Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Patrick1000]

You are sounding desperate nomuse

Oh, yes. Only Soctor Socks the fake world-traveling physician and radar expert (and hero of his own comic book) would ever bother to look at this map. It isn't like Apollo memorabilia is worth anything. It isn't as if anyone has made an effort to locate the Apollo hardware in modern photographic surveys.

What; next you'll be trying to convince me that some random people out on the internet would be so utterly crazy over Apollo, so into the tiniest of minutia, they'd build an AGC from scratch as well as make available an emulator to run the original software!

You are sounding desperate nomuse. The point is simple. The maps are labeled differently. I say it is fraud. Give me an alternative explanation.

 

[nomuse]

Why are the maps labeled differently nomuse? The Apollo 10 map is accurate, the Apollo 11 map is not. So if it is a mistake, tell me how so? Especially since they got it spot on with the Apollo 10 map.

It is OVER dude.

They are both accurate. Once again, you simply do not understand. You are still stuck in an extremely primitive understanding of cartography that assumes there is a single reality and all maps either perfectly meet it or are "fake." It is a weird version of the confusion between map and territory; sort of a confusion of map and map.

 

[Patrick1000]

I say he didn't land on the moon.

Please point out where Collins says the we didn't land on the Moon.

I say he didn't land on the moon, and just proved that to be true with HARD EVIDENCE. He told you that he landed on the moon RAF, but obviously, especially in light of these revelations, that hardly makes it true.

 

[R.A.F.]

I say it is fraud. Give me an alternative explanation.

You're an idiot?...it is an explanation that "fits the facts".

 

[R.A.F.]

I say he didn't land on the moon...

We know that...you are only posting what Collins said...nothing more, nothing less.

Please point out where he says that the landings didn't happen, or withdraw that claim.

 

[Patrick1000]

Why would they intentionally mislabel the coordinates denoting where the craters are?

They are both accurate. Once again, you simply do not understand. You are still stuck in an extremely primitive understanding of cartography that assumes there is a single reality and all maps either perfectly meet it or are "fake." It is a weird version of the confusion between map and territory; sort of a confusion of map and map.

Why would they intentionally mislabel the coordinates denoting where the craters are? They need correct crater coordinates to find anything. The craters are correctly labeled on the Apollo 10 map and so one would be able to find other things in reference to them, including the Eagle. That is if it really had landed at 00 41'15" north and 23 26' 00" east. Not so with the Apollo 11 map. We know they had the coordinjates correct back in May 1969. Why would they intentionally place a grid over the landing site area labeling the craters with the wrong coordinates? That would confuse people looking for the astronauts. They don't relabel the coordinates for your city map nomuse 2 months after they got it right. That would confuse you, no?

 

[drewid]

And OMG it's still moving!!!ELEVENTY!1111!11!!11!

Lat 0.6875 long 23.433333 is 0°41'15"N 23°26'0"E

But the landing site is currently listed as:

Lat 0.67408 Long23.47297 , That's 0°40'26.688"N 23°28'22.692"E

Its a conspiracy I tells ya.

 

[nomuse]

I am just saying what Collins is saying, nothing more, nothing less.

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."


That's not much of a handle for the whole time Collins was orbiting looking for them. Pretty simple, pretty plain, pretty direct, from Collins himself. They did not know where the space ship was. I call that "lost". You may use whatever euphemism you care to.

IT WAS ON THE MOON.

Not only that, it was essentially along the flight path of the C/SM (close enough to make no difference to the upcoming rendezvous.)

He'd SEEN the LM coming in for a landing. He knew the general area it was in. He knew that between the inertial guidance, terrain comparison, the eventual use of the rendezvous radar and so forth it could be located closely enough to make for a successful rendezvous. It isn't like the LM had the power to go wander off to some other part of the Moon!

But this is NASA, and these are engineers. They won't stop measuring until they have achieved all the theoretical precision possible with the tools at hand. So the position of the LM continued to be refined, indeed over decades. And this surprises no-one at all.

You are like a dog who has chased a rabbit into a haystack, and now assumes that since he doesn't know where it is in the haystack, it could be anywhere now...in the barn, in the next town, maybe on the Moon!

 

[TjW]

I say he didn't land on the moon, and just proved that to be true with HARD EVIDENCE. He told you that he landed on the moon RAF, but obviously, especially in light of these revelations, that hardly makes it true.

I doubt seriously that Michael Collins has ever told anyone he landed on the moon.

 

[nomuse]

Why would they intentionally mislabel the coordinates denoting where the craters are? They need correct crater coordinates to find anything. The craters are correctly labeled on the Apollo 10 map and so one would be able to find other things in reference to them, including the Eagle. That is if it really had landed at 00 41'15" north and 23 26' 00" east. Not so with the Apollo 11 map. We know they had the coordinjates correct back in May 1969. Why would they intentionally place a grid over the landing site area labeling the craters with the wrong coordinates? That would confuse people looking for the astronauts. They don't relabel the coordinates for your city map nomuse 2 months after they got it right. That would confuse you, no?

They are not mislabeled! It's a different system! Sheesh!



Okay, here's a possible analogy. In theater, it is traditional to number light cues but to letter sound cues. It helps keep them from getting confused during a fast set of calls. Thus, the third light cue in a show might be "3.0" and the third sound cue in a show might be "C." Does this make "C" wrong? It is third, and the third light cue is a "3," so shouldn't it be a "3" as well? No...it's a different set of agreed-upon designators. You could just as well name them "Doug," "Brad," and "Charlie" (and, yes, I've seen that done as well.)

Neither label is "Wrong." They are simply different.

Oh, yes; and there is almost never a sound cue "Q," or for that matter an "L" or "I." But you are probably still stuck on the letters-for-numbers thing (FSM help you if you ever have to work in a program environment where you are going back and forth between decimal, hex, and binary!)

 

[Patrick1000]

We are dealing with the coordinates as understood at the time.

And OMG it's still moving!!!ELEVENTY!1111!11!!11!

Lat 0.6875 long 23.433333 is 0°41'15"N 23°26'0"E

But the landing site is currently listed as:

Lat 0.67408 Long23.47297 , That's 0°40'26.688"N 23°28'22.692"E

Its a conspiracy I tells ya.

Your point is a nonstarter. We are dealing with the coordinates as understood at the time. I have emphasized that before as would any cartographer involved in sorting through this. Where was west crater known to be in 1969? Not known to be in 2011, but where was it known to be on July 16 1969? At suCh and such coordinates. The Apollo 10 map has the crater labeled with the correct coordinates and the Apollo 11 one does not. This would be a huge technical blunder if the Apollo 11 Mission had been real. 1.3 miles off on one's labeling. You'd never find the astronauts then if you were relying on the map.

As your location of Tranquility Base there changes drewid, so does the location of each crater and other land mark in proximity to it. You are moving Tranquility Base PREFERENTIALLY, whereas a modern map would show new coordinates for everything, everything would have moved in step with the new Tranquility Base numbers. Your argument is vacuous.

 

[matt.tansy]

On NOAA chart 13213 there is this nice shiny example of different datums and how to correct them. Corrections like this abound on navigation charts. Some datum corrections, like in the south Pacific, amount to several miles. Nautical trivia: Some of the charts made by Captain James Cook were so accurate they are still in use today.

 

[Patrick1000]

THE LIE IN FOOTNOTE "a"

On NOAA chart 13213 there is this nice shiny example of different datums and how to correct them. Corrections like this abound on navigation charts. Some datum corrections, like in the south Pacific, amount to several miles. Nautical trivia: Some of the charts made by Captain James Cook were so accurate they are still in use today.


[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/nqQkQ.png[/qimg]

THE LIE IN FOOTNOTE "a".

This is a point that cannot now be overemphasized Matt. Apollo 11 Mission Report table 5-IV Footnote "a" is bogus. We see from looking at the Apollo 10 flown map that NO SUCH CORRECTIONS WERE CALLED FOR.

The jig is up.

The Apollo 11 Mission Report is a fabrication, a lie.

 

[SUSpilot]

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!

I have. You're wrong. If you use a scale and measure between the witness marks on the LAM-2 chart (it's not a map), and then plot the lat/long of the landing site, you come out to the same place every time. Works for the Apollo 10 chart, too.

That's how a chart works, kids. Nothin' mysterious about it. Unless, of course you're trying to back into an unsupportable conclusion.


By the way, I asked another pair of questions that I will continue to ask until you answer: why would it be catastrophic and embarrassing even if you were right?

 

[drewid]

Your point is a nonstarter. We are dealing with the coordinates as understood at the time. I have emphasized that before as would any cartographer involved in sorting through this. Where was west crater known to be in 1969? Not known to be in 2011, but where was it known to be on July 16 1969? At suCh and such coordinates. The Apollo 10 map has the crater labeled with the correct coordinates and the Apollo 11 one does not. This would be a huge technical blunder if the Apollo 11 Mission had been real. 1.3 miles off on one's labeling. You'd never find the astronauts then if you were relying on the map.

As your location of Tranquility Base there changes drewid, so does the location of each crater and other land mark in proximity to it. You are moving Tranquility Base PREFERENTIALLY, whereas a modern map would show new coordinates for everything, everything would have moved in step with the new Tranquility Base numbers. Your argument is vacuous.

I'm sure those reading the thread can see whose argument is vacuous. I'm happy to leave them to their own judgement.

 

[Garrison]

THE LIE IN FOOTNOTE "a".

This is a point that cannot now be overemphasized Matt. Apollo 11 Mission Report table 5-IV Footnote "a" is bogus. We see from looking at the Apollo 10 flown map that NO SUCH CORRECTIONS WERE CALLED FOR.

The jig is up.

The Apollo 11 Mission Report is a fabrication, a lie.

You keep saying that and yet not one person posting here appears to agree with you, at some point Patrick you have to embrace the fact that the only lies here are the ones you keep telling others about your credentials and the ones you tell yourself about your competence.

 

[matt.tansy]

THE LIE IN FOOTNOTE "a".

This is a point that cannot now be overemphasized Matt. Apollo 11 Mission Report table 5-IV Footnote "a" is bogus.

Bogus except when you need it for your other ridiculous theory. You applied it, incorrectly, I obviously must keep repeating, to the position Reed obtained with the rendezvous radar to shoehorn it into your other theory.

We see from looking at the Apollo 10 flown map that NO SUCH CORRECTIONS WERE CALLED FOR.

There is no position plotted on the Apollo 10 map so I have no idea what you're talking about.

Why do you arbitrarily decide Apollo 10's map is accurate and Apollo 11's map is not accurate?

 

[drewid]

Bogus except when you need it for your other ridiculous theory. You applied it, incorrectly, I obviously must keep repeating, to the position Reed obtained with the rendezvous radar to shoehorn it into your other theory.

Remond me, which post was that?
Why, it's post 1178, that epic of ineptitude.

Since we are working in decimal representations and not degree/minutes/seconds of arc coordinate representations, we'll add the decimal equivalent of 2' 25", 0.040 degrees, to the north coordinate , and subtract the decimal equivalent of 4' 17", 0.071 degrees, from the east coordinate.

Remember, the post where you mixed up radial and lateral? That's the one.

 

[JayUtah]

Hiding from the map problem too?

I see your sick personal fixation with me continues unabated.

The only problem with the map is your inability to read it. And for some odd reason you seem to think your incompetence isn't a big deal.

You clearly aren't paying attention to anything anyone is saying to you, so I see little value in speaking further to you. There are plenty of people showing you in great detail and with considerable patience where you've made your mistakes. You have no interest in them because you have no interest in truth or how to know it. You're completely involved in the imaginary battle you've pitched.

You're so delusional you think that I've confirmed your claim when in fact I was pointing out how your subjective analysis is not objective. You latched onto a couple of words in my post and immediately launched into an orgy of self-congratulation without actually reading my post. I will no longer feed your colossal ego. I'm now here only to laugh at you with the rest of the posters. You've retreated so far into your fantasy world that you're nothing but a comic.

You told us that if we showed your analysis to "any cartographer" he would confirm it. Lo and behold, a real cartographer shows up and disputes your claim, and you give him a shotgun blast of your typical content-free bluster. This is exactly what you've done with every expert analysis that has soundly refuted your beliefs.

In all your obsession over me, you still haven't told us why every suitably educated person believes in Apollo, yet you are somehow still so very right.

 

[Kid Eager]

I love this thread! Where else can you get a real education on Apollo 11 and laugh yourself silly at the ineptitude of a single poster at the same time?