Radian measure is a ratio, degrees/minutes/seconds something else.
No. Both radians and degrees measure angles in a plane. A specific, unchanging number of each unit comprise a full circle, so there is a linear relationship between radians and degrees. A straightforward linear formula converts between them. Your problem is using the values expressed in one unit as if they had been expressed in the other unit, without apparently realizing that a difference existed. Your error didn't appear to be in omitting the conversion. Your error appeared to be in failing to comprehend the system. This is a much more serious error, as I describe below, and one that you can't easily commit and expect to still achieve credibility.
Your description of radians as a ratio seems to come from Wikipedia, which is describing how the base unit is defined in that system. The base unit in the DMS system is derived by a different strategy. But this is irrelevant to their practical use. I can point out that many EES units are derived as non-decimal (i.e., somewhat arbitrary) subdivisions of larger units, or multiples of smaller ones. And I can similarly point out that many SI base units are derived from measured properties of the physical world, such as the behavior of pure water -- a vastly different strategy. But the fact remains that linear relationships exist among them, and straightforward conversions are possible. The difference in defining the base units according to natural ratios, physically measured properties, or arbitrary standards does not convey a conceptual or theoretical difference in their use.
You're trying to parlay the notion that the vast difference in the philosophy behind how each base unit is defined somehow defeats the notion that they both create a consistent set of fixed units for measuring the same physical property. In short, you still seem not to understand the system.
Doesn't change the substance of any of my arguments...
The substance of your argument is to compare the reported facts with your expectations. If the reports fail to meet your expectations, you say that it's because the reports are the product of a hoax. But you haven't shown what you did first to test your expectations, such that they can be considered the gold standard of validity. That makes the validity of your expectations a legitimate and important line of questioning.
This is why I keep asking why your standards don't seem to be shared by other people, especially by people who can demonstrate an appropriate knowledge base from which to extract practical expectations. You don't get to beg the question that your expectations are reasonable.
Your inability to demonstrate competency in basic concepts of map-reading and angle measurement leads us to conclude that your expectations are naive. Therefore we conclude that the most likely explanation for why the reported facts don't match your expectations is that your expectations are poorly informed.
Yes, you try to pass them off as innocent errors. But it's simply not that easy. These are not the sort of errors in comprehension that suitably informed people make. So yes, this does change the substance of your argument by casting meaningful doubt on your ability to set reasonable standards for the evidence you propose to study. We again apply a check on your standards by noting that suitably qualified experts do not apply those same standards and consequently do not reject the evidence as fraudulent.
...and will of course be consistent moving forward as I was more careful earlier on.
Indeed, but the problem is that you seem to have already drawn your conclusions. For the past few months you have stood unwavering in your conclusion that Apollo was faked, except for one tactical withdrawal you made at a different forum. Aside from that, you've deployed a half dozen or so arguments you consider "smoking gun" evidence that Apollo was faked.
Normally when someone's argument is seriously undermined by egregious error, it is customary to question the strength of the conclusion. You don't appear to do this. In fact, you do explicitly the opposites -- you assert that errors in your judgment, knowledge, or reasoning are invariably inconsequential. When the principal premise of the argument is your personal judgment in assessing the value and import of historical evidence, you may not recover so easily from serious error.
You convey the distinct impression that you've made up your mind ahead of time, and now you're just searching for the semblance of an intellectual argument to support what you've already decided to believe.
