Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Patrick1000]

Maybe you are correct about the unmanned fraudulent missions Garrison...

That would be everyone minus you.

Maybe you are correct about the unmanned fraudulent missions being more complex than actual manned missions to the moon after all Garrison. This fraud stuff doesn't look all that easy, and keeping track of all the lies, the deception details, well all one can say is, "Wow, it sure would be easy to slip up and eventually get caught". Talk about complexity on these unmanned missions, no argument from me there Garrison, consider this.

I'll now elucidate the source and nature of some critical Apollo 11 Mission intentional mapping errors, and in so doing, produce a great deal of important evidence implicating those who prepared the Apollo 11 LAM-2 map, gridded it, as being mayor players in the Apollo 11 fraud.

As this is a critically important issue, I'll try and be as straight forward as I can. However, the reader must understand that given the complexity of the issue, and moreover, its tremendous significance given the insane implications, this will merit, and indeed demands, a fair amount of detail. Some time and thoughtfulness will be required on the part of those Apollo historians interested in these extraordinary findings. They are nothing less than world changing in terms of their inevitable profound impact.

I start off by quickly alluding to what I am driving at by referencing 2 important maps, and one important image. I'll then back track and discuss the maps and image in some detail. Fasten your seat belts. This is scary, fascinating, and proves fraud given it is all so true and verifiable. The maps and everything else I present here are very much mainstream and in the public domain. We paid for this stuff, and so own it. Let's begin.

In 1970, The United States Department Of The Interior/US Geological Survey published a rather important map. It was/is one of the definitive post flight Apollo 11 site maps, specifically the, "GEOLOGIC MAP OF APOLLO LANDING SITE 2 (APOLLO 11) PART OF THE SABINE D REGION, SOUTHWESTERN MARE TRANQUILLITATIS". Of course many are involved in the making of a critically important map such as this one. That said, the map's primary author was Maurice J. Grolier.

Take a look at this map. Go to the US Geological Survey's ATLAS OF THE MOON at


http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/mapcatalog/usgs/

Click on the 1: 25,000 scale l-619 map. I suggest one utilize the 15 MB version, if for no other reason, it is easier to read the print when enlarged. I possess one of these maps, an original 1970 paper version in perfect condition. I purchased it from a bookstore. The online version is true to the original. No hanky panky there.

This is the USGS's Apollo 11 landing site map. A few features merit mention. Tranquility Base is located in the lower left hand corner. There is a black dot with an open arrow pointing to the Eagle landing site. Another feature worthy of note is that the latitude/longitude lines run at slants. They are obviously not running horizontal and vertical. Finally, this map is a composite. There is a darker strip constituting the figure's western most edge. Read the text below the left hand corner of the map and you will find that this western dark strip belongs to the V-H72 Lunar Orbiter high resolution photo. A little over two boxes in width, this western strip of map constitutes a seventh or so of the total map area. The vast majority of the map, the 6/7 ths to the east of the V-H72 western strip, is part of the famous US Army's Photomap ORB II-6.

Take a look at the moon index map now. Look along the lunar equator toward the east, and note from whence this detailed 1: 25,000 scale map of the Apollo 11 landing site was derived. Do you see the box labeled "1". That is the site, the chunk of moon, from where this map comes. Note how it is a box not squared up with the equator and the lunar north south axis, but rather, is slightly angled, with the western end tipped up northward. I'll move now to my second introductory map in which one can see this all the better illustrated.

Go to the Apollo 11 Image Library;

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

Click on Landing Site Maps/Images. Go to the third entry, "Apollo Zone of Interest" (2.1 Mb or 0.3 Mb). I suggest the higher res option as always. Click on that to see the "SET B MISSION l APOLLO ZONE OF INTEREST IMAGE". The upper left hand corner reads NASA-S-67-6938. Note the relevant box at II P-6. Note the box is tipped, left end a bit up.

One final image by way of introduction, again this may be found in the Apollo 11 Image Library collection. Scroll down to "Lunar Orbiter frame 5076". Click on that and note the tipped frame of the landing site image. The framing is done so that the image's lower border is angled roughly 10 degrees from the horizontal. One can now see how/why the latitude and longitude lines are slanted on the first map I introduced. They would be vertical and horizontal if the map were simply tipped up a bit, left edge north.

OK, now I shall demonstrate the map hanky panky.

Go back to the very first map that I introduced, the US Geological Survey Map. Toward the right side of this map and below, there is a small indicator map. That map is labeled part of the LUNAR ORBITER PHOTOGRAPH V-M73. There one notes that the landing dispersion ellipse is squared up with the east/west and north south axes. The surfboard shaped ellipse is oriented with its long axis ruining east/west. That ellipse is then boxed, but not in a squared up way. The box is tipped, left end up, and so when the large scale 1: 25,000 map is produced, we find slanted latitude and longitude lines, "as one should". The latitude lines slant from the left/west upward, and the longitude lines slant from the top of the map down toward the east. Nothing funny OSTENSIBLY so far given my CURSORY analysis up to this point.

But then, let us take a look at the Apollo 10 and 11 flown maps. Go back to the Landing Site Maps/Images section of the Apollo 11 Mission Image Library;


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



Scroll down to and click on "Apollo Landing Site 2: Flown Apollo 10 Map". Now do you notice anything funny there on the Apollo 10 flown map after going through this exercise with me? It is not obvious. They do such a great job of fooling us, but if one goes back to my third introductory image, "Lunar Orbiter Frame 5076" it may gradually begin to dawn on you how very clever these people are and how we have been had. One sees now looking at this image that the surfboard's, the landing ellipse's orientation should NOT! be east west with respect to its long axis, but like the image itself, "aligned" with the image itself, the landing ellipse of Apollo 11 should run at a ten degree slant to the horizontal/lunar equator.


Scroll down now to and click on the doubly famous "Flown CMP Map LAM-2".

Latitude and longitude lines east/west, north/south squared up there on the Apollo 11 mission flown map as well, one can see how we have been deceived. The latitude and longitude lines should be slanted through this surfboard, slanted throughout the landing ellipse. That is they should were the surfboard/ellipse oriented accurately, west end tipped up, east end down, just like the entire image in lunar orbital frame 5076. The Apollo 11 landing ellipse and image 5076 should have the same slanted orientation to the horizontal, to the equator, roughly 10 degrees. That is, were the ellipse to be presented with an accurate orientation on the flown maps, not to mention elsewhere . And so my friends, we have indeed been scammed big time!, and this now here is evidence harder than titanium.

I'll obviously have much more to say and write, especially about the ramifications of this, and how the coordinate confusion fraud was furthered by the implementation of this particular aspect of map deception. But there is plenty for all to digest, so for now, I simply leave it at this. Clear cut evidence, hard evidence, for intentional map mislabeling.

 

[Patrick1000]

A critically important addendum/addition to my last post.

With reference to the improperly oriented landing ellipse on the Apollo 11 flown LAM-2 and other maps, if the ellipse were properly/accurately oriented, one would see that those points the trackers had Collins looking at with his sextant would have fallen within the ellipse and would have made a lot of sense.

I'll show you what I mean. Go back to the Apollo 11 Image Library;

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

Under the landing site section, go to "sextant locations". Click on that.

These are the locations Collins was allegedly directed to with his sextant in the hunt for the Eagle. Imagine tipping the ellipse west end upward 10 degrees from the equator/horizontal, what would happen? Target points 2,3,4,5 would fall within the ellipse and make sense. They didn't and don't otherwise. This may explain the logistics of the sextant wild goose chase. The trajectory people, the honest ones, , may have thought the ellipse was so oriented, not literally but "in a sense"/effectively so, with its west end up, not as it appears on these maps. They may have been telling Collins to look north because that is where the head of the ellipse should have been found were the ellipse running along its true long, image 5076 equivalent axis.


The targeted landing ellipse is drawn with its axis parallel to the equator on the Apollo 10 and 11 flown maps. It should be pitched 10 degrees up, west end of the ellipse higher/more north than the east end.

 

[Patrick1000]

Proof of Map and Apollo 11 Mission Fraud

Here's a great exercise anyone can do in proving to himself, herself Apollo fraudulence.

Go to the Apollo 11 Image Library;

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

Scroll down to the Lunar Orbiter Frame 5076 shot and click on that.

Take a screen shot of the image and load it into you computer's photo software. I used iPhoto.

Straighten the image using your photo software. It took 10 degrees on my machine.

Now look at the crater and landmark pattern. You'll see that this orientation is indeed the one presented in the Apollo 10 and 11 flown maps, the 10 degree straightened out orientation. The craters of the Lunar Orbiter 5076 image can actually be superimposed on those of the Apollo flown maps, precisely so, once the Lunar Orbiter 5076 image is given 10 degrees of straightening.

Since the latitude and longitude lines would run in slants across the 5076 map and the Apollo 11 landing ellipse itself REGARDLESS of whether it is physically straightened by tipping the left end down, and since in fact the latitude and longitude lines run not in slants but parallel with(longitude) and directly perpendicular to(latitude) the landing ellipses as they appear in the flown maps of Apollo missions 10 and 11, and the Department of the Interior/US Geological Survey Map published in 1970 previously presented, we may conclude the Apollo 11 Mission was fraudulent with absolute certainty.

Note the clever deception with the latter map, the USGS/Department of the Interior Map, the latitude and longitude lines slant across the map itself, but with reference to the "image" of the landing ellipse within that map, the lines run parallel and perpendicular to that ellipse. Recall and then note again the Lunar Orbiter Photograph V-M73 image under the USGS Apollo 11 landing site map that serves as a reference/indicator, the box is slanted, but the ellipse runs parallel to the lunar equator as it most definitely should not.

Absolutely convincing evidence/proof of intentional deception here, and absolute irrefutable confirmation of Apollo 11 Mission fraud.

 

[matt.tansy]

I didn't back off, the system is flat out not redundant. There was no back up for the Madrid to Houston link for example, as I have already pointed out.

You were wrong about the number of dishes at each station and you refuse to admit it. You tried shifting the goalposts by bringing up the tracking ability of the dishes. Now you're trying to shift the goalposts by claiming there was no redundant link between Houston and Madrid. Keep shifting them goalposts.

 

[JayUtah]

Maybe you are correct about the unmanned fraudulent missions being more complex than actual manned missions to the moon after all Garrison. This fraud stuff doesn't look all that easy, and keeping track of all the lies, the deception details, well all one can say is, "Wow, it sure would be easy to slip up and eventually get caught".

Then would you please expend some effort toward rectifying the instances during the past week or so when you've been caught in contradictions and errors of fact?

We're still waiting for the conclusion of the discussion over the Apollo budget, for example.

 

[abaddon]

Here's a great exercise anyone can do in proving to himself, herself Apollo fraudulence.

Nope.

Go to the Apollo 11 Image Library;


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

Scroll down to the Lunar Orbiter Frame 5076 shot and click on that.

OK

Take a screen shot of the image and load it into you computer's photo software. I used iPhoto.

So you don't now how to use professional tools, but can only use amateur ones?

Straighten the image using your photo software. It took 10 degrees on my machine.

Sigh, you are still wrong.

Now look at the crater and landmark pattern.

Professionals have. They are right, you are wrong.

You'll see that this orientation is indeed the one presented in the Apollo 10 and 11 flown maps, the 10 degree straightened out orientation. The craters of the Lunar Orbiter 5076 image can actually be superimposed on those of the Apollo flown maps, precisely so, once the Lunar Orbiter 5076 image is given 10 degrees of straightening.

No

Edited by LashL: 

Moderated thread.

 

[JayUtah]

I would simply like to emphasize that you are differing with a bona fide expert.

No, we're differing with your interpretation of his statements, and your attempts to apply it to the question of whether an instrumented Moon has any relevance to nuclear warfare. Those are topics that you and you alone are responsible for.

Considering that you read only secondary, popular sources, you have a great need to apply your own interpretations to bridge the gap between those glosses and your specific claims. You don't get to shirk responsibility for that.

I side with Miller because he is the acknowledged expert.

Then why do you reject all the other acknowledge experts who soundly and directly disagree with you?

 

[Tomblvd]

Tomblvd, with all due respect, one cannot even contemplate a lunar landing without having absolute confidence that the communication system will be effective and reliable.

Since Jay has already eviscerated you on the autopilot and communication issues in his recent posts, I'll just point out that your statement here totally disproves your assertion of a completely unmanned mission.

Whoops.

Backtracking from what? What on this earth or in the heavens might you mean by that statement? The Apollo communication system reliability wise was a flat out joke.

You originally stated that a communication and telemetry link was essential for the entire trip and a failure for even a few hours would be critical. Now you backtrack and say that communications in certain "situations" would be necessary.

AND! I personally do not believe that astronauts could fly those tin cans for a variety of reasons independently.

I don't care what you "believe", I care what you can prove. And so far you have proven only your deficiencies.

As an aside, if they were indeed "dependent" on Houston, how did they pilot those "tin cans" on the far side of the moon?

 

[JayUtah]

Please read the September 1 2001 Smithsonian article again.

Please read my explanation again. I already covered what you write below, and it's clear to everyone that you're absolutely terrified to delve into the actual details of how the PGNS operated.

Note that during the Apollo 17 landing, 300 feet from touchdown, the LM was still being guided by the autopilot...

Yes, program P64 operated the lunar module to an altitude of approximately 200 feet above the surface, whereupon the computer passed control to P66 which required manual input. However, the pilot could choose to terminate P64 prematurely at any time or altitude and fly the rest of the descent entirely in P66. Most pilots elected to do this, flying the last several hundred feet of the descent on manual control instead of allowing P64 to do it. This is what Armstrong had to do on Apollo 11 because by the time he was able to assess the ground conditions, there were no suitable landing sites within the limits of P64's LPD.

This is what your article is talking about. At 300 feet the LM is still in P64, although nearly ready to hand over control to the pilot.

There it says that Lovell was going to allow the PGNS to land the LM if the Apollo 13 LM was headed by autopilot toward what in Lovell's estimation was a safe landing site.

That's a reasonably good, if oversimplified, description of what P64 does. The pilot is able to monitor where the LM is headed, and he may make changes to the landing point if necessary by using his joystick to reposition the LPD. If he has faith in P64's choice of landing site, he doesn't need to apply any input while P64 is running. However, he had to press the PRO button several minutes earlier to tell P64 to run in the first place. That's not something that can be automated, and that's how the PGNS system worked.

What the article does not say is that P64 ends 200 feet above the surface and P66 takes over. Lovell could allow the LM to fly to the designated landing point, but in fact the LM stops and hovers 200 feet or so above the surface waiting for the pilot to null any horizontal residuals and make any fine-tuning adjustments to the exact landing spot. There is no fully automatic control for the last 200 feet of the descent.

You presume the article is a complete description of the landing procedure, and so you ignorantly assume that whatever isn't mentioned in the article didn't actually happen. This is what happens when you rely on secondary sources and fail to accommodate all pertinent information.

The PGNS/Autopilot system could land the LM on its own. Hands free, no astronaut input necessary...

No, the article does not say that; those are your interpolations. "Autopilot" does not mean "no human required in the cockpit," and I'm not sure why you seem to think that must be true.

Your article even says that the decision to actually cut off the engine and land is always the pilot's discretion and a manual control input. That's the third time I've mentioned it and the third time you've ignored it.

There is no question on this point, Patrick. I'm reading the actual computer program code for PGNS. It does not get any more authoritative than that. What you choose to read into your author's silence is your own problem. I've spoon-fed you the relevant facts, and it's clear now that you either have no intention of reconciling those with your claims, or that you have a serious problem with reading comprehension -- you can't tell the difference between what your author actually says and what preconceptions you bring to the reading.

 

[JayUtah]

Tomblvd, with all due respect, one cannot even contemplate a lunar landing...

Begging the question.

...will be effective and reliable.

You haven't shown any evidence that MSFN was not effective and reliable to the degree required in the system design. You've simply declared that it doesn't meet your arbitrary standard, which seems contrived solely to support your claim.

To suggest otherwise is ridiculous

Begging the question.

Further, you conspicuously avoid the fact that Apollo was never designed to require constant contact between the spacecraft and the ground. Periodic contact was just fine.

Now as flown for the Moon landing missions, MSFN contact was generally able to be maintained full-time, except of course when the spacecraft was on the far side of its lunar orbit. So naturally the controllers took maximum advantage of the luxury of extensive MSFN contact. But to assume that because this condition arose in practice, that it was necessary in theory, is to misunderstand a key feature of the system design.

...and to ignore the obvious point, that men's lives are at stake under such circumstances

You haven't managed to explain how MSFN failure would be fatal, in anything but vague terms.

...is to miss what it is that makes manned missions so difficult generally.

As several people have reminded you, a flaky communication network is far more hazardous to your theory of remotely-piloted missions. You have yet to address this.

You presume wrongly that skilled pilots need their hands held throughout a mission. Several examples have been cited of successful manned missions with high risk and low confidence. Pilots are not just monkeys who obey orders from the ground. In the special case of test pilots, they are highly skilled, highly creative, also qualified engineers, and generally not susceptible to panic. Those factors are what make manned missions so generally successful.

Backtracking from what? What on this earth or in the heavens might you mean by that statement?

You said autonomous operations were "iffy" when previously you had said that operations without MSFN support would be fatal.

There is a qualitative difference between constant contact and sporadic contact. If you allege that constant contact was absolutely necessary, such that failure of any ground station would be immediately hazardous (nay, fatal) to the crew, then when you relax that and say that autonomous operation is merely "iffy" (i.e., less confident, rather than exigently dangerous) then you change horses into a quantitative argument.

And if the argument becomes quantitative, then you will eventually lose. Why? Because it has been our contention all along that MSFN-less operation was not immediately hazardous, merely less confident than "with." You've essentially granted us the substance of our argument, and now you're just quibbling over numbers.

The Apollo communication system reliability wise was a flat out joke.

You're not qualified to make that judgment.

I personally do not believe that astronauts could fly those tin cans for a variety of reasons independently.

Your uninformed opinion is irrelevant.

That said, I brought up the Apollo 11 launch form the lunar surface

Asked and answered. Just because MSFN was used in that case, in an ad hoc procedure, does not prove that MSFN was required. Further, you continue to conflate the need to know the LM's approximate location on the lunar surface for navigation purposes with the unrelated desire to know the precise location of the landing site for subsequent scientific purposes.

and I'll mention now Apollo 13 in addition, to emphasize why one needs absolute confidence in the communication system 24/7.

Interesting example, since communications on Apollo 13 were sporadic for reasons having to do with the damage to the spacecraft. They lost their steerable high-gain antenna and had to rely on fixed antennas.

And MSFN ground components performed suitably during Apollo 13. That's the part you haven't figured out yet. If you postulate an Apollo 13 type accident and a simultaneous catastrophic MSFN failure, you have to multiply the PDFs together, and that ends up being a very, very small number in the statistical probability landscape of manned space operations.

Remember you still fly with non-zero probability of failure. As I said before, you and other conspiracy fanatics seem to think it's immoral to fly a mission with anything less than full assurance of safety. That's a straw-man standard.

One would never have known when talking to the astronauts would be absolutely critical.

Hence why contingencies existed in the flight plan for unexpected loss of contact, including improvised ones in the post-accident timeline for Apollo 13. Further, you haven't managed to come up with a single concrete scenario for "critical" communications that amount to anything more than an annoying delay or a marginally elevated risk. Your vague handwaving does not substantiate any critical need.

Remember what Richard Feynman said about NASA administrators...

Irrelevant to the point at hand, and discussed elsewhere anyway.

 

[Tomblvd]

I guess since Patrick1000 is taking the Smithsonian article as the ultimate truth concerning Apollo, it's only fair to point out some contradictions that arise for him in the rest of the article.

First, concerning the autopilot:

With PGNS driving, the astronauts were relieved of some of the more monotonous and labor-intensive flying duties and thus were free to monitor the instruments and observe the moonscape.

Some Patrick1000? Why isn't it "all"?

You made this statements along with others that were similar:

AND! I personally do not believe that astronauts could fly those tin cans for a variety of reasons independently.

But your blessed article says:

With those four words, the last commander of the last Apollo moon mission took over manual control of the landing of the lunar module. (P-66 was the computer program that would allow Cernan to work the controls all the way down to the lunar surface.)

Interesting. The article actually says that he landed the craft himself.

You are wrong again, using your own source.

And for a while you've been saying that loss of communication due to a failure of one of the main dishes (despite the redundancy) would lead to a "disaster". However, your own source says this:

Back in Houston, controllers monitored the descent. Had tracking data indicated that the LM was veering away from the planned landing site, they would have transmitted new coordinates for the astronauts to load into the computer. Even without Houston’s input, PGNS could compare the LM’s position to the mission flight plan programmed into its memory and issue corrective throttle and steering commands if needed.

Betrayed yet again by your source.

And finally, you may have missed this small detail, but your source states categorically that we did indeed land on the moon. Are you now calling the author and his sources liars?

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited to correct username.

 

[Laton]

Take a screen shot of the image and load it into you computer's photo software. I used iPhoto.

Straighten the image using your photo software. It took 10 degrees on my machine.

Now look at the crater and landmark pattern. You'll see that this orientation is indeed the one presented in the Apollo 10 and 11 flown maps, the 10 degree straightened out orientation. The craters of the Lunar Orbiter 5076 image can actually be superimposed on those of the Apollo flown maps, precisely so, once the Lunar Orbiter 5076 image is given 10 degrees of straightening. ...snip blather...

Normally when I have to use imagery for any kind of mapping task I have to go though at least a four or five point rectification process (usually more points id better) using a GIS that keeps the residuals below 0.0001 and accounts for differences in scale, altitude and initial datum, but hey, now I'll just do it all in a basic photo/paint program and save some time.

 

[Patrick1000]

Actually Tomblvd, I believe the ultimate truth is based on one's own research

I guess since Patrick1000 is taking the Smithsonian article as the ultimate truth concerning Apollo, it's only fair to point out some contradictions that arise for him in the rest of the article.

First, concerning the autopilot:

Some Patrick1000? Why isn't it "all"?

You made this statements along with others that were similar:

But your blessed article says:

Interesting. The article actually says that he landed the craft himself.

You are wrong again, using your own source.

And for a while you've been saying that loss of communication due to a failure of one of the main dishes (despite the redundancy) would lead to a "disaster". However, your own source says this:

Betrayed yet again by your source.

And finally, you may have missed this small detail, but your source states categorically that we did indeed land on the moon. Are you now calling the author and his sources liars?

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited to correct username.

Actually Tomblvd, I believe the ultimate truth is based on one's own research. I think references like the Smisonian article are helpful, but there is nothing like doing one's own thing under these circumstances, by that I mean in the context of Apollo history research.

I'll give you an example Tomblvd, and show you why I am so confident in what I do for myself. By that I mean, I'll prove to you yet again, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that Apollo 11 is fraudulent in an absolute sense.

Go to the reference site for the USGA Apollo 11 landing site map;

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/mapcatalog/usgs/

Download the map I previously suggested merited careful study, the 1: 25,000 I-619 composite map of Maurice J. Grolier, published in 1970. Load this map into your photo software and then straighten out the latitude and longitude lines so that they run straight up and down and straight right to left. I found that when I did this it required 12 degrees of clockwise rotation to square the latitude and longitude lines as mentioned.

Now go to the Apollo 11 image library again;

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/images11.html

Go to the Lunar Orbiter Frame 5076. This of course is an image of the landing site area in its native configuration, native orientation. Download that image, and then load it into your photo software. Once loaded, simply rotate the image 12 degrees counterclockwise.

Now compare that image with the LAM-2 flown map image that Collins allegedly took with him on the Apollo 11 flight. After you play with it for a while, comparing markings, landmarks and so forth, you will be convinced that the LAM-2 map was similarly obtained, perhaps from this very Lunar Orbiter image, or one just like it. That is, the LAM-2 image is an image rotated roughly 12 degrees counterclockwise from the image's native/accurate orientation.

Now, look at the landing ellipse drawn on the LAM-2 Apollo 11 flown map. You will note Tomblvd that the ellipse runs with its long axis east west on this map. But that should not be. It should run east west on an image with the lunar orbiter 5076 orientation. It should run east west when viewed in an unrotated image, not in an altered image such as this LAM-2 12 degrees to the counterclockwise rotated image.

Someone has cheated here and done a good job of it. This is insanely sneaky. The LAM-2 image was first rotated and THEN the ellipse was drawn in, over the 5076 equivalent 12 degree counterclockwise rotated image.

Proof positive of fraud, and we need not consult a soul at the Smithsonian or anywhere else for that matter, though I do believe the Smithsonian "bug" article was somewhat informative.

So the LAM map is fake, rotated and then labeled with an ellipse, 12 degrees counterclockwise out of proper orientation.

 

[Patrick1000]

What is wrong with my budget argument, I believe it sings....

Then would you please expend some effort toward rectifying the instances during the past week or so when you've been caught in contradictions and errors of fact?

We're still waiting for the conclusion of the discussion over the Apollo budget, for example.

What is wrong with my budget argument, I believe it sings...., and indeed sings well. An amazing finding really. Kind of like the Apollo 12 lightening thing. Sitting there under our noses and no one paying attention Jay. It is a rock solid argument, one third of a federal budget over 11 years. I am not backing away from that claim. It is bullet proof.

 

[Patrick1000]

Actually abaddon, the LAM-2 rotation ploy is huge

Nope.



OK


So you don't now how to use professional tools, but can only use amateur ones?


Sigh, you are still wrong.


Professionals have. They are right, you are wrong.

No

Edited by LashL: 

Moderated thread.

Actually abaddon, the LAM-2 rotation ploy is huge. Way over the top significant. Indeed it may be the single most significant finding in all of Apollo history to date because it is concrete, substantive, easily verified and flat out bona fide demonstration of Apollo 11 fraudulance.

The ONLY way to explain the images, the map griddings, and how the Apollo 11 landing ellipse appears in the context of the map and gridding is to view the situation as one in which the map was rotated and then the ellipse was drawn in.

BUT, the ellipse runs with its long axis east/west, horizontal, parallel with the equator, only in the unrotated native orientation of the raw landing site images so referenced. Hence, the map is fraudulent. An east west running ellipse drawn in after the image of the landing site was rotated 10 to 12 degrees counterclockwise. It should be east/west BEFORE the rotation.

Proof positive of fraud abaddon, as simple as that. There are no experts to appeal to here.

Party is over.

 

[CptColumbo]

Who says these unmanned missions are of higher technical complexity?

Part of the complexity of an unmanned mission is the time it takes for transmissions to reach Earth and a response to be sent back. If a unmanned vessel encountered a rock terrain, as Apollo 11 did, it would be and correct me if I'm wrong approximately 3 seconds (1.5 seconds for a radio to reach Earth and return) for the technicians to find out and for their instructions to reach the unmanned vessel. An eternity if quick decisions and manuevers are needed.

 

[Patrick1000]

Apollo and Geodesy/Geodetics of the 1950s and 1960s

For those interested in the history of Geodesy/Geodetics and its impact on Apollo, not to mention vice versa, I just finished reading a book that was so interesting and relevant. I just couldn't wait to pass along what I had learned. There will be much more to say with regard to conclusions one may draw from the facts as presented in this work, but I may as well dig in and start now. Say at least a few things.

The book is entitled , "CONTEMPORARY GEODESY". It is more a monograph than a book per se. The monograph published in 1959 is a report on the proceedings held at the Harvard College Observatory, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory December 1 and 2, 1958. I'll mention just two of the papers given at the conferences and save my reporting on the others for a rainy day.

At the historic conference, A.B. Mickelwait presented his work/views on ROCKETRY. Mickelwait was a rocketry pioneer, and played a key role in the development and management of the Interplanetary Pioneer Spacecraft. Mickelwait gave an overview of some aspects of the art and science of rocketry at the time. In the late 50s and early 60s, some argued that rockets might have applications in the science of geodesy. Mickelwait argued quite the contrary in his conference paper/talk.

Mickelwait used as an example of why rocketry and geodesy were an unlikely match, a hypothetical targeting of the South Pacific Piticarin Island by a missile launched from a site on the western coast of the United States. Mickelwait pointed out that to "land" the rocket to within one mile of its hoped for target, one would have to control the velocity vector to within one foot per second. A rather difficult, if not impossible(at the time), thing to do according to the esteemed speaker. The gravitational mass of the earth at the time was "known" according to Mickelwait to within five parts per million. According to him, this uncertainty in the earth's gravitational mass would lead to an uncertainty in targeting of 800 feet. BUT, this does not take into account gravitational anomalies along the trajectory of the hypothetical rocket traveling from the US west coast to Piticarin. Mickelwait showed how the anomalous gravitational considerations could be represented as a harmonic series and that these considerations would lead to additional uncertainties and inaccuracies in rocket/missile targeting. Gravitational anomalies and geoidal height uncertainties were viewed by Mickelwait as leading to targeting uncertainties of one half to three-quarters of a mile. He went on to point out how the atmospheric effect was significant and was variable, ever changing. Wind and atmospheric density concerns might lead to alterations in the trajectory end result of MILES!

Mickelwait's conclusion; rockets, missiles, projectiles that go up and come back down, things like ICBMs, are unlikely to be relevant in geodesy because they are so very inaccurate. Such was the state of the art in 1959.

So people working not on geodesy per se, but the military targeting of rockets, would need to do some geodesy/geodetics, and in so doing hopefully solve these many problems; missile velocity control, determination of the earth's mass more accurately, determination of the earth's gravitational anomalies over any given flight course, atmospheric monitoring(wind and air density to begin with) and the development of a strategy to alter variable targeting parameters depending on changes in atmospheric conditions.

A second paper, "ELLIPSOID PARAMETERS FROM SATELLITE DATA" was presented by John a O'Keefe of NASA and his aerospace administration colleagues Roman, Yaplee, and Eckels. O'keefe hardly needs an introduction. He is known to us all as a key NASA player in the lunar program. He discovered that the earth was pear shaped by way of analyzing the Vanguard Satellite Data. He was the one responsible for getting NASA to hire the world class geologist Eugene Shoemaker for the Apollo Program and on and on and on…….O'keefe begins his presentation by pointing out that his colleagues Roman and Yaplee were working on methods to measure the earth-moon distance. Using radar pulses at 10 cm and measuring the timing of their echo return gave a measured earth-moon distance which the authors then compared with a simple astronomical calculation. O'keefe emphasized that measuring the earth-moon distance was somewhat surprisingly, the very best way to determine the earth's mass. And now recall how an accurate measurement of the mass of the earth was needed to accurately target rockets per Mickelwait.

Of course an LRRR can help with much of this geodesy and geodetics, especially when one envisions geodesy being done, and geodetic data being collected, by way of a system of earth orbiting satellites including one, perhaps a master satellite, an instrumented moon, orbiting at 240,000 miles away, directing, watching even the satellites from "above", untouchable.

 

[JayUtah]

What is wrong with my budget argument[?]

The fact that it's blatantly off by an order of magnitude and that you've made no attempt whatsoever to reconcile it with the actual expenditures. Or even to acknowledge that any contrary evidence was ever presented.

It is a rock solid argument, one third of a federal budget over 11 years. I am not backing away from that claim. It is bullet proof.

Except for your basic arithmetic mistake. Please -- by all means stick to that argument. That should pretty much divest you of any shred of credibility you might have believed you had.

 

[JayUtah]

Actually Tomblvd, I believe the ultimate truth is based on one's own research. I think references like the Smisonian article are helpful, but there is nothing like doing one's own thing under these circumstances, by that I mean in the context of Apollo history research.

I'll give you an example Tomblvd, and show you why I am so confident in what I do for myself.

Whereupon you change the subject entirely.

You are quite obviously wrong regarding the LM autopilot, and this has been shown to you not only by explicit "black and white" statements from your own chosen (single) source, but also from the primary source materials which you chose not to research, or even to acknowledge when researched by someone else for you.

The LM was most certainly not capable of landing without a pilot on board, and this completely undermines your claim than an off-the-shelf LM could have been used to land military equipment on the Moon as you claim. You now have no basis for claiming that Tom Kelly's crew could have been kept in the dark regarding the "real" use of the LM.

 

[Tomblvd]

Actually Tomblvd, I believe the ultimate truth is based on one's own research. I think references like the Smisonian article are helpful, but there is nothing like doing one's own thing under these circumstances, by that I mean in the context of Apollo history research.

Oh the irony.

Jay's been using the real references to demonstrate how wrong you are about the autopilot, yet you continued to go back to it, giving it "absolute authority" status, until the rug was pulled out from under you.

But please, let's see some of your "own research" concerning the Apollo autopilot.

I'll give you an example Tomblvd, and show you why I am so confident in what I do for myself. By that I mean, I'll prove to you yet again, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that Apollo 11 is fraudulent in an absolute sense.

That has absolutely NOTHING to do with our discussion. I realize that you would like to change the subject, but it won't work. We're sticking to the autopilot.

Get researching...