look first at the entry second from last, those coordinates listed as corresponding to the "lunar module targeted" site. We find listed there in table 5-IV; 0.691 north and 23.72 east. Let's see if that squares with the targeted landing coordinates as discussed earlier in the Mission Report on page 5-6. A quote from the report;
"The coordinates of the landing point, as obtained from the various real-time and post flight sources, are shown in table 5-IV. The actual landing point is 0 degree 41 minutes 15 seconds north latitude and 23 degrees 26 minutes east longitude, as compared with the targeted landing point of 0 degree 43 minutes 53 seconds north latitude and 23 degrees 38 minutes 51 seconds east longitude as shown in figure 5-10. Figure 5-10 is the basic reference map for location of the landing point in this report. As noted, the landing point dispersion was caused primarily by errors in the onboard state vector prior to powered descent initiation."
So the text of the mission Report indicates on page 5-6 that the targeted site was 00 43' 53" north and 23 38' 51" east. Let's convert those figures to decimal notation. Doing the appropriate calculations we find the equivalent decimal notation to be 0.731 north and 23.648 east. From the Mission Report "lunar targeted site" north figure of 0.691, we see if we add the appropriate decimal equivalent correction factor as per footnote a ("Following the Apollo 10 mission, a difference was noted (from the landmark tracking results) between the trajectory coordinate system and the coordinate system on the reference map. In order to reference trajectory values to the l:100 000 scale Lunar Map ORB-II-6 (lO0), dated December 1967, correction factors of plus 2'25" in latitude and minus 4'17" in longitude must be applied to the trajectory values.") of 0.04 degrees(equivalent to 2'25" in radians) and subtract the decimal equivalent correction factor of 0.07 degrees(equivalent to 4'17" in radians) we find indeed that 0.691 plus 0.04 gives 0.731 north and additionally 23.72 minus 0.07 gives 23.65 east. So we see that the "lunar targeted site" coordinates as they appear in table 5-IV of the Apollo 11 Mission Report are the very same coordinates as referenced on page 5-6 as the targeted coordinates. Note how they are "disguised" to intentionally confuse. The targeted landing site coordinates are written in table 5-IV in decimal form without the "correction factors", on page 5-6 where the targeted site is referenced in the flow of text, they are written in radian form with the correction factors included. All of this jive, here a decimal, there a radian, here a number in "trajectory form", there one in Lunar Map ORB-II-6 form" is all so much very intentional nonsense. But we have prepared ourselves well now for this cavalcade of numbers as presented by the Apollo 11 Mission "Inummerati", the clowns that perpetrated this aspect of the fraud.
Now, generally oriented and all the more certain that the footnote "a" correction for trajectory to map coordinates apply, I'll list all of the Apollo 11 Mission Report table 5-IV landing coordinate values in the following form;
"raw numbers" as they appear in the table /// numbers with correction factors appropriately added for the north coordinate and subtracted for the east /// radian equivalent of the corrected landing coordinate values /// "J Map" equivalent Letter/longitude number.
Table 5-IV, Lunar Landing Coordinates(a)
(a the table heading refers to application of footnote a correction factors)
1) Primary Guidance Onboard Vector
North 0.649 /// 0.689 /// 00 41' 20" /// J .709
East 23.46 /// 23.39 /// 23 23' 24" /// 6.20
2) Abort Guidance Onboard Vector
North 0.639 /// 0.679 /// 00 40' 44" /// J .390
East 23.44 /// 23.37 /// 23 22' 12" /// 5.587
3) Powered Flight Processor
North 0.631 /// 0.671 /// 00 40' 16" /// J .142
East 23.47 /// 23.40 /// 23 24' 00" /// 6.510
4) Alignment Optical Telescope
North 0.523 /// 0.563 /// 00 33' 47" /// F .203 (no correction 00 31' 23" /// E .142)
East 23.42 /// 23.35 /// 23 21' 00" /// 4.975 (no correction 23 25' 12" /// 7 .119)
5) Rendezvous Radar
North 0.636 /// 0.676 /// 00 40' 33" /// J .293
East 23.50 /// 23.43 /// 23 25' 48" /// 7.425
6) Best Estimate Trajectory Accelerometer
North 0.647 /// 0.687 /// 00 41' 13" /// J .647
East 23.505 /// 23.435 /// 23 26' 06" 7.551
7) Lunar Module Targeted
North 0.691 /// 0.731 /// 00 43' 52" /// L .06
East 23.72 /// 23.65 /// 23 39' 00" /// 14.102
8) Photography
North 0.647 /// 0.687 /// 00 41' 13" /// J .647
East 23.505 /// 23.435 /// 23 26' 06" /// 7.551
YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY ONE! MAKES LITTLE OR NO SENSE TO ME AS WELL! THE REMARKABLE ILLOGIC OF THE MICHAEL COLLINS LUNAR ORBITAL WILD GOOSE CHASE
I am only one step away from really getting down to business. As above, I have a LAM 2, or as I prefer to call it my "J Map" conversions. For any point on the map I can give coordinates in radians and conventional decimal notation. This, assuming Tranquility Base to be at J .65 / 7.52 and also assuming the grid edges are roughly 2 minutes of arc in dimension. With regard to the latter figure, that gives roughly 0.4 square miles per small "J Map" square. The larger "J Map" squares are 4 times as big or 1.6 square miles each.
Now I shall turn to the Apollo 11 Mission Report figure 5-14 which includes all of the "J Map" coordinates that allegedly were given to Collins as he did his simulated loop de loops about the moon. Each time Collins came 'round, he was said to have been fed a pair of map coordinates to serve as a clue. He was to search the area about the clue coordinates in the hope he'd spot the Eagle. As legend has it, he never did.
I shall do as I did previously with Apollo 11 Mission Report table 5-IV and list coordinates by way of all three forms of representation available to us now; radians, decimal notation and LAM 2 map or again as I like to call them "J Map" coordinates. I'll start with the "J Map" coordinates, the convention that I shall use here will be "J Map" coordinates as they were given to Collins /// equivalent coordinates in radians /// equivalent coordinates as expressed in degrees.
There are a couple of small difficulties worth mentioning. These have too do with the first two points Collins was given as references about which he was to search for the Eagle. Point 1 listed in the Command module sighting history figure is listed as simply 4 miles long. I'll take that to mean 4 miles west of the targeted east coordinate 23 38' 51". The second point Collins is allegedly directed to is also not as clear as one would like. No specific longitude is given for it. The entry in the Apollo 11 Mission Report figure 5-14 table simply reads P .7 to N .8 . I'll assume that again we are 4 miles down range of the targeted east landing site coordinate 23 38' 51". As each minute of arc represents 0.314 miles, 4 miles would be accounted for by 12.74 minutes of arc or 12 minutes and 44 seconds. So with regard to these first two points with their somewhat ambiguous longitudes, we'll take the Apollo 11 Mission Report authors to mean 23 26' 07" east which is of course about as good an estimate as any one could could possibly hope for. Mythical "Tranquility Base" was for all intents and purposes, exactly 4 miles downrange of the targeted east coordinate, 23 38' 51".
Figure 5-14, Command Module Sighting History Points
(PFPD is the distance from the Powered Flight Processor solution that typically would be considered the best available in real-time)
1) Four miles long of 00 43' 53" north and 23 38' 51" east
North L .071 /// 00 43' 53" /// 0.731
East 7.551 /// 23 26' 06" /// 23.435
PFPD 1.32 miles or 7020 feet
2) P . 7 to N .8
North from lat N . 8 northward to P .7 /// 00 49' 01" to 00 50' 42" /// 0.817 to 0.845
East 7.551 /// 23 26' 06" /// 23.435
PFPD 2.83 to 3.34 miles or 14,937 to 17,675 feet
3) North M .8 /// 00 47' 08" /// 0.786
East 8.2 /// 23 27' 20" /// 23.456
PFPD 2.40 miles or 12,646 feet
4) North P .2 /// 00 49' 46" /// 0.829
East 6.3 /// 23 23' 35" /// 23.393
PFPD 2.98 miles or 15,733 feet
5) North M .7 /// 00 46' 57" /// 0.7825
East 8.0 /// 23 26' 56" /// 23.449
PFPD 2.29 miles or 12,091 feet
6) North E .3 /// 00 31' 47" /// 0.528
East 4.8 /// 23 20' 39" /// 23.344
PFPD 2.89 miles or 15,236 feet
7) North K .9 /// 00 43' 35" /// 0.726
East 6.3 /// 23 23' 35" /// 23.393
PFPD 1.047 miles or 5528 feet
COORDINATE CHAOS AND CLEAR EVIDENCE FOR APOLLO 11 MISSION FRAUD IN THE APOLLO 11 MISSION REPORT'S PRESENTATION OF LANDING SITE COORDINATES(TABLE 5-IV) AND MICHAEL COLLINS LUNAR ORBITAL SEARCH COORDINATES (FIGURE 5-14)
Keep 2 things while sifting through this coordinate morass. First of all, the reason the morass exists to begin with is because it was intentionally created this way, presented to us this way on purpose. This, for the express purpose of confounding and confusing. The "Innumerati" the Apollo trajectory/numbers scam artists use radians, conventional decimal expressions, map coordinates which include both letters and numbers, the numbers not having anything at all to do with radian or decimal representations except in that they can be interconverted, and last but not least, the correction factor aspect of all this. With regard to this correction factor issue, coordinates appear in the Apollo literature in such a fashion that correction factors must be added/subtracted at times in order to compare the coordinates, in order to appreciate how the very same disguised figures were presented in other contexts.
Another way to say this, the reason I had to go through this pain in the rump with rendering the map readable and then expressing the coordinates in all three ways for each of their occurrences in table 5-IV and figure 5-14 has to do with the fact that somebody, the "Innumerati" scammers, most decidedly didn't want me or anyone else to do this in the first place, because in so rendering this table "readable", and figure 5-14 as "readable", the fraud becomes all the more evident.
The second important point to keep in mind as one looks at these numbers is that the scamming aspect of all this is not going to be glaring, these guys are slick and the fraud is fairly subtle. It has to be. Most of the important people being duped here are people like the flight officers themselves, most of them anyway. And again, this is how the perps get the thing to work. If the guys running the lunar landings, the landing of military equipment on the surface of the moon believe the official Apollo line to be true, the line that Apollo was about peaceful manned lunar landings, well then the charade artists are almost home free. The scientists, engineers, flight officers and equipment builders of Apollo will go out into the world during the time of the Apollo Missions as well as after all is said and done and reinforce Apollo's "reality" over and over and over, writing books, making movies, appearing on television and so forth. This is the reason why Apollo is accepted as true, as real. It is because of the Apollo workers belief in the truth of its events and the workers' impact on public consciousness during the Apollo program and in its aftermath.
So as I go through this little exercise of exposing a part of the Apollo numbers scam, keep in mind one is expecting relatively subtle stuff. Enough scamming to lose the Eagle as I have discussed again and again, but not so overtly scammy that the thing is implausible, not credible.
First of all, recall how H. David Reed indicated that none of the real-time solutions which were available to him; PGNS, AGS, powered fight processor/MSFN, maps/photos, targeted landing site were within 25,000 feet of his solution. Now the rendezvous radar solution is reported in the Apollo 11 Mission Report as 0.676 north and 23.43 east. As mentioned previously, and as emphasized on those prior occasions, all of the real-time solutions to which H. David Reed refers to in his writing appear in the Apollo 11 Mission Report, not 25,000 feet from his solution, but very close to his solution indeed. For example, the Powered Flight Processor/MSFN solution and the rendezvous radar solution as they appear in the Apollo 11 mission Report are roughly 840 feet apart. So right there we see how the flight officers, in this case FIDO Reed, are "seeing things"/saw things other than as they are/were presented in the Mission Report. Reed says the PGNS, AGS and Powered Flight Processor/MSFN were not even close to one another in terms of their values. All 3 of these solutions for the landing site coordinates were real time solutions, all 3 of these solutions would have been available to Reed when he stepped on duty that morning of 07/21/1969. Doing our own analysis based on the Mission Report numbers, we see that the PGNS, AGS and Powered flight solutions are all within 4 tenths of a mile of one another give or take. Now that is pretty dang good! 240,000 miles from simulated home and the numbers match up that well!!! Reed says this was not the case. He wrote not only were the solutions 25,000 feet/4.73 miles from his, but in addition, the real-time solutions available to him were at at significant variance from one another, so much so, it was this very fact that motivated Reed to chuck all these alternatives and use the rendezvous radar in reverse method to develop an independent launch solution(which included a landing site coordinate solution) in which Reed, as the all important launch FIDO, had confidence.
I've looked at this aspect of the numbers scam before, so nothing new here. But it is important to have gone over, because the numbers as they relate to the mad capped simulated ride of Michael Collins in his mad capped and ever so simulated hunt for his buddies is an altogether different story in and of itself, but one related nevertheless. I'll show you how.
Of the 7 points Collins was referred to, the only 2 which make any sense at all are 1) and 6). 1) because a person could argue they knew the Eagle floated 4 miles long. Looks like 4 miles long exactly, matter of fact. So I'll give them that one. 6) at coordinates 0.528 north and 23.344 east is fairly close to the AOT solution which was indeed a real time solution, so telling Collins to look there, look where the astronauts had "found themselves" with their telescope, well that makes sense. Even if they did wind up being in the simulated mission 3 miles from there(Tranquility Base's location), at least there would have been some logic to it.
That said, the other points in the figure 5-14 Collins wild goose chase list make no sense at all. He's looked first of all 4 miles downrange from the targeted landing site and does not find the Eagle. What would be your next move? Look at those areas where your tracking systems have located you. The PGNS, AGS and MSFN solutions all have located the Eagle to somewhere between latitudes J and K, and as a matter of fact, the Eagle's simulated perch does wind up being there at J .65. Why isn't Collins looking there? The PGNS, AGS and MSFN all have the Eagle at "J Map" longitudes 5,6,7. So why don't they tell Collins to look at J . 5 / 7 to begin with? Especially given the fact that 4 miles long puts one roughly at longitude 7.5? Why not tell Collins to look there, J .5 / 7.5? He would have found the thing. Found it that is if any of this nonsense were real.
So instead, in search orbits 2, 3, 4, 5, we find that Collins has been directed to look 2.3 to 3.3 miles north of their own real-time PGNS, AGS and MSFN data. And keep in mind, these guys believe in this data, at least they said they did. So why didn't they use it? The MSFN data gives coordinates 0.64 miles from "Tranquility Base". If they had fed those numbers alone, MSFN being considered typically the best tracker as it was simulated here, they would have "found the Eagle", one small square edge's distance away. One would think some might put a fair amount of stock in the AOT solution given that it is made with the Eagle actually on the ground there. That solution places the Eagle well south of the points Collins was directed to in tries 2, 3, 4, 5. How far south of those points? Well, even factoring in the north correction for the AOT solution, the difference between that point and the upper north latitude where they allegedly had Collins searching is 4.86 miles. More likely than not, it is this kind of discrepancy that Reed and the other presumably "on the up and up" fight officers see. One can hear them now, "Four and a half miles? How can the numbers be so different? I thought the tracking alternatives were said to have shown good agreement. Now what are we going to do? We don't even know where these guys are to within 3 or 4 miles with any certainty, if that?!!"
So Reed and the other flight officers must have been seeing numbers such as these, solutions 3, 4, 5 miles apart. They had to have been. The stories do not square, and for now, we do not assume blue collar FIDO types like Reed to be in on the scam for the most part. Schiesser yes, Reed no.
The last point that Collins was directed to there, 7), that makes no sense either. The north coordinate listed translates to 00 43' 35". What kind of sense does that make now? By this time they know for sure the Eagle has drifted well off line from its intended latitude. But 00 43' 35" is essentially the targeted latitude (00 43' 52"). This is only 17 seconds of arc south of the originally targeted latitude and so is only 470 feet south of where they intended to land. There is no way this hunt for the Eagle game can be real. Why would they direct Collins to the originally targeted latitude when they know by this time, getting close now to simulated splitting, doing their simulated launch, that the Eagle's pretended course was not only well down range, but drifted a fair amount laterally as well? Ridiculous!
So as tedious as the coordinate study and number crunching was/is, it all paid off. One can readily see that the trajectory/landing site data as presented in the Apollo 11 Mission Report is in tension with the account of events as given by H. David Reed as regards his experience as launch FIDO on the morning of 07/21/1969. The accounts are incompatible and so one concludes quite rightly, the Apollo 11 Mission Report is Fraudulent. In addition, we have discovered that within the Mission Report; table 5-IV and figure 5-14, there is inconsistency and coordinate incoherence. For were the document self consistent, we would have found Michael Collins, per figure 5-14, being referred to the "J Map" coordinates corresponding to the PGNS, AGS and most significantly the MSFN solutions as given in table 5-IV. As I demonstrated, had that been the case, Collins would have been instructed at the very least to look in and around J .5 / 7. So even without Reed's testimony, there is ample evidence for telemetry/landing coordinate number shuffling and fraud, for the numbers as presented make little sense given the story as told, especially in light of a comprehensive landing site coordinate assessment which includes as mine above does, all of the details from both table 5-IV and figure 5-14.
Finally, I should like to remind the reader to keep in mind the intentional game of misdirection being played here, coordinates appearing in radian form, conventional decimal form, map lettering/numbering, with and without the trajectory to map conversion/correction factors. It's enough to make one dizzy, as though he or she were orbiting the moon looking for a phony stuffed bird.
HISTORICAL INCONSISTENCIES AND INTERNAL INCOHERENCE IN PERSPECTIVE
Granting to the study of history, the inevitable "Holes in Details", the inevitable missing elements, granting some expectation of contradiction in the recounting of events by different people, the expectation of casual inconsistencies in the relating of the same story by different people and in the relating of the same story by way of differing methods and sources, one nevertheless anticipates reasonably good agreement with respect to the major features of a major story's telling. Such is of course the case with our expectations as regards the telling of the "First Manned Lunar Landing Story". Given the event's epic dimensions, it was a moment which had its pulse monitored with all the precision, intensity and care that mid Twentieth Century technology could muster. So with respect to this story's major elements, Apollo's main features, at least in in outline, these should be related to us, we the curious, as the main features of a truly epic and truly historic journey. The story of the first moon landing's authentically historic features SHOULD BE easily spottable as TRUE and authenticating, true and authenticating because the telling of this story should for the most part be marked by an unmistakable consistency and coherence. Yet, this is not what we find. Witness above the coordinate morass and the intentional associated deceptive element to it all.
We understand that though history herself is perfect, by that I mean events are events and so must have occurred in fact as they did, history's telling is understandably not so perfect. Acknowledging this, the careful reader of Apollo history nevertheless notes that the mainstream telling, the official narrative telling of the Apollo story can only be viewed as quite simply NOT TRUE. This, given the story's stark raving mad main feature inconsistencies and its blinding incoherence. Apollo can only strike the fair minded critical thinker as nothing more than inauthentic, remarkably inconsistent and altogether marked by a robust lack of contact with reality. As such, one can only see Apollo as a failed hero myth. A failed hero myth that continually floats more and more away from us, out of contact with truth, reality and meaning in our lives.
In the telling of this Apollo story to us by astronauts, engineers, flight officers, NASA administrators and space administration employees of every stripe, in the telling of this story to us by employees of the great aerospace companies that built Apollo's machines, in the telling of the Apollo story by print journalists, television journalists, popular and academic historians, scientists directly involved with Apollo and scientists commenting or studying Apollo "after the fact", in the telling of the Apollo story by friends and family members of those involved, the once removed witnesses of Apollo's great events, in this protean telling, this telling by myriad raconteurs, this telling by way of NASA documents, photos, telemetry data, rocks, personal anecdotes, interviews, news stories, television presentations, videos popular and serious/documentarian, books popular and serious/documentarian, in this story's telling, and despite the complex narrative's remarkable qualities, ever enlarging, ever morphing, ever becoming more and other than it was just moments ago, we find ourselves feeling very much entitled to and very much expecting consistency and coherence, expecting the stuff that marks an alleged real-life hero's saga as simply true. Not that we shouldn't expect both exaggerations and embellishments, understatements and elements of modesty both false and true. We of course should expect such. It is how these hero myths go, isn't it? Nevertheless, because this is HISTORY, HISTORY with a capital H, I, S,T,O, R, Y, history as in something extremely important, something that sure enough was said to have really happened, well then as such, the main features of this history must square, must meet the criteria of logic's calculus and that of common sense as well. That is after all what we demand in the case of HISTORY, with a capital H,I,S,T,O,R,Y.
Think carefully about the presentation above, utter coordinate chaos. This stuff never happened. It quite simply doesn't add up.
Last edited:
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,296
Patrick - before I bother struggling through it, is there anything new in the wall above, or it it just a rehash of the same old stuff?
mercatormac
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2011
- Messages
- 136
tl;dr
If anyone else can be bothered to read it all; is there anything new from Patrick or is just the same old rubbish?
If anyone else can be bothered to read it all; is there anything new from Patrick or is just the same old rubbish?
No, it's a classic argument from incredulity padded out with needless repetition and basic misunderstandings.
If your argument had any merit whatsoever, P1k, you would be able to explain it in bullet points.
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,296
Answering my own question up to a point: Having read down as far as "MAKING SENSE OF MICHAEL COLLINS' MAP" I can confirm that the preceding title, preamble and first dozen paragraphs contain nothing new. Just the same old windbaggery and nothing of any value whatsoever.
I might come back and read some more later, or I might not.
I might come back and read some more later, or I might not.
- Status