Two, one guy courageous enough to simply become more or less open minded...
Are you referring to yourself? Sorry, but I don't see you as either courageous or open-minded.
Specifically, you aren't open-minded enough to consider that you may be wrong. Your argument below is based on the same premise you've used for months now. That premise has been refuted many times by trained and experienced experts, but you simply turn a deaf ear to it.
Open-mindedness means exactly to consider an idea on its merits rather than on one's preconceptions, and here you quite definitely ignore problems with the merit of your premise and concentrate solely on your preconceived belief in its correctness, buttressed by your misconception of the underlying technical points. Open-mindedness does not mean simply opposing the mainstream.
What exactly about your approach is courageous? You post in internet forums under assumed names and identities, hiding behind web proxies. You haven't submitted any of your findings to the historical and technical community for publication, and you can't abide even the casual objections of the people you encounter.
In contrast it takes courage to admit that one's previously cherished beliefs do not stand up to a factual analysis. It takes courage to walk away from a bad idea that you once advocated. But instead of standing up to your faults, you hide and dodge. That's the essence of intellectual cowardice.
A second guy to encourage the first not to lose his nerve.
But as can be attested by the administrators of the various forums in which you've posted, and from which you've been repeatedly banned, you bring your own cheering section. I struggle to see how that brand of dishonesty qualifies you as a serious researcher.
As for the remainder of this wall of text, it hardly bears detailed comment. It's the same slurry you've been shopping around the internet for the past two months, with little variation. You have nothing new, that hasn't already been soundly debunked. You simply don't understand how it all worked, so you ignorantly cry foul. Now it appears you're just looking for a receptive audience so you can bask in your courageous, open-minded glow.
You say there's no other answer except for fraud, but in fact there is an answer that's been staring you in the face (or rather, beaten over your head repeatedly) for months: you aren't capable of understanding how it all works. You have constructed an intricate web of misconceptions and personal expectations for how you think space missions ought to be conducted, and you propose to elaborately make the facts fail to fit that concocted standard so that you can triumphantly cry fraud.
Sorry, but there's a reason all the suitably educated people believe that Apollo was real.
A story, a piece of history, a real life factual account, must by its very nature have consistency, internal coherence as a feature.
No. That is the huge mistake that amateur historians make. Historical accounts of true events are always inconsistent, often on critical points. In fact, an abnormally high degree of consistency among different accounts of the same event is generally taken to mean that the "separate" witnesses have colluded on a story, also mistakenly believing that they won't testify credibly unless their stories match faithfully.
My analysis of the Apollo 11 Mission Report document below will be difficult for some.
You wrongly assume that people believe in Apollo because of some romantic devotion. People believe in Apollo because that's where the multitude of facts point. Look at this thread. You don't see people wringing their hands and lamenting the attack upon a cherished belief. Instead you see people pointing out how the facts support their belief, not yours. You don't get to pretend that your opponents are arguing emotionally when they patently are not.
It is harsh and devastating...
No, it's just wrong. And it's wrong now in exactly the same way it was wrong before when people refuted it.
So as tedious as the coordinate study and number crunching was/is, it all paid off.
Hogwash. You've simply established what was already known and accepted by Apollo practitioners and mainstream historians: that there is variance in the assessments of the landed LM's location.
Originally you tried to argue that this would have prevented them from rendezvousing with the CSM. But after I and other professional engineers laid bare your utter ignorance of how guidance systems worked, you've now shifted over into this new "historical inconsistency" line of attack.
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.
No, you don't get to accuse others of misdirection just because you don't know how to read a map.
...one nevertheless anticipates reasonably good agreement with respect to the major features of a major story's telling.
No, that is the layman's misunderstanding of the study of history -- a wrong and oft-repeated mantra that has undone more than one lying witness.
Think carefully about the presentation above, utter coordinate chaos.
No, utter handwaving. Just because you cover your hand in a sequined glove before waving doesn't mean you have a case. You're desperately trying to manufacture a discrepancy so you can pat yourself on the back for your cleverness.
This stuff never happened. It quite simply doesn't add up.
No, you aren't the first to conjure up a standard of proof out of whole cloth solely for the purpose of showing how the facts don't measure up to it, and for no other purpose. The other times you tried to do this, you made the mistake of inventing a standard of proof that had objective flaws -- the medical condition of Apollo 8, the rendezvous problem on Apollo 11. And people more knowledgeable than you showed you at length why your standard of proof was ill-informed and unreasonable.
Now you've tried a "softer" approach, arguing that the study of history demands a certain consistency in its sources, and that the only explanation for inconsistency must be the assertive claim of fraud. You infer that your proposed standard of authenticity arises naturally from the study of history and as such needs no explicit defense.
If you are simply following the natural conventions of historical scholarship, can you explain why professional space historians such as William Burroughs, Jeffrey Kluger, Andy Chaikin, and the Coxes -- ostensibly following your same natural standard -- reach such vastly different conclusions than you do? Isn't it more likely that your opinion differs not because you're the first scholar in four decades to see the light, but because you're the last to see it?
