Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[PhantomWolf]

Think about it. The Apollo guidance computers align their platforms by way of star sightings. I believe Worden said 37 stars. What happens when they go to the dark side? The computer becomes disoriented, lost. It cannot find Rigel among 50,000 bright neighbors.

Just to get something straight... You think that the AGC was taking star readings all the time so as to know where it was and if it couldn't do that then it would become lost? Is that correct?

 

[Loss Leader]

He was not in space at all Loss Leader, and so is very much lying.....

So you've completely missed my point. You cannot judge the truth value of an argument by internal reference to the argument. You must have external knowledge.

1, If and only if Tom goes to the mall, Jane will go meet him.
2. Tom goes to the mall.
3. Thus, Jane met him.

Is it true that Jane met him? We'd have to know if statement 2 was true. The argument gives us no hints. We'd have to go to the mall and gather external information by looking for Tom.

Think about it. The Apollo guidance computers align their platforms by way of star sightings. I believe Worden said 37 stars. What happens when they go to the dark side? The computer becomes disoriented, lost. It cannot find Rigel among 50,000 bright neighbors.

You are completely wrong about every aspect of the workings of the navigation on the Apollo missions. There were multiple systems in place. The primary system for staying on course while out of contact with earth was the inertial system powered by the gyroscope. Also, I don't think any computer "found" any star in the early 1970s. I think the astronaut had to use the sextant and enter the star's location manually.

And this all ignores the main way the Apollo craft navigated - they got constant updates from NASA which had no problem seeing the stars.

I haven\t done the research, but it doesn't even seem to me that anyone should try to navigate while going around the far side of the moon. The last time NASA saw you, they knew your orbit and speed. They'd know just where to look for you to reappear. Why would you fire a rocket and mess with that?Just come out of your radio blackout to a fresh team of geeks ready to tell you where you are and what buttons to press to get back to wherever you\re supposed to be.

THIS!!!!!!!!! Is the main reason they deny stars. A hypothetical PNGS can only work in an uncluttered sky. So they feign blindness, paucity of stars.

But you just said that this astronaut stated there were too many stars. So, some astronauts are lying during their lies but this one has told the truth? Even though this flies in the face of your theory that they were all coached to lie about seeing too few stars?

Your argument lacks logic. Your evidence cannot, by definition, tell us whether your conclusion is true.



ETA: This document appears to my untrained eye to show that no navigational maneuvers were made while the Apollo 15 command module was circling the moon except for preplanned insertions. So there was no need to use the sextant to take star readings while on the far side of the moon.

 

[frenat]

He was not in space at all Loss Leader, and so is very much lying.....

Think about it. The Apollo guidance computers align their platforms by way of star sightings. I believe Worden said 37 stars. What happens when they go to the dark side? The computer becomes disoriented, lost. It cannot find Rigel among 50,000 bright neighbors.

This is the most significant development in the history of Apollo fraud research.

How is it possible for the guidance computer/astronauts to find the stars among so many? They cannot.


THIS!!!!!!!!! Is the main reason they deny stars. A hypothetical PNGS can only work in an uncluttered sky. So they feign blindness, paucity of stars.

This is the revelation as regards star phobia we have all been looking for.

Apollo is fraudulent front to back, Worden is lying, because the computer is not "good enough" to spot 37 stars among thousands and thousands. And they have to be able to sight stars EVERYWHERE, even on the dark side and perhaps especially on the dark side, after LOS.

This is a HUGE find.

Thanks to my dear friend for supplying the Worden clue. The analysis however is all MINE.

Prove it. Prove they couldn't find the stars among so many. I'll bet you can't.

 

[frenat]

Also, I don't think any computer "found" any star in the early 1970s. I think the astronaut had to use the sextant and enter the star's location manually.

The astro-inertial navigation system on the SR-71 (operational in 1964) worked by locating stars by their infrared signatures. It could work day or night. But I think you're correct. The astronauts on Apollo did the locations manually.

 

[JayUtah]

He was not in space at all Loss Leader, and so is very much lying.

Was he lying about being in space? Or was he lying about the visibility of stars as seen from the far side of the Moon, which would be relevant only if he had been in space? You really don't think these things through, do you? And this is not the first time you've made a claim that was inherently a contradiction.

Think about it.

I have, many times. And unlike you, I am qualified to do so.

The Apollo guidance computers align their platforms by way of star sightings.

No. The Apollo command module pilot aligns the platform by way of manual star sightings through the sextant. There is no procedure to automatically align the platform, and there is no visual input from the sextant to the computer.

Your error is especially egregious considering I gave you the procedure just a few pages ago:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7730954#post7730954

Either you're not reading the responses to your arguments, or you simply don't care.

The computer becomes disoriented, lost.

No. The platform is the spacecraft's orientation reference, not the stars. Platform realignment is necessary only when and if the platform drifts more than a fraction of a degree from the true alignment. That occurs at most once a day. Only then do you need to see at least two of the reference stars.

It cannot find Rigel among 50,000 bright neighbors.

The computer does not look for stars.

This is the most significant development in the history of Apollo fraud research.

Don't injure yourself patting yourself on the back so vigorously. You say this about every silly theory you come up with. It grows tedious.

This is a HUGE find.

Yes, you've found yet another way to be colossally, mind-bogglingly wrong about Apollo. Kids know more about Apollo than you do. I think it's hilarious, especially since I handed the information to you on a silver platter. You have no excuse for not knowing how the AGC platform alignment procedure actually worked.

The analysis however is all MINE.

Please by all means keep taking credit for it. Please tell as many people as possible that you think the Apollo computer itself sighted the stars. You deserve all the credit for that claim.

Seriously, yours is as stupid an error as someone claiming to be an expert anatomist pointing to a liver and calling it a lung. No exaggeration.

 

[Laton]

Also an orbit of the Moon for the Apollo CM took what, around two hours? So at the most they would have been out of contact or unable to refine their position for a whole hour!!!

 

[nomuse]

Posting late after a very long workday, but I seem to have a memory of there being a far-side maneuver or two.

But Patrick is ignoring several things here. In a general scale of "oops," first there is that we aren't talking about strolling around under the night sky, looking around and saying "Hey, there's Betelgeuse." We're talking about working within the field of vision of the star-sighting scope and trying to lock it in on a specific lower-magnitude star.

Next, star sightings are not used to find the spacecraft's POSITION. They are used to find its ORIENTATION.

Next in rank, this is a spacecraft. Which is to say, an inertial object. It isn't going to fly off the rails in 30 minutes. As far as NASA or the onboard computers are concerned, the spacecraft will be more-or-less where they left it (or, rather, along the orbital track it was on when they last established position and orientation -- or tumble.) It isn't necessary to have moment-by-moment confirmation of orientation or position in order to have a pretty good idea of what those states are.

Following that in rank, there are multiple ways to determine the position. And various converging ways are used. This is the same as the radio lapse argument -- radio fixes are used when there is a radio line-of-sight. When there isn't one, the spacecraft doesn't explode. It just places more emphasis on the remaining methods. Same for star sightings, which required fairly specific conditions in order for them to be taken.

And greatest in the ranking here, is the question of why. As other posters have pointed out, it makes no sense to make up a technical situation as part of your mock mission and then make up a (as seen by Patrick) implausible reason WHY IT COULDN'T BE CARRIED OUT.

This is a bit like NASA sticking in a press release that it was necessary to rotate a pair of keys simultaneously in order to launch the spacecraft, then an astronaut admitting in a press conference he was unable to turn both switches BECAUSE HE ONLY HAD ONE ARM.

Not only is the conspiracy being idiots to present the problem in the first place, not only is the "flaw" they also cheerfully admit one that is completely implausible, but the only logical inference is that the spacecraft never flew in the first place!



For my part, I find it difficult to believe in a conspiracy that would do something this dumb. I find it, in addition, quite IMPOSSIBLE that a conspiracy rife with such errors could have ever gone undetected this long.

 

[CptColumbo]

The astro-inertial navigation system on the SR-71 (operational in 1964) worked by locating stars by their infrared signatures. It could work day or night. But I think you're correct. The astronauts on Apollo did the locations manually.

IIRC it was both. With the observations of the Astronauts being used as back-up for the compter sightings.

 

[Multivac]

The astro-inertial navigation system on the SR-71 (operational in 1964) worked by locating stars by their infrared signatures. It could work day or night. But I think you're correct. The astronauts on Apollo did the locations manually.

Exactly. Michael Collins describes the process in Carrying the Fire, which Patrick claims to have read.

 

[sts60]

...there are multiple ways to determine the position. And various converging ways are used...

A fact which Patrick1000/fattydash denied over on apollohoax, before changing his story completely and then arguing that the various methods contradicted each other (rather than all agreeing to each other within a few n. mi., which is actually the case and just what anyone familiar with the topic would expect).

Therefore, by his own logic, Patrick1000/fattydash's arguments are wrong; his ...narrative is inconsistent, internally incoherent and therefore necessarily untrue.

There is actually no need to disprove him by pointing out his many embarrassing errors, general innumeracy (of the self-proclaimed "mathematician"), or his failure to support any of his bald assertions with any evidence. He debunked himself months ago.

 

[Patrick1000]

You may not get lost Jack by the hedge, but as regards the Apollo astronauts.....

I've had that experience too. Having learned my way around the constellations as a kid, the first time I found myself out in a desert at night I was lost in an ocean of stars. It took me quite a while to come to terms with the new task of finding the principal stars when there were so many unfamiliar low magnitude stars distracting me.

And I'm not lying either.

I realize you are a man of your word Jack by the hedge but.....it is now all too obvious however my friend that the Apollo astronauts lack your impeccable integrity.

Think about it Jack by the hedge, how would they find their navigational stars when hypothetically traversing a space not illuminated by the sun? How would the astronauts and the CM PNGS, LM PNGS manage to realign their platforms by way of star sightings if the key stars were "lost" amidst a swarm of bright dots?

Rigel is ONLY known by way of its orientation with respect to fellow stars. This is all lost, a sense of relative position, one star to the next, in the case of Apollo ships working in "dark" environments, and they did work in dark environments. Just ask "Mr. Whoops!!!!! Did I Ever Botch That One" Al Worden.

Keep in mind Jack by the hedge, a contingency of going to the moon would be that the astronauts be able to align the platforms of the CM and LM from ANY! position, ANY! time, light side , dark side, regardless of star count. They would not be allowed to go if they could not. AND! since they could not, they NEVER WENT!

With the help of a friend who turned me on to the Worden video, but did not realize its full implications, I have stumbled upon a FACT, truly startling in its implications. The Apollo guidance computers could not dependably guide, because Jack by the hedge, they were in no position to be able to dependably realign the inertial platforms in all situations that might be reasonably anticipated. If the platform drifts away and realignment was necessary while the ship was riding through the star encrusted dark, well the appropriate KEY NAVIGATIONAL STARS could/would never be discerned.

The computer was alleged to have "known" Rigel in the sense that Rigel's position was unique with respect to 36 other unique stars. But throw another 3,000 stars into the mix and BOOM!, things sure ain't unique. That underpowered computer ain't looking so smart after all now is it?

Ironically, for the hypothetical AGC to function with respect to this issue, a PAUCITY OF STARS was a requirement. To navigate through space, a real AGC would need to travel through a more or less STARLESS SKY. You'd need to pretend there were only a few stars, and so they did.

An awful lot of nonsense makes sense now, does it not???????

This explains why Mercury and Gemini astronauts like their Apollo counter parts to come after intoned the NASA mantra, "NO STARS, NO STARS, NO STARS, NO STARS, NO STARS, NO STARS, NO STARS, NO STARS, NO STARS, NO STARS, NO STARS, NO STARS, NO STARS, NO STARS, NO STARS, NO STARS". Imagine if a reasonably thoughtful reporter innocently asked at a press conference;

"I remember the Mercury and Gemini astronauts going on and on saying how there were jillions of stars up there in space when they went round the back side. How is it that the computer/astronaut can pick out the key 37 Navigational Stars? Up there in space, the stars' identity is determined simply and ONLY based on its relation to other stars. One could imagine many combinations, other solutions, false solutions for star sightings the astronauts and computer would be tricked into. That geometric identity of those critical 37 could not be dependably determined now could it?"

And of course the answer is a resounding NO NO NO it most certainly could not. Just ask "Mr. Whoops!!!!! Did I Ever Botch That One" once astronaut and soon to be pariah Al Worden.

Apollo is fraudulent, from front to back Jack by the hedge………

 

[Patrick1000]

No of course not.......

Just to get something straight... You think that the AGC was taking star readings all the time so as to know where it was and if it couldn't do that then it would become lost? Is that correct?

No of course not.......

The AGC has a vocabulary of 37 stars, the astronauts better still, but just a bit, not much better.

When they align the platform, the astronaut(s) must sight the critical navigational stars. They were alleged to have sighted one or more among the collection of 37. Now, astronaut and soon to be pariah, Al Worden himself, said under dark side conditions, he could not identify a single one of the 37 critical stars, its being lost amongst the myriad possibilities.

If Worden could not FIND "Rigel", nor find any of the other 36 critical navigational stars, as he himself most clearly and unambiguously stated in the video referenced above, then he could NOT SIGHT "Rigel", or whatever other star they theoretically would have cared to have had him sight. AND, if he could not have sighted "Rigel", or any of the other stars under a dark side contingency, then this is a phony and most fraudulent trip.

AND, Worden himself now admits, gave clear testimony in the interview, that he most decidedly could not recognize ANY of the critical 37 navigational stars, and so therefore he could not not have sighted any of the 37 critical navigational stars to realign the platform under dark side conditions, and therefore not navigate(align the platform) by way of the stars under all reasonably anticipated contingencies. And SO! one may state with unmitigated confidence, the whole Apollo kit and caboodle is a most bogus fake and phony kit and caboodle.

 

[Patrick1000]

Regardless of back ups......

A fact which Patrick1000/fattydash denied over on apollohoax, before changing his story completely and then arguing that the various methods contradicted each other (rather than all agreeing to each other within a few n. mi., which is actually the case and just what anyone familiar with the topic would expect).

Therefore, by his own logic, Patrick1000/fattydash's arguments are wrong; his ...narrative is inconsistent, internally incoherent and therefore necessarily untrue.

There is actually no need to disprove him by pointing out his many embarrassing errors, general innumeracy (of the self-proclaimed "mathematician"), or his failure to support any of his bald assertions with any evidence. He debunked himself months ago.

Regardless of back ups......They MUST! be able to fly the birds manually, fly them without help from the ground. Otherwise, they don't go period, and they didn't go of course as one now well knows. This is so because contact can be lost with ground support for a variety of reasons.

Worden clearly stated that he could not find the stars, as such, he could not navigate.

This party is over my friends.

Want to blame anybody, blame Worden and his big fat stupid mouth.

Those of us on this side are gloating. The party has just begun!

 

[Patrick1000]

You are hardly telling any of us anything here new........

From http://www.lufthansa-technik.com/applications/portal/lhtportal/lhtportal.portal?requestednode=415&_pageLabel=Template5_6&_nfpb=true&webcacheURL=TV_I/Media-Relations-new/Background---Specials/In-Focus/Aircraft-operations/Lightning_Strike_US.xml
In such a case, the airplane acts like a lightning rod. Its metal structure provides the lowest resistance for the electrical discharge on its way between the clouds and the ground. It is not uncommon that the airplane is thereby struck by a complete series of discharges, mostly between three and five, in exceptional cases up to 25. Since an airplane in flight has no form of grounding, the lightning first enters the structure and leaves it again a split second later. The principle behind this occurrence is known by most people from physics lessons in school. The airframe acts as a so called “Faraday cage–. Like an automobile body the aluminium structure, when struck by a lightning, passes the electric energy around the interior and keeps the passengers safe. The crucial technical equipment is thereby also kept safe from the high voltage and the aircraft can, in most cases, proceed normally with its flight. But to play it safe every lightning strike is documented by the cockpit crew and the aircraft is treated with a special inspection routine on its next check. Lightning strike inspections like these are regularly carried out at Lufthansa Technik.

Why don't they state that they'll land the aircraft immediately Patrick?
Why do they say that in most cases the aircraft can proceed normally with its flight?

You are hardly telling any of us anything here new........mercatormac,

All reading this thread are aware of the relative commonality as regards lightning strikes on airplanes. the point is modern planes are DESIGNED TO "TOLERATE" strikes because they are launched into atmospheric conditions where strikes are anticipated, infrequently, but anticipated nevertheless.

The Apollo 12 Craft was NOT! built with a lightning strike contingency in mind as are modern planes. So when the Apollo 12 was allegedly hit by lightning, what is surprising is NOT that the narrative features the ship surviving the strike, that is believable, but rather, allowing it to "continue on to the moon". That feature of the narrative is flat out preposterous.

As pointed out, when the Irish plane was struck by lightning just after take off recently en route to Manchester, it was ordered back down as one would expect. Sure the plane is designed to take a hit, but one wouldn't be reckless as an air safety administrator and not have as a contingency that these planes return, land ASAP/as soon as possible for safety's sake. This was the case with the Irish plane. Back down it came, IN 2011!!!

In 1967 a plane hit by lightning exploded. It is not a coincidence that this does NOT happen nowadays. Planes are engineered better, including being engineered to handle lightning strikes "effectively".

Such was not the case with Apollo 12. Anyone in their right mind would have the boys come down right away.

They did not come down. This whole dang thing is big time fake.

 

[Loss Leader]

How would the astronauts and the CM PNGS, LM PNGS manage to realign their platforms by way of star sightings if the key stars were "lost" amidst a swarm of bright dots?

Try not to forget that NASA regularly sent the ships corrections for the PNGS systems. NASA had a far superior ability to do the calculations on the ground. The entire moon program was designed with the intention of updating the ships from the very beginning.

Rigel is ONLY known by way of its orientation with respect to fellow stars. This is all lost, a sense of relative position, one star to the next, in the case of Apollo ships working in "dark" environments, and they did work in dark environments. Just ask "Mr. Whoops!!!!! Did I Ever Botch That One" Al Worden.

Since you believe entirely robotic ships actually made trips to the moon, deposited experiments and took samples, one is given to wonder how you think those ROBOTS were able to guide themselves in a way that robots plus people couldn't.

"I remember the Mercury and Gemini astronauts going on and on saying how there were jillions of stars up there in space when they went round the back side. How is it that the computer/astronaut can pick out the key 37 Navigational Stars? Up there in space, the stars' identity is determined simply and ONLY based on its relation to other stars. One could imagine many combinations, other solutions, false solutions for star sightings the astronauts and computer would be tricked into. That geometric identity of those critical 37 could not be dependably determined now could it?"

"Hey, man. We have not one but two computers on board. It's 1969. Do you have a computer? Didn't think so. Well, we've got computers. And they were built at MIT. Did you go to MIT? Didn't think so. Computers can do everything and, even if they can't, you don't know that because IT'S FORTY-TWO YEARS AGO."

 

[JayUtah]

All reading this thread are aware of the relative commonality as regards lightning strikes on airplanes.

But not the expected outcome. You asserted that a plane struck by lightning must land. You were wrong.

So when the Apollo 12 was allegedly hit by lightning, what is surprising is [...] allowing it to "continue on to the moon". That feature of the narrative is flat out preposterous.

Begging the question. The specific rationale has been laid out to you three times by me and as many times by others. You fail to address the specific rationale and continue to beg the question.

As pointed out, when the Irish plane was struck by lightning...

Irrelevant analogy.

...it was ordered back down

Factually incorrect.

...as one would expect.

Asked and answered.

Anyone in their right mind...

Begging the question. You are not qualified to make a risk assessment in commercial passenger aviation, nor to impose that assessment on anyone else.

...would have the boys come down right away.

Asked and answered. You will not address the specific rationale.

 

[JayUtah]

How would the astronauts and the CM PNGS, LM PNGS manage to realign their platforms

How often do you think that's necessary?

Rigel is ONLY known by way of its orientation with respect to fellow stars.

Hogwash. Rigel is identified by its location on the celestial sphere in right-ascension and declination coordinates. That is true regardless of what else might or might not be up there in other places.

It may be difficult at times for a human to orient himself, but that's a separate question.

Keep in mind Jack by the hedge, a contingency of going to the moon would be that the astronauts be able to align the platforms of the CM and LM from ANY! position, ANY! time

No. That is you trying to shift the goalposts by adding a new "requirement." It is not necessary that the Apollo ships be able to perform a platform alignment at any given instant.

If the platform drifts away and realignment was necessary while the ship was riding through the star encrusted dark...

No. It doesn't drift that fast.

The computer was alleged to have "known" Rigel in the sense that Rigel's position was unique with respect to 36 other unique stars.

No. The computer simply has the right ascension and declination of the reference stars in a table. For each reference star, a simple linear algebra formula converts those into angles relative to the present platform position, and therefore into DAP set points for sextant operation. The computer did not have to recognize the reference stars or locate any star by means of its relationship to its neighbors. It simply had to rotate the spacecraft to a given position.

That underpowered computer ain't looking so smart after all now is it?

The computer's only task in platform realignment was to load a new attitude vector into the DAP and then perform a single matrix multiplication when the MARK command was given. There were no time constraints.

What are your qualifications -- in terms of adjudicated education and professional experience -- in embedded-systems computer science and digital guidance? Oh, right -- none.

Ironically, for the hypothetical AGC to function with respect to this issue, a PAUCITY OF STARS was a requirement.

No. Star sighting was a purely human activity. The capacity of the AGC is irrelevant to that. Star sighting ability may vary from individual pilot to pilot.

Just ask "Mr. Whoops!!!!! Did I Ever Botch That One" Al Worden.

...intoned the NASA mantra, "NO STARS, NO STARS, NO STARS, NO STARS, NO STARS, NO STARS, NO STARS, NO STARS, NO STARS, NO STARS, NO STARS, NO STARS, NO STARS, NO STARS, NO STARS, NO STARS".

Are you a child?

One could imagine many combinations, other solutions, false solutions for star sightings the astronauts and computer would be tricked into.

Yes, hence the third check star in the alignment procedure.

I notice that initially you said the computer had to recognize the star. You were told that was wrong, and that only the human pilot sights stars, but now you're trying to argue some hybrid solution, that "both" the computer and the pilot could be fooled by uncertain star sightings.

Why is that, Patrick? Are you trying to back away slowly from what you've realized is another fatal error in your pretense to superior understanding?

You were wrong. Be a man and admit it. When you try to sneak in corrections like that, that's how we know you're not debating honestly.

 

[JayUtah]

Try not to forget that NASA regularly sent the ships corrections for the PNGS systems.

Keep in mind that there are two kinds of navigational data that interest us. The state vector (position and velocity of the spacecraft) can be updated by MSFN or computed using onboard sources. Experience shows that ground methods are generally more accurate.

Spacecraft orientation cannot be determined by or from the ground. It is strictly an onboard activity. The IMU stable member is placed in different orientations in the space-fixed reference frame for different phases of the mission. The spacecraft orientation is reckoned as the resolution of the Euler angles implied by the gimbal angles in the IMU.

Even the best rotational gyros drift slightly. The platform realignment procedure simply determines a new reference matrix based on the platform's drifted orientation. In the worst case, should the platform tumble, then the crew simply switches over to the SCS navigation system. PGNS isn't the only game in town. The SCS uses strap-down gyros, which don't drift. In the docked configuration, the LM's IMU can be used to perform a coarse realignment of the AGC primary system without having to do any sighting. Further, the CM can also align its platform using ground references if it is in orbit, which is the case in Patrick's scenario.

But there is no way the MSFN can provide a useful orientation reference to the spacecraft. The crew must do it using the resources at hand.

Since you believe entirely robotic ships actually made trips to the moon

This is important. Patrick not only believes the spacecraft were robotic and/or remotely controlled, he also believes this was done without any modifications to the designs we now consider authoritative. That is, he contends that the LM as designed by Tom Kelly and the CM as designed by Max Faget were capable of carrying out his purported military missions. He claims this rather than have to say that the contractors were in on the alleged hoax.

Elsewhere I have shown that the LGC provides a high degree of automation in the landing, but does not actually land the spacecraft on its own. A human pilot is required.

Here again only a human pilot can perform an optical IMU alignment. And Patrick doesn't seem to understand this yet.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Think about it Jack by the hedge, how would they find their navigational stars when hypothetically traversing a space not illuminated by the sun? How would the astronauts and the CM PNGS, LM PNGS manage to realign their platforms by way of star sightings if the key stars were "lost" amidst a swarm of bright dots?

I have thought about it, Patrick. Moreover, I have done it. So I know that they would take their time, and attune themselves to the new task of methodically picking out the higher magnitude stars among the field of newly visible low magnitude ones.

Just because you can't do the job at a glance doesn't mean you can't do the job at all. Been there, done that. Hope that solves your puzzle.

 

[Garrison]

Such was not the case with Apollo 12. Anyone in their right mind would have the boys come down right away.

They did not come down. This whole dang thing is big time fake.

It's been explained repeatedly why that was not in practice the most reasonable option, why do you continue to assert your personal disbelief is superior to those facts?