Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[dafydd]

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?

Quite right. I have learned a lot. Maybe Patrick will gain some knowledge when he grows up.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You guys are like the German 6th army in Stalingrad now, a veritble rattenkrieg for you, is it not?

Now that's interesting (or, at least, more interesting that Patrick's theories, anyway). That's a reference straight out of the current BBC Radio 4 dramatisation of Vassily Grossman's novel "Life and Fate". I wonder where Patrick heard that.

 

[matt.tansy]

Quite right. I have learned a lot.

Here's some more leaning ya'll might like. It's Bob Brauenig addressing Bart Sibrel's idiotic claim that since the gravity on the Moon is one sixth the gravity of the Earth the fuel tanks on the LM should have been one sixth the size of the Space Shuttle's fuel tanks!

Scroll down to the Conspiracy Claims section.

http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/LM-ascent.htm

 

[Patrick1000]

Simple Exercise Proves the Apollo 11 Flown Map Intentionally Mislabeled

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.

AN EASY EXERCISE ANYONE CAN DO TO PROVE TO ONESELF THAT THE APOLLO 11 FLOWN MAP OF MICHAEL COLLINS IS INTENTIONALLY MISLABELED AND THEREFORE FRAUDULENT AND WITH THAT RECOGNITION OF APOLLO 11 LAM 2 FLOWN MAP FRAUDULENCE, ONE MAY CONCLUDE THE ENTIRE APOLLO 11 MISSION FRAUDULENT.

Jay, Matt, Redtail, nomuse, RAF, SUSpilot, Apollo Gnomon garrison, Kiwi9, Michael Cook, abaddon,

Direct your attention to the US Geologic Survey's GEOLOGIC ATLAS OF THE MOON , APOLLO LANDING SITE 2, 1-619 ( ORB II-6 (25) ) by Maurice Grolier, 1970;

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/mapcatalog/usgs/I619/150dpi.jpg

At the upper left hand corner of the map, just below where it is written "DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY", one notes a large light tan colored irregularity centered at 00 52' 00" north and 23 28' 00" east. The irregularity is labeled "Crct". This irregularity features a small orange oval within its interior labeled Cc4, and contains a light olive feature labeled Cc1 as well. Longitude line 23 26' 00" runs along this large tan irregularity's left/west edge. Follow that longitude line south to where it crosses latitude line 00 42' 00" north. One sees that just below that point, the Apollo 11 landing site is found and clearly labeled.

We can do the same with the Apollo 10 flown map dated 18 May 1969. This map was signed/authenticated by the very inauthentic Eugene Cernan. For this, go to;

http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/images11.html#Maps

Click on landing site images and scroll down to;

"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 )."

Study these flown maps from 18 May 1969.

Note the longitudes in this case are marked along the right hand side of the map. Each large box is 12 X 12 minutes of arc in dimension. Each small spike/mark represents 3 minutes of arc distance from the small mark before or after.

Go to longitude line 23 24' 00" east. The small mark below 23 24' 00" is 23 27' 00" east. the next small mark below is 23 30' 00" east and so 23 28' 00" east is a third of the way between the 23 27' 00" longitude line and the 23 30' 00" line. Look from that position, 23 28' 00" east to the left/south. Note that this line on the Apollo 10 flown map of Eugene Cernan, 23 28' 00", crosses 00 52' 00" south at the very same large irregularity that USGS marked "Crct". The same lines, 23 28' 00" east and 00 52' 00" north, crisscross the Crct irregularity's center on both maps, the DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MAP studied above, and on the Apollo 10 Eugene Cernan autographed flown map. AND, just as in the case of the US Geological Survey presentation, one notes that following the Apollo 10 flown map longitude line 23 26' 00" east from the north "down"/to the left/southward, the line passes through the western edge of Crct just as it does on the USGS map, and when the line finally crosses 00 42' 00" north, we see the line runs right by, to the east of Tranquility Base, just as it did on Maurice Grolier's 1970 USGS map.

So the USGS map and the Apollo 10 flown map are marked and scaled similarly and more importantly, ACCURATELY. The two maps agree and agree well. The Maurice Grolier USGS Map of 1970 was made in cooperation with NASA's Manned Spacecraft Center.

I'll do the same with the Apollo 11 flown map of Michael Collins and see if that map matches up with the other two.

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


One sees immediately that this Apollo 11 flown map of Michael Collins does not agree with the other two. AND IT SHOULD AGREE. THE FACT THAT IT DOES NOT IS CONFIRMATION OF APOLLO 11 MISSION FRAUD. Note on the Apollo 11 flown map, 23 30' 00" runs to the WEST of the irregularly shaped Ccrt. Each of the small marks on the Apollo 11 flown map are roughly 1.95 minutes of arc on edge in longitudinal dimension. So move east/right, 1.4 small lines to 23 32' 44". Now follow that longitude line south on the Apollo 11 flown map of Michael Collins. One finds it is this longitude line and not 23 28' 00" that runs through the center of the large irregularity, Crct. Presumably this is where the 4' 17" east/west correction factor comes from, from the map being INTENTIONALLY INACCURATELY GRIDDED THIS WAY. How do we know that this was/is intentional? Because they had it correct on the Apollo 10 map, and having an accurate map for Michael Collins would be of paramount importance were this Apollo 11 Mission real. Thankfully, the Apollo 11 Mission was not real and so men's lives were never at risk in consequence.

Note that on the Apollo 11 flown map, the irregularity/landmark/Ccrt crossed by 00 52' 00" north and 23 28' 00" east on the USGS map of Maurice Grolier(same numbers apply to the Apollo 10 flown map which agrees with the USGS map), is crossed instead by lines 00 50' 41" north and 23 32' 44" east on the Apollo 11 flown map of Michael Collins. This is like relabeling the position of the Empire State Building ON A WHIM! in Manhattan, once well located coordinate wise, and moving it downtown and crosstown cartographically. One cannot take liberties with map labeling like this, unless of course one is up to no good. Landmarks are where they are, and remain there, no matter how much one would like to indicate otherwise by fraudulent labeling.

Studying the Apollo 11 flown map further, one notes that it is longitude line 23 30' 00" east which lies just east of Tranquility Base, whereas on the appropriately labeled Apollo 10 maps, and on Maurice Grolier's USGS 1970 presentation, it was 23 26' 00" that ran just to the east of the Apollo 11 landing site at Tranquility Base.

There is no doubt, there can be no mistake here, the Apollo 10 map was properly labeled, witness its correspondence with the then definitive presentation of Maurice Golier in his important map of 1970, GEOLOGIC ATLAS OF THE MOON , APOLLO LANDING SITE 2, 1-619 ( ORB II-6 (25) ) . As the Apollo 10 flown map was labeled accurately and in accordance with what became one of the definitive representations of the times in Maurice Golier's elegant piece of map work, one can only conclude the Apollo 11 flown map of Michael Collins is intentionally mislabeled, intentionally mislabeled to intentionally mislead. As mentioned previously, the motivation is to leave the Eagle's location indeterminate given the Apollo 11 mission's fraudulence, and the desire to land equipment on the moon at undisclosed positions. Of course the one thing that we do know was dropped/plopped at Tranquility Base is the LRRR. A rather elegant ruse, "proving" to us all that men landed there, right there at 00 41' 15 north and 23 26' 00" east..

Note also, there was no need for the correction factors, 2'25" north for latitude and 4' 17 west for longitude. This was injected into the mix of coordinate confusion presumably by Schiesser/Shyster to "rationalize" the map mislabeling. And, up until now, it worked pretty well.

But, a lie is a lie is a lie is a lie.

Jigs up Jay, Matt, Redtail, nomuse, RAF, SUSpilot, ApolloGnomon, garrison, Kiwi9, Michael Cook, abaddon. I could hardly care any less whether you post or not Jay. Your input is irrelevant as Apollo is Kaput.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Bart "BS" Sibrel was my introduction to the entire notion of moon hoax conspiracy. I was rocket crazy at the time and looking for movies about the moon to watch with my kids.

BS floated to the top of the search heap.

At the time he had a "top 20" on his web page. I debunked all 20 of them off the top of my head. His email response was very unpleasant.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Welcome to "ignore mode," Patrick. I find your posts to be an annoying, repetitive waste of bits.

 

[R.A.F.]

Jay, Matt, Redtail, nomuse, RAF, SUSpilot, garrison, Kiwi9, Michael Cook, abaddon...

Can't you name one poster who agrees with you?

Guess your argument isn't very convincing, but we've known that for months.

 

[332nd]

Pat still won't go back & check his work I see.

 

[matt.tansy]

But, a lie is a lie is a lie is a lie.

And yet all the maps show Apollo 11 at the same location relative to all the craters.

You still haven't managed to wrap your mind around the concept of those pesky datums.

 

[JayUtah]

...

I could hardly care any less whether you post or not Jay.

False. You specifically asked where I had gone. Not anyone else; just me.

Your input is irrelevant as Apollo is Kaput.

So you post a tedious wall of garbage in which you give us step-by-step instructions for reproducing your errors, calling me an others out by name. Then you try to tell the world that whether I respond to your claims is irrelevant. Which is it?

If Apollo is so obviously false, why do all the suitably educated people still believe in it? You still haven't explained this.

It's pretty obvious you're just playing games now.

 

[Obviousman]

Happily I do have an ignore list. Patty boy here is the first poster I've ever used it on on any message board.

I can see ignore threads but how do ignore a poster?

 

[drewid]

Pat still won't go back & check his work I see.

You'll have to do it for him, and then he won't acknowledge that he was wrong. He might change the subject back to poo though.

 

[drewid]

So the coordinate corrections introduced between the A10 chart and the A11 chart are fake, because the A10 chart didn't need them.

But without them the A11 chart is incorrect, so they told everyone about the corrections to hide the corrections. I see.

Just like they changed the lunar datum AGAIN later on (1987 IIRC), and told everyone which chart referenced which datum. Presumably in order to hide it even more.

Yeah that makes perfect sense.

 

[drewid]

I can see ignore threads but how do ignore a poster?

Left click on their name. Ignore poster is near the bottom of the popup

 

[Multivac]

Easier? I wonder why?

That's easy to answer. The real missions, with the ecxeption of Apollo 13, were easier than the simulations for the simple reason that during the simulations they simulated every kind of problem they could think of at the astronauts. During the simulations, the astronauts and controllers were faced with very unlikely faults, and often had to deal with several faults simultaneously.

The real missions were, therefore, easier as the astronauts and ground controllers were faced with fewer faults than they faced during the simulations.

 

[Obviousman]

Left click on their name. Ignore poster is near the bottom of the popup

Thank you!

 

[Patrick1000]

The Apollo 11 chart/map is Fake, it is a simple fact

So the coordinate corrections introduced between the A10 chart and the A11 chart are fake, because the A10 chart didn't need them.

But without them the A11 chart is incorrect, so they told everyone about the corrections to hide the corrections. I see.

Just like they changed the lunar datum AGAIN later on (1987 IIRC), and told everyone which chart referenced which datum. Presumably in order to hide it even more.

Yeah that makes perfect sense.

The Apollo 11 chart/map is fake. That is now a simple established fact.

No, of course people's attention was not purposely drawn to this fact, the Apollo 10 flown map and Apollo 11 flown map contradiction. The intentional mislabeling of the Apollo 11 map is subtle. You did not notice it, nor did I until I scrutinized the map. But if they, the perps, didn't alter the map, then the claim about the need for correction factors becomes utterly unsubstantiated. It is done to substantiate that bogus claim, and their hope was no one would start comparing maps in the detail that I have. So they hoped wrong. It took 42 years, but the ruse is now obvious to us all, even to obviousman.

 

[Patrick1000]

For a poster you'd all rather ignore, you sure pay me a lot of attention

Thank you!

Never saw JayUtah join JRef to get a piece of any other clown's action. It must really be a waste of time debating me, huh Obviousman?

 

[drewid]

The Apollo 11 chart/map is fake. That is now a simple established fact.

No, of course people's attention was not purposely drawn to this fact, the Apollo 10 flown map and Apollo 11 flown map contradiction. The intentional mislabeling of the Apollo 11 map is subtle. You did not notice it, nor did I until I scrutinized the map. But if they, the perps, didn't alter the map, then the claim about the need for correction factors becomes utterly unsubstantiated. It is done to substantiate that bogus claim, and their hope was no one would start comparing maps in the detail that I have. So they hoped wrong. It took 42 years, but the ruse is now obvious to us all, even to obviousman.

I've been pointing you at the footnote that states that the coordinates are different since near the beginning of the thread. It's not at all subtle, it's blatantly obvious, and it was put out there for all to see in 1969.

 

[abaddon]

The Apollo 11 chart/map is fake. That is now a simple established fact.

You are wrong, plain flat out wrong. Your error has been pointed out, both here and elsewhere. Repetition does not magically make it right.

No, of course people's attention was not purposely drawn to this fact, the Apollo 10 flown map and Apollo 11 flown map contradiction.

Which were both publically released. Why is that?

The intentional mislabeling of the Apollo 11 map is subtle. You did not notice it, nor did I until I scrutinized the map. But if they, the perps, didn't alter the map, then the claim about the need for correction factors becomes utterly unsubstantiated.

This from one who couldn't understand coordinate geometry until it was explained to him in this very thread. It is to laugh.

It is done to substantiate that bogus claim, and their hope was no one would start comparing maps in the detail that I have. So they hoped wrong. It took 42 years, but the ruse is now obvious to us all, even to obviousman.

Your use of the childlike rhetorical gambit is noted but useless, as is your contention.

Keep going, though. It is amusing.