Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
Does someone else want to Stundie this? I've already done one of Patrick's today, two would be greedy.
 
Footnote "a" probably a fabrication by the "INNUMERATI"

As well covered above, the Apollo 10 flown map signed by the not so very astronaut Eugene Cernan, is labeled and scaled correctly, unlike the Apollo 11 map. As such, we now recognize footnote "a" to be a fabrication, what else can it be. ABSOLUTE AND IRREFUTABLE HARD EVIDENCE OF FRAUD.

There was no reason for NASA to make such a claim about the "maps". we can see the Apollo 190 map was labeled, scaled, referenced, dated and signed by NASA employee Eugene Cernan without any discrepancy whatsoever from what one would expecct.

There was/is no reason to add 2' 25" to the north corrdinate and subract 4'17" from the east. This bogus ploy is as trasparent as space itself to the star light Apollo niot so very astronauts claim that they cannot see.

Tghe scam is a sham my friends. Your days are numbered, you apollo faithful.
 
Patrick1000 said:
As well covered above, the Apollo 10 flown map signed by the not so very astronaut Eugene Cernan, is labeled and scaled correctly, unlike the Apollo 11 map. As such, we now recognize footnote "a" to be a fabrication, what else can it be. ABSOLUTE AND IRREFUTABLE HARD EVIDENCE OF FRAUD.

There was no reason for NASA to make such a claim about the "maps". we can see the Apollo 190 map was labeled, scaled, referenced, dated and signed by NASA employee Eugene Cernan without any discrepancy whatsoever from what one would expecct.

There was/is no reason to add 2' 25" to the north corrdinate and subract 4'17" from the east. This bogus ploy is as trasparent as space itself to the star light Apollo niot so very astronauts claim that they cannot see.

Tghe scam is a sham my friends. Your days are numbered, you apollo faithful.
Click to expand...



HAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAAAA

Oh gods
can't breath.
 
Last edited:
Oh my , isn't this interesting, can't wait to show you the details of my comparison.

nomuse said:
Nope. He's still an idiot. All maps must have the same grid, all maps use the same coordinate system, all maps use the same coordinate base, and similar misconceptions.

He's learning, but his ignorance of basic cartography is just too deep for him to be able to swim out of it quickly.
Click to expand...

Oh my , isn't this interesting, can't wait to show you the details of my comparison. Better take a look again there nomuse. Take a look at how the maps are labeled, where the coordinates lie on each and how they differ. You are setting yourself up for another fall and another night out viewing a chick flick, this time with both RAF and Jay.
 
Patrick1000 said:
You think you are telling me something? This is footnote "a" of the Apollo 11 Simulated Mission Report Table 5-IV. Michael Cook, everybody has only been citing this and dealing with its ramifications for the last 3000 posts.

Are you paying attention?

Please see the Apollo 10 flown maps dated May 1969 as referenced above.


"Apollo Landing Site 2: Flown Apollo 10 Map ( 140k )
This flown map shows the proposed landing ellipse and has three hand-drawn, rough ovals in the southwestern quadrant, possibly areas examined by the Apollo 10 crew in one or more passes over the site. Ulli Lotzmann provides a version with the actual Apollo 11 landing site marked ( 90k ).

Note the map is labeled and scaled correctly , unlike the Apollo 11 map. In other words Michael Cook, if the correction factors account for the discrepancy in coordinate position with respect to the Apollo 11 map, they purposely did not correct it because obviously they knew how to do this back in May 1969. The Apollo 10 map is perfect, 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east lie over Tranquility Base."

Do you get it Michael Cook?! If they could make a proper map in May that took into account the correction factor issue, why send Michael Collins into outer space with an inaccurate map?, unless of course you are trying to scam someone, or additionally Michael Collins is not actually going into outer space?!

Diagnosis; Not paying attention!!!! Footnote "a" of the Apollo 11 Simulated Misson Report is something we all have been familiar with for literally thousands of posts. Michael Cook needs to pay better attention. And it was demonstrated many posts back that this argument, Michael Cook's argument that the discrepancy would/could/should be accounted for by the correction factors, DOESN'T HOLD AS THE APOLLO 10 FLOWN MAP OF MAY 1969 SHOWS PERFECTLY GOOD NUMBERS, COORDINATES JUST WHERE THEY SHOULD BE, NO PROBLEMS, NO DISCREPANCY.

Punishment. Michael Cook must read over the entire thread three times and not post again until having done so. We do not need Miochael Cook repeating material already well covered. We are all busy enough already. Also Michael Cook must knock off the inappropriate use of the smiling face icons. It is very annoying to us all when the face is so very much a non sequitur.
Click to expand...

More gibbering. Gibber and gibber on, 'Patrick.'

You are a living example of a non sequitur, amongst many other things.

I sentence thee to 1 year of high def viewing of all the known Apollo photography. If I could I would also send you off to Military School where you wouldn't have the leisure time to dream up such bovine droppings and get some real world experience. I know I frustrate you because I don't debate your fantasies. I like to hit you with reality every now and then though. You against the world.. good luck with that.
 
Patrick1000 said:
Take a look at how the maps are labeled, where the coordinates lie on each and how they differ.
Click to expand...

Pointless as you just don't understand how to read a map.

You are setting yourself up for another fall and another night out viewing a chick flick...
Click to expand...

Can you knock off the irrelevancies, and try to stick to the topic?

...or are you "getting off".

...this time with both RAF and Jay.
Click to expand...

I don't understand...Jay and I are going to see a "chick flick"?


You can't even make your insults understandable, yet we are to accept your "ignorant word" that Apollo didn't happen?

Do you really think that likely?...or are you that delusional?
 
Oh let me help you with the maps RAF!

R.A.F. said:
Pointless as you just don't understand how to read a map.



Can you knock off the irrelevancies, and try to stick to the topic?

...or are you "getting off".



I don't understand...Jay and I are going to see a "chick flick"?


You can't even make your insults understandable, yet we are to accept your "ignorant word" that Apollo didn't happen?

Do you really think that likely?...or are you that delusional?
Click to expand...

This is ever so much fun now. Pummeling poor defenseless General Paulus as I am. You would think he would say "uncle". How is it that one says "UNCLE" in German anyway? Oh well. You boys are gluttons for punishment, so be it.

From the Apollo 11 Mission Technical Debrifing, Michael Collins;

"On each pass, I could do a decent job of
scanning one or two grid squares on the expanded map.
That map is the 1:lOO 000 map called LAM 2. The ground
was giving me coordinates in the grid square coordinate
system that were as much as 10 squares apart. This
told me they didn't really have much of a handle at all
on where the LM had landed."

You can say that again Michael, the part about not having a handle on it at all. Let me see if I may be able to help you.

Take a look at the May 1969 Apollo 10 flown map that was marked with "Tranquility Base", the Eagle's alleged landing site for reference. We see that site falls between longitude lines 23 24' 00" and 23 27' 00". Each spike/mark along the right hand side of that map where the longitude lines are featured represents 3 minutes of arc. So "Tranquility Base" on the Apollo 10 map is indeed where we expect to find it as its longitude is 23 26' 00".

However, if we do the same with the Apollo 11 map, we find Tranquility Base falls between longitude lines 7 and 8, or equivalently, 23 28' 49" and 23 30' 47". Note on the map how 23 30' 00" is clearly marked between these two lngitude lines, 7 and 8 on the fraudulent Apollo 11 flown map of Michael Collins.

Must be a new kind of number system boys, I never heard of 23 26' 00" falling between 23 28' 49" and 23 30' 47", have you?

Couldn't be someone has labeled this map differently forom the Cernan autographed "officially bogus May 1969 Apollo 10 map" now could it?

Well I do believe that is the case.

The maps are labeled differently! PLEASE, CHECK THE NUMBERS YOURSELVES!

RATTENKRIEG! GIVE UP YET?
 
Last edited:
Check the maps and analysis just referenced for yourself RAF, you'll see why.

R.A.F. said:
I fail to understand why you would consider it "fun" to be constantly reminded of just how ignorant you are.
Click to expand...

Check the maps and analysis just referenced for yourself RAF, you'll see why. Why I am having so much fun. Go on RAF, you'll spoil it for me if you are too chicken to look at the numbers and the maps and check for yourself.
 
Last edited:
Patrick1000 said:
Check the maps and analysis just referenced for yourself RAF, you'll see why. Why I am having so much fun. Go on RAF, you'll spoil it for me if you are too chicken to look at the numbers and the maps and check for yourself.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I don't take ignorant troll opinions seriously.

...and no...you can't read a map...

...and "chicken"?...really?...I'd be insulted if anyone here (including myself) actually took anything you said, seriously...
 
The Key to one aspect of the numbers scam

So, what is going on here? The Apollo 10 map is labeled correctly? Yes indeed it is. So what Schiesser, presumably the head "number fixer", does is make the claim this correction factor is needed. Adding 2'25" to the north coordinates and subtracting 4'17" from the east.

We can see that is not true, but who will argue with him? He is the boss. Presumably it is Schiesser. I am not absolutely opositive it is Schiesser playing the HEAD INNUMERATI ROLE, but close to positive. He sees all these numbers. The others don't, so it must be him, perhaps with help.

So now, with this claim about the need for a map correction, they label the Apollo 11 map differently. Who is going to notice but some guy scrutinizing this garbage 42 years down the road.

BUSTED!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom