Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Patrick1000]

Quarantine

I suspect, it was during the period of "quarantine" that this type of thing was worked out. How to present the map, meaning how to make it look given what key people knew about it.

If duped flight officers were working with a slightly altered map during the mission, then perps would have to decide what the public face of the map should look like. If they produced a truly accurate lunar map for public consumption, a map that wasn't even used, duped participants would notice it as a map they did not have contact with. They would then realize the map they actually worked with during the mission was fraudulent.

So the perps are stuck, stuck with some vulnerability. They work on it and work on it during quarantine and they come up with what we know as the LAM 2 map.

42 years later, somebody simply shows if one reads the map as labeled, the story as told, Tranquility Base at J .65 / 7.52 , simply cannot be true.

Apollo's fraudulence proven beyond any doubt whatsoever, right there.

 

[Patrick1000]

I've got it! Couldn't be easier!

Take a look at the LAM 2 map.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/LAM2_CMP-flown.jpg

With the coordinates as labeled, one should be able to find Tranquility Base without too much difficulty. 00 41'15" north, 23 26' 00" east.

Now, if one goes through that exercise and finds 00 41'15" north and 23 26' 00" east is fairly close, by that I mean within say tens of feet to J .65 / 7.52, well then I am wrong in my map claims. If on the other hand, independent researchers go through this simple exercise as well, and find given the map as labeled that Tranquility Base, coordinates 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east are located at roughly K .2 and LAM 2 map longitude 5.549, well then I am correct, not only with regard to my claim about Michael Collins map, but with regard to my claim about Collins himself. He is a phony astronaut and Apollo 11 was a phony mission.

 

[332nd]

Take a look at the LAM 2 map.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/LAM2_CMP-flown.jpg

With the coordinates as labeled, one should be able to find Tranquility Base without too much difficulty. 00 41'15" north, 23 26' 00" east.

Now, if one goes through that exercise and finds 00 41'15" north and 23 26' 00" east is fairly close, by that I mean within say tens of feet to J .65 / 7.52, well then I am wrong in my map claims. If on the other hand, independent researchers go through this simple exercise as well, and find given the map as labeled that Tranquility Base, coordinates 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east are located at roughly K .2 and LAM 2 map longitude 5.549, well then I am correct, not only with regard to my claim about Michael Collins map, but with regard to my claim about Collins himself. He is a phony astronaut and Apollo 11 was a phony mission.

Heh, you still don't see where you went wrong.

 

[SUSpilot]

"Patrick": I did what matt.tansy did. No math required. Took a simple aviation plotter, scaled the image on my iPad to a convenient size, and plotted it out, just like an aviation sectional. Latitude 0.647/longitude 23.505 (0° 38' 49.2"/23° 30' 17.9994", using the FCC's converter) is right where it's supposed to be.

Even more interesting is that the rendezvous radar-derived position, using the CSM's position as the datum, resulted in a difference of 1,200 feet (1202, according to my numbers, but I think that's starting to play fast and loose with significant digits). Now, that slight error doesn't matter, because the launch window is a timing issue, not a positional one, but it's remarkable how close the radar-derived coordinates came to reality. A reality that was confirmed during post-mission analysis, and not precisely known at the time.

Jay, I'll leave it to a pro like you to really go after this - I'm a rank amateur, so I may be missing something. But if I can find the fallacies in "Patrick's" arguments, anyone can.

"Patrick": there is one thing that I'm good at and that's reading people. I will ask you again: why do you so desperately want to prove we didn't do it in light of all the evidence that we did?

 

[JayUtah]

...

I listened to the voice transcript.

Explain how one listens to a transcript. A transcript is written.

I heard them say Julian abaddon.

Then you heard wrong. Interpreting the evidence, in whatever form, is the major part of the historian's job. And the historian's skill in doing so becomes part of where the strength of his case lies. Therefore when you get a different answer than every other historian, your errors in judgment are not inconsequential. And we have seen that you make many, many errors in judgment. That's a better explanation for the discrepancy between the facts and your expectations, than that the facts were tampered with.

That was enough for me. I withdraw my claim. Is that understood?

Withdrawal or not, you cannot walk away from errors.

Keep in mind that you have insinuated that those who disagree with you are merely sheep, and that you alone (or at least as part of a small group) have the expertise and "open-mindedness" to discover NASA's massive fraud, which you've suggested lie in the gritty details of map-reading and navigational reckoning.

Therefore your skill in reckoning and reading maps not only becomes relevant, it becomes the only thing that's relevant -- because others reading the same maps and reckoning the same waypoints come up with a vastly different answer than you do.

Sorry, but you're trying to style yourself as an expert and on the basis of that expertise draw a controversial and highly disputable conclusion. So when your expertise is shown to be false, you can't expect the conclusion to still matter.

AND , I did study that entire NASA coordeinate manual, and NASA does/did use a Julian dating system as/when appropriate.

Irrelevant to the points at hand. And a properly informed person would have known that.

AND for the most part I understood all of that well.

Clearly not, because you're trying to attribute to nefarious NASA forces what amount to your fumbling first attempts to read a map.

 

[JayUtah]

If on the other hand, independent researchers go through this simple exercise as well...

Independent researchers and experts have been reading these maps for decades and come up with a different answer than you.

Do you have an explanation why the guy who commits elementary map-reading errors must be right, while the host of professional geologists and astronomers are all somehow wrong? Wouldn't the most parsimonious explanation be that the solitary amateur made a mistake?

 

[Patrick1000]

SUSpilot, Matt, Steve Jobs and Their Worthless ipads

"Patrick": I did what matt.tansy did. No math required. Took a simple aviation plotter, scaled the image on my iPad to a convenient size, and plotted it out, just like an aviation sectional. Latitude 0.647/longitude 23.505 (0° 38' 49.2"/23° 30' 17.9994", using the FCC's converter) is right where it's supposed to be.

Even more interesting is that the rendezvous radar-derived position, using the CSM's position as the datum, resulted in a difference of 1,200 feet (1202, according to my numbers, but I think that's starting to play fast and loose with significant digits). Now, that slight error doesn't matter, because the launch window is a timing issue, not a positional one, but it's remarkable how close the radar-derived coordinates came to reality. A reality that was confirmed during post-mission analysis, and not precisely known at the time.

Jay, I'll leave it to a pro like you to really go after this - I'm a rank amateur, so I may be missing something. But if I can find the fallacies in "Patrick's" arguments, anyone can.

"Patrick": there is one thing that I'm good at and that's reading people. I will ask you again: why do you so desperately want to prove we didn't do it in light of all the evidence that we did?

SUSpilot,

Your ipads, yours, Matt's and Steve Jobs', they're worthless. Get a ruler, a sharp pencil, a protractor, and some eye glasses for God sake. Take that ipad back to the Apple Store and tell Stevie you'd like your money back because it didn't save the dumb astronauts.

You can do this in your head dude. NASA says Tranquility Base is at longitude 23 26' 00" east correct? NASA says that on their LAM 2 Map Tranquility Base is located at longitude line 7.52 correct? The map as marked at the top indicates 23 30' 00" is at LAM 2 map longitude line 7.6 or 7.7 , correct? To make this as favorable for your interpretation as possible, I'll use 7.7, even though 7.6 looks to be a better estimate.

So according to NASA's own map, which they labeled and scaled themselves, Tranquility Base is at east coordinate 23 26' 00" and this is longitude line 7.52 on the LAM 2 map. According to NASA's map as marked, 0.18 map units to the east of 7.52 we have 7.7 which they have clearly marked as longitude line 23 30' 00" correct? But to go from 23 26' 00" to 23 30' 00" is a distance of 4 minutes of arc. According to this map, each longitude line, numbered 1 through 27 across the bottom of the page covers roughly 1.95 minutes of arc. So if 7.52 really were 23 26' 00" east, then given this map's scale, 23 30' 00" would be located 4 minutes of arc divided by 1.95 minutes of arc per LAM 2 longitude line or 2.05 longitude lines to the east of 7.52. That is at LAM 2 Map longitude line 9.57.

But NASA has already labeled LAM 2 map longitude line 7.7 as 23 30' 00" east. According to the LAM 2 map as labeled, longitude line 9.57 then MUST BE 23 33' 39" and very much not 23 30' 00". It cannot have two numbers associated with it. The map would be worthless in that case. It is worthless anyway in a sense, but that is an altogether different story.

So if NASA or anyone else wants to claim that Tranquility Base is located on the LAM 2 Map at longitude line 7.52 which must also be 23 26' 00", the radian measure east coordinate of Tranquility Base, then the map as labeled
shows longitude line 9.57 as BOTH 23 30' 00" AND 23 33' 39". AND EVERY OTHER POINT ANYWHERE AND EVERYWHERE ON THE ENTIRE MAP WILL LIKEWISE HAVE NOT ONE UNIQUE, BUT RATHER INSTEAD, TWO LONGITUDE VALUES.

Of course this is nonsense. The map as originally labeled shows LAM 2 longitude line 7.6 or 7.7 to be 23 30' 00". Look at the top of the map for yourself SUSpilot. SEE IT THERE IN FRONT OF YOUR EYEBALLS! Skewing the numbers as much to favor a best result for you, I'll use 7.7 . 7.52 is 0.18 map units to the west 0f 7.7 . Each of the 27 map longitude lines, 1 through 27 as numbered and scaled by NASA, are separated one from the other by roughly 1.95 minutes of arc. 1.95 X 0.18 gives 0.351 minutes of arc or 21 seconds.

So if NASA wants to label their map with 23 30' 00" at LAM 2 longitude line 7.7 and scale it with each small box roughly 1.95 minutes of arc on a side AS THEY CLEARLY HAVE, then LAM 2 longitude line 7.52 MUST BE 23 29' 49" and NOT NOT NOT 23 26' 00". NASA cannot have it both ways, a phony map and real astronauts. We see if they correct the map to make it real, so each longitude line is associated with a UNIQUE number and each latitude line the same, then in that case, the astronauts POOOF! become phony themselves.

Diagnosis; Worthless ipads

Treatment; SUSpilot, meet Matt out in front of the Apple store. Give your ipads to homeless guys panhandling out in front. They can sell them to the next wave of way way way off base pro Apollo researchers for lunch money and use the meal money balance to party tonight.

 

[drewid]

Pat, how far out are the two sets of figures? roughly?

 

[Patrick1000]

I didn't make a mistake, the jig is really up this time isn't it?

Independent researchers and experts have been reading these maps for decades and come up with a different answer than you.

Do you have an explanation why the guy who commits elementary map-reading errors must be right, while the host of professional geologists and astronomers are all somehow wrong? Wouldn't the most parsimonious explanation be that the solitary amateur made a mistake?

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for civility.

I didn't make a mistake. Show my work to any professional cartographer and they'll tell you THIS MAP CANNOT POSSIBLY BE ACCURATE IF NASA WANTS TO MAKE THE CLAIM THAT TRANQUILITY BASE 23 26' 00" IS AT LONGITUDE LINE 7.52 AND STILL HOLD THEIR LABELING AND SCALING ACCURATE, THAT IS 23 30' 00" IS AT LAM 2 MAP LONGITUDE LINE 7.7 AND EACH SMALL SQUARE IS ROUGHLY 1.95 MINUTES OF ARC ON A SIDE.

This is such a huge blunder for the perpetrators. It is so obvious, AND SUCH HARD EVIDENCE OF FRAUD. There is no wiggle room here. They are busted!

The need here to do this must be quite deep. Like telling the lie about not seeing stars from the surface of the moon or from cislunar space. Utterly preposterous, an incredibly risky lie. The difference with this map though is that it is objective. We can't really take Neil Armstrong's phony claims from him. He can lie his Apollo 11 Astronaut Endorsed Depends covered heiny off and not much we can do but point out it is all bull feathers. Here, we can do the numbers, hold 'em up to Neil's face and say,

"OH MY MY MY, LOOK AT WHAT WE FOUND HERE A PHONY PHONY MAP!"

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for civility.

 

[Patrick1000]

My rough calculation 1.3 miles

Pat, how far out are the two sets of figures? roughly?

My rough calculation 1.3 miles. Too far if you are claiming you can actually determine the ship's landing site accurately. 1.3 miles may as well be a light year, because the claim is the maps are good enough to find the boys based on matching descriptions with detailed topography.

 

[drewid]

I LOL'd

 

[Garrison]

My rough calculation 1.3 miles. Too far if you are claiming you can actually determine the ship's landing site accurately. 1.3 miles may as well be a light year,

On;y in the parallel universe you inhabit. It's been explained repeatedly why this has no relevance to rendezvous, so what do you hope to gain by repeating the same mistakes?

 

[nomuse]

MORE, FAKE MAP STUFF THAT GOES BEYOND THE ORDINARILY PHONY.


Again, the incredibly fake map;

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/LAM2_CMP-flown.jpg

Consider this, there are 15.2 latitude units running from 00 30' 00" north at D .5, up to 01 00' 00" north at U .7. So by that accounting, 1.97 minutes of arc per small square edge.

Now, assume the map to have coordinates as labeled. Not too much to ask of a map, wouldn't you say? Let's find "Tranquility Base", latitude and longitude wise. Tranquility Base is at 00 41' 15" north. That is 11.25 minutes of arc north of 00 30' 00" at D .5. 11.25/1.97 gives 5.7 latitude lines north of D .5, and this places me on K .2 . I've already done the calculation for the "Tranquility Base" longitude, assuming the map to be "true", that is, assuming we will read the map as labeled. 23 26' 00" in such a case (and what other case should we assume here?, it's only a map) is at 5.549.

So on their LAM 2 Map, my "J MAP", NASA's very own map, the one they labeled themselves, Tranquility Base at 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east would be found not at J .65 / 7.52, but rather at K .2 / 5.549 . So it turns out if one treats both latitude and longitude true to their labeling, "Tranquility Base", assuming it is at 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east would be found at the south west tip of the surfboard shaped LAM 2/ "J Map" landing ellipse.

By this true map rendering, J .65 / 7.52 is actually at coordinates, 00 40' 15" north and 23 29 51 east. This is 1.3 miles from "Tranquility Base" at K .2 / 5.549.

I'll keep going. There is a longish line on the "J Map" beginning at H / 2 and running to a small circle, point of interest, at L .8 / 6.6. In radians on this map that translates to, 00 44' 43" north and 23 28' 03" east. There is also a dot/circle, point of interest, at M .8 / 7.9. In "Jay Map" equivalent radian notation it would be about, 00 46' 40" and 23 30' 35".

What about the targeted landing site of 00 43' 53" north and 23 38' 51" east? This would correspond to roughly L .5 / 12.14. That is pretty much in the middle of the ellipse, just to the north of its center line.

So one can begin to make some sense of this. The point/circle on the map at L .8 / 6.6 is 3.4 miles down range from the targeted site. That's the first place Collins supposedly looked for the Eagle, there at roughly L .8 / 6.6 .


This is beyond fascinating. One of our very best finds gang! If we read the map as labeled, "Tranquility Base" at 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east falls on a point roughly at K .2 / 5.549 . The point on the map that NASA tells us corresponds to Tranquility Base at J .65 / 7.52, is a point corresponding to radian coordinates 00 40' 15" and 23 29' 51". The points on the "J Map" at L .8 /6.6 and M .8 / 7.9 correspond to the 1st and 3rd places Collins allegedly looked for the Eagle during his lunar orbital wild goose chase.

We now have absolute, iron clad, no squirming out of it now PROOF!, of map manipulating FRAUD!. 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east most decidedly does not fall on the corresponding "J Map" point J .65 / 7.52 . It falls at K .2 / 5.549 . We have caught the dreaded "INNUMERATI" dead to rights with their Apollo 11 Astronaut Certified Depends down. No getting out of this one boys. The thing is proven FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE!!!

Now, why do it this way? Well, I suspect we shall find, though I am not certain of it yet, that "Little West Crater" and all of those other bogus landmarks are located at roughly J .65 / 7.52 or equivalently 00 40' 15" north and 23 29 51" east. LOCATED AT THESE POSITIONS AS LABELED ON THIS MAP. It may well indeed be the case, and I assume it is for now, that "Little West Crater" is at roughly 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east on the real moon, in real moon coordinates, as seen when studying an accurate map. The GRID overlaying the LAM 2 Map with which the "INNUMERATI" worked may well have been shifted to the northwest so that the 00 41' 15" north 23 26' 00" east point was made on this shifted grid to overlay K .2 / 5.549 instead of J .65 / 7.52 as it rightly should.

With this method, one has a map with coordinates all askew , allowing one to play fast and loose with numbers. Little West Crater may really be right there at roughly 00 41' 15" and 23 26' 00" east, but on the night of the landing, that position, that point, those coordinates, remain ambiguous because the overlying grid has been shifted. It is not until just before lift off that Tranquility Base is announced to be at more or less J .5 / 7.7, at which point it's all over. Remove the phony "shifted grid" and voila! See, it was there all along!

We've caught 'em boys and girls, caught em' red handed with a phony map! Hooray! score one for truth justice and accuracy in cartography. No wiggle room for Neil here my friends.

You STILL haven't figured out there's no single coordinate system for the Moon? You are still ignoring the geoid revisions that have been done over the years based on more accurate radar height maps? You still don't understand that at the time of Apollo, we didn't have the Clementine, LRO, or for that matter Apollo itself's contribution to better lunar maps? You think a complete and detailed map of the Moon sprung out of a telescope fully formed one nice morning in the early 20th century, and everyone has been using it since?

 

[R.A.F.]

Apollo's fraudulence proven beyond any doubt whatsoever, right there.

You seem to have this "problem" with understanding that you can't make "declarative" statements as if they were factual without supportive evidence.

...oh, and you misspelt flatulence.

 

[nomuse]

I have the same LM manual the Astronauts used for introductory study, published July 1964. It does not say anything about what the cross range tolerance is for a launch, how far away the LM can be from a simulated overflying by a simulated command module.

It does say however that lunar orbital rendezvous range is 5 nautical miles from the CSM. Once in orbit, the LM is in rendezvous range when 5 nautical miles away. That is the extent of my knowledge based on my LM manual.

Define "Ellipse" for me Patrick. Show you understand the difference between track and cross-track.

 

[nomuse]

I listened to the voice transcript. I heard them say Julian abaddon. That was enough for me. I withdraw my claim. Is that understood?

AND , I did study that entire NASA coordeinate manual, and NASA does/did use a Julian dating system as/when appropriate. AND for the most part I understood all of that well.

You listened to the transcript? What did you do, select one of the transcripts at Apollo Lunar Surface Journal and turn on the "Speak this text" option on your computer? No wonder you confused "Julian" with "Juliette!"

 

[R.A.F.]

He can lie his Apollo 11 Astronaut Endorsed Depends covered heiny off...

I am constantly amazed at how some people will make complete fools of themselves without any embarrassment whatsoever.

 

[Patrick1000]

Hello!!!!!

On;y in the parallel universe you inhabit. It's been explained repeatedly why this has no relevance to rendezvous, so what do you hope to gain by repeating the same mistakes?

Hello!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,

Garrison, who cares about rendezvous? The point is they are supposed to be determining where on the moon the astronauts are. We haven't even broached the subject yet with respect to the impact this would or would not have on the simulated rendezvous.

Look at the map. 1.3 miles is roughly the distance of two small squares. See how different the topography can bee going from one point to another over this distance?

So if this were real, the landing, they would be looking in the wrong place at the wrong topography EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY LOOKED, because here it is flat, 1.3 miles away are craters. Indeed, in the Apollo 11 Mission Simulation, Armstrong flew over a boulder field to land in a flat area.

On the moon, especially for the first time, even if it is a pretended first time, 1.3 miles is a long long long long way.

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for civility.

 

[matt.tansy]

Treatment; SUSpilot, meet Matt out in front of the Apple store. Give your ipads to homeless guys panhandling out in front. They can sell them to the next wave of way way way off base pro Apollo researchers for lunch money and use the meal money balance to party tonight.

Translation: Dr. Socks doesn't know how to measure a position on a map.

 

[Garrison]

Hello!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,

Garrison, who cares about rendezvous? The point is they are supposed to be determining where on the moon the astronauts are. We haven't even broached the subject yet with respect to the impact this would or would not have on the simulated rendezvous.

Look at the map. 1.3 miles is roughly the distance of two small squares. See how different the topography can bee going from one point to another over this distance?

So if this were real, the landing, they would be looking in the wrong place at the wrong topography EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY LOOKED, because here it is flat, 1.3 miles away are craters. Indeed, in the Apollo 11 Mission Simulation, Armstrong flew over a boulder field to land in a flat area.

On the moon, especially for the first time, even if it is a pretended first time, 1.3 miles is a long long long long way.

Two words for this drivel:

SO WHAT?

What problem is this allegedly inaccurate position supposed to have caused since it has been clearly established it is irrelevant to the rendezvous?