Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Patrick1000]

Jay, relax for a minute.....

Stundie.



"The relevance in studying apples in order to learn about oranges is more than obvious."

No, Patrick. These are two special-purpose systems designed for two considerably different applications. You don't get to say that one is invalid simply because it isn't like the other.



And the rebuttal to that point is that ANS and PGNS are solving entirely different problems. Just because each machine had an inertial component and an optical component doesn't mean you should consider them putatively equivalent.



Correct, which is one of the reasons the SR-71 system is allowed to attempt to track stars automatically: it has more information to work with than Apollo.

Airplane guidance is about terrestrial latitude and longitude. Position in two conceptual dimensions, not orientation in three. The ANS system is fed information about its orientation from other sources, including the inertial component of the guidance system, and from sources such as gravitational roll indicators and gyroscopic and magnetic compasses that simply have no analogue in space flight.



You mean attitude. You still haven't figured out even the elementary concepts in celestial navigation. You made this mistake back at Apollohoax, and you're still making it.

You haven't grasped that the SR-71 and the Apollo applications are solving entirely different problems.



No.



And because of the difference in the essential nature of the problem, and the constraints in the system, that task is very much easier for ANS to attempt automatically. However, it is not guaranteed to succeed. And if it does not succeed, the mission may be aborted because the ANS is a critical system while the PGNS is not.



No, the SR-71 does not determine star identity based on an analysis of constellations or nearby stars or any other formulation of the overall picture of the sky.

Its star catalog is formulated identically to that of Apollo, with right ascension and declination. Based on various cues, the automatic system looks for a star in the computed position. But in the case of the SR-71 if no star is found, and if that failure continues for the entire star catalog, the system simply gives up. There is no manual means to calibrate the star tracker, nor any fallback except inertial-only navigation.

In the Apollo case, the pilot may employ several secondary means to remediate the sextant/AGC situation. On the one hand he has the duty to sight the stars manually. On the other hand he has the ability to sight the stars manually.



No, that is your misrepresentation.



No, that does not affect navigation.



Correct. There was no way for the SR-71's RSO to help ANS. It either managed to obtain a star lock or it did not. If the stellar navigation component of the system did not function, the airplane required the inertial navigation system to work. If that failed, the SR-71 mission was aborted (Graham, op. cit., p. 67). In contrast, the Apollo system was designed so that its inertial reference was not always needed and could be powered down.

It hasn't dawned on you yet that the SR-71's star tracker only works if the inertial system is also working within a certain tolerance. Hence you haven't realized that it's actually a more brittle system.



Name the three stars within 1.6 degrees of arc of Rigel that have comparable apparent magnitude to it.



No. The trained engineer sees two systems engineered for two very different applications and given two very different levels of criticality in the overall system and mission plan. You provide no basis for assuming they should employ identical principles at all levels of scrutiny.

Yet another straw man.



No. You grossly misrepresent and exaggerate the factors that apply to the Apollo guidance procedure.



Nope. The Apollo system allows for the pilot to creatively solve guidance problems, removes the critical reliance on the primary navigation system, and provides a number of fallbacks not considered in the SR-71. The ANS instead is a critical, brittle black box. It either works or it doesn't.



Appeal all you want to "metaphysical certainty." I'll continue to rely on my engineering training and expertise.

Jay, relax for a minute.....It's a joke, "approximating rigor", get it? It was supposed to be funny. Do you have a gear other than "hard charging"? If nothing else, I have a ton of respect for you, your work ethic, very impressive I must say. Why don't you come on over and work for "our side", what ultimately can only prove to be when all is said and done, the demonstrators of Apollo fraudulence winning side? Anyhoo Jay, back to the facts.....


The problem with AGC system is that the "available stars", those seen at any given time, are not constant/consistent/predictable in their appearing in the scope fields, anything but. The astronauts must decide in such scenarios as to which star is which. According to your buddy Al Worden, he could not decide which star was which when there supposedly were "too many" there on the unlit dark side, and in those cases where there was said to have been a paucity of stars, most of the time per the transcripts and so forth, one couldn't and wouldn't be able to tell, no way Jay, whether a star was the real deal, one of the 37 navigational stars, or something else altogether. None of this is real of course. What I am doing here is deconstructing a ridiculous narrative, nothing more, nothing less.

That reminds me; many of the other posters state time and again that I demonstrate a genuine BELIEF in Apollo by virtue of my arguing its points in such a way it would seem that I more than assume said events took place. To clarify, it is a narrative, a story, pretend, make believe, the manned landing part/aspect that is. They launch stuff and park it on the moon, and at this time, I am presuming also that they parked stuff in the stable/Trojan libration/Lagarngian points. At any rate, hopefully responding here directly will clarify. I very much do not assume it to be the case that Michael Collins actually sighted stars in cislunar space, He told a "story"(lie) about having done this, and it is very much a FICTIONAL account. This is true as regards my take on everything else dealing with the manned aspect of the Apollo Program, it is theater, and not very good theater at that. Think of me as a sort of complex movie/theater critic, but my focus is almost exclusively on plot plausibility and thespian performance, thespian credibility/believability, credibility/believability in a quite literal sense.

Anyway, this is flat out historic Jay, really is, my discovery of the AGC's non-functionality, the flat out, unmitigated metaphysical certainty of the platform alignment protocol bogusness. All of my friends are talking about it, and it is getting great exposure on some of the other underground threads, Dang cool if I do say so myself.....

Mark my words Jay, you shall recall this day as a turning point in your storied life and career, not kidding, I really believe so, I am that confident. Perhaps you're aquiring, somewhat retrospectively, but one way or the other, you shall look back upon my self referential expose', GODEL RUSSELL AND ARMSTRONG, A GEDANKENEXPERIMENT NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART, as nothing less than downright epically sensational.

I still cannot believe you buy into that lightning nonsense, LIGHTNING Jay? Really? It is beyond laughable.....

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The problem with AGC system is...

<nonsense discarded>

...

Everyone else understands that there is a difference between the astronauts descriptions of the widely varying range of magnitude of stars visible to the naked eye in the different conditions they encountered and the visibility of stars using the sextant. Why don't you get it? Only because it shoots your claims down in flames.

All of my friends are talking about it, and it is getting great exposure on some of the other underground threads

...

I still cannot believe you buy into that lightning nonsense, LIGHTNING Jay? Really? It is beyond laughable.....

Your stubborn refusal to see reality staring you in the face has become too tedious to be laughable. The invention of admiring friends and "underground threads" is slightly funny, though. Tragic, but funny.

 

[sts60]

The star count varies here on Earth. If I'm down on the valley floor, the city lights obscure almost all the stars. If I'm up in the mountains or out in the west desert, where I go every year to observe the Perseids, I can see a vast panorama of them including the Milky Way. This does not affect my ability to locate celestial objects.

I'll bet that your view during your Perseid-watching is comparable to the best view available to a dark-adapted astronaut in a vacuum. His view would include some thousands (not "jillions", not that Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/etc. has any idea of the actual number anyway) of additional very dim stars due to the lack of atmospheric extinction, but your view is unencumbered by thick windows or visors and occurs in a comfortable environment - if your Utah viewing was comparable to my experiences in southern Arizona and New Mexico and Colorado. I've never been unable to identify stars I wanted to identify.

 

[JayUtah]

Jay, relax for a minute.....It's a joke

Have all your other Stundies also been jokes?

Very well, if we return to your statement, "Well I can't prove it in a rigorous sense frenat......, but I can do a dang good job approximating rigor," I'll argue then that you've conceded the inability to prove that stars cannot be seen suitably for navigation. When you bear the burden of proof for an extraordinary claim (i.e., that Apollo is fake), there is either rigor or there is failure. Handwaving is not acceptable.

Do you have a gear other than "hard charging"?

No.

In my profession there is no tolerance for the careless, the unprepared, or the indifferent. In my profession we are legally liable for the strength of our reasoning. By proposing to challenge the feasibility and operation of Apollo technology, you have entered our realm. You can either attain the appropriate level of rigor or you can fail. Kindly do not expect the standard to be lowered just for you.

Now if you're finished failing to shame me away from holding you suitably accountable, please address the many open questions regarding your claims.

If nothing else, I have a ton of respect for you, your work ethic, very impressive I must say.

Empty flattery. You could demonstrate actual respect by showing that you read what I write in response to your claims, and that you incorporate it in some way into your thinking. When you have to be directed multiple times to contravening facts that I have presented, you show considerable disrespect.

Why don't you come on over and work for "our side"...

Because your side is wrong.

The problem with AGC system is...

Asked and answered.

What I am doing here is deconstructing a ridiculous narrative, nothing more, nothing less.

No, what you're doing is employing the straw man fallacy laced with a liberal dose of argument from incredulity.

They launch stuff and park it on the moon, and at this time, I am presuming also that they parked stuff in the stable/Trojan libration/Lagarngian points.

Your "unmanned Apollo" theory is refuted by your own arguments.

Think of me as a sort of complex movie/theater critic, but my focus is almost exclusively on plot plausibility and thespian performance, thespian credibility/believability, credibility/believability in a quite literal sense.

It may indeed be true that you are little more than a theater critic, for you certainly demonstrate no competence as an engineer. However, when your assessment of credibility is based on your misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the underlying technology and operation, it fails nevertheless. If you want to judge the credibility of a play dealing with the White House during the Cuban Missile Crisis, you had better be able to demonstrate some competence in the field of international diplomacy and naval rules of engagement.

In any case, assuming that Apollo is theater simply so that you can claim relevant expertise in judging it as theater is circular reasoning. If you believe it is theater, it's your job to prove that it is -- in the face of universal, well-informed belief that it is fact.

The bottom line is that you haven't been able to demonstrate enough competence in the relevant bodies of knowledge to give your claims any credibility. Nor have you been able to answer your critics.

All of my friends are talking about it, and it is getting great exposure on some of the other underground threads, Dang cool if I do say so myself...

You do say so yourself -- extensively and repeatedly to the point of tedium. I'm not interested in your auto-congratulatory fantasies or your imaginary friends.

You have no support here. You have no discernible support in the real world. And if you were to present your "findings" here before any substantial body of subject-matter experts you would be laughed off the stage.

You can either attain the rigor called for in the engineering profession, or you can continue being a laughingstock. Your choice.

If you want to impress me, present your findings under your real name, in person, at a meeting of the AIAA and stay to answer questions. I have had no problem whatsoever presenting my side of this controversy under my real name in the international spotlight. Will you demonstrate the same confidence in your own findings?

I still cannot believe you buy into that lightning nonsense, LIGHTNING Jay? Really? It is beyond laughable.....

For a week you've offered nothing besides "OMG!! Lightning!"

Since you clearly have no material response to the detailed analysis I've given you, you're apparently limited to repetition and mockery.

 

[nomuse]

The problem with AGC system is that the "available stars", those seen at any given time, are not constant/consistent/predictable in their appearing in the scope fields, anything but. The astronauts must decide in such scenarios as to which star is which. According to your buddy Al Worden, he could not decide which star was which when there supposedly were "too many" there on the unlit dark side, and in those cases where there was said to have been a paucity of stars, most of the time per the transcripts and so forth, one couldn't and wouldn't be able to tell, no way Jay, whether a star was the real deal, one of the 37 navigational stars, or something else altogether. None of this is real of course. What I am doing here is deconstructing a ridiculous narrative, nothing more, nothing less.

The same argument could be made about finding Polaris -- on any given night, it might be hazy and the constellations visible, or a crisp clear night in the middle of the ocean and ten thousand stars blazing in the sky. How could you be sure you were shooting this one star (not one of the brighter stars in the sky) in its not-particularly-distinctive constellation made up of stars too dim to see on many nights? (The typical urban way to find Polaris is to start with Ursa Major and use two of the handle stars as a rough pointer).

How could any navigator on a bobbing boat in the middle of the ocean be sure he was sighting Polaris, and not some other similar-appearing star?

Apparently, Patrick has now disproved terrestrial navigation as well. Apparently all those long ocean voyages were fake, too.

 

[JayUtah]

That reminds me; many of the other posters state time and again that I demonstrate a genuine BELIEF in Apollo by virtue of my arguing its points in such a way it would seem that I more than assume said events took place.

I've dealt elsewhere with the consequent of this hair-split.

A portion of the criticism against you does not merit the grandiose mission statement you elaborated. It is simply that you blatantly cherry-pick your sources.

You ask us to believe Frank O'Brien when he tells us what the RCS deadband typically consisted of.
You ask us to believe Al Worden when he talked about how stars appear from space.
You ask us to believe Micheal Collins when he explains how the AGC and sextant were set up to work.

The point is that you cite these sources as authorities on the principles of design, construction, and operation of Apollo, irrespective of any other claims they may also be making. You expect us to respect them as sources of fact and to account for them in our writings.

Yet you ignore all those authorities when they also state, in clear contradiction to your belief, their knowledge that Apollo was real and operated as claimed. You say that so-and-so says something "clearly and unambiguously," but you ignore what else he says clearly and unambiguously. You pick and choose what from these authorities you want us to respect, and the parts you pick are the parts you think agree with your claim.

That's dishonest. If I'm not allowed to dispute what Michael Collins says about the difficulty of finding certain stars, then you're not allowed to dispute that he also nevertheless aligned the guidance platform a number of times on the way to the Moon. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

In my world, I can respect both of Collins' statements: i.e., that some of the stars were hard to find, and also that the calibration task he says he did was nevertheless possible. In your world, only the statements that support your belief hold. You play your sources with loaded dice.

You cite people like O'Brien because you consider him an authority on the facts of Apollo. This undermines your claim elsewhere that your common sense alone is sufficient to inform you about Apollo and space engineering. You realize that if you say, "I, Patrick, declare that the CSM's RCS deadband was 5 degress," the listener will want to find out how you know this. It's not common knowledge.

So instead you rightly say, "Here is Mr. Frank O'Brien and he's an expert on Apollo spacecraft guidance; he says the RCS deadband was 5 degrees." You admit that there is a gradation of knowledge about Apollo and that some people have more of it than you do. According to your own criterion, you have used your common sense to determine that common sense is not sufficient to argue Apollo, and instead that the witness of experts is required.

Here's the rub: you respect your expert's knowledge, but you do not respect your expert's judgment. His judgment disagrees with yours, but you disregard it. That's fundamentally dishonest. Expertise is not simply a rote mastery of facts. It incorporates a gestalt of information and experience that informs sound judgment.

And that leads to the next point, which is what some others are trying to get you to see.

You say you're just pointing out that the things the Apollo "actors" are saying is inconsistent, and as such they don't give a credible "performance." You argue that Michael Collins claims on the one hand that he couldn't identify his guide stars, and on the other hand that he still properly aligned the platform. And also on the one hand that Al Worden couldn't identify his guide stars, and that on the other hand he too also claimed to have properly aligned the platform (i.e., that it was possible to do so when needed). In your own words, your overall argument is that their story is internally inconsistent and therefore cannot be true.

But you manage to botch this argument.

Instead of simply sticking to "inconsistent and therefore untrue," you decide that one of the two propositions is true. That is, you assert that various astronauts' inability to identify the reference stars represent a true statement about the behavior of the universe, not merely one of two contradictory statements.

Then you argue that since star invisibility is a true statement, the contradictory proposition (i.e., that authentic manned Apollo missions were flown to the Moon) must be false. So no, it's not just an "inconsistent and therefore false" argument, but a "this true condition precludes that contradictory claim" argument.

Lest you think I misrepresent you, I remind you that you wrote

Were [Al Worden] actually navigating there during a genuine Apollo 15 Mission, he would HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SIGHT STARS AND ALIGN THE PLATFORM AT ANY TIME. He explicitly states he could not do this by virtue of explicitly stating he could not identify stars in dark/non-sun illuminated conditions.

and

For the CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE AGC OPERATES ARE VARIABLE WITH RESPECT TO STAR VISIBILITY AND THE PATTERNS OF STARS ENCOUNTERED IN THE APOLLO CASE WILL NOT BE CONSISTENT AS THEY ARE IN THE HABU CASE. The Apollo star sighting protocol ignores this concern and does NOT take this serious objection to the system's requisite dependability into account.

The elements of your fatal error are right there. You (1) cite Al Worden as authority for the star visibility claim, (2) identify that star visibility and a genuine Apollo mission are contradictory, and (3) assert that star visibility is a true condition of the universe and a requirement that a valid AGC would need to address.

Items (1) and (3) are your downfall. You cannot cite Al Worden as an authority for star visibility as a true phenomenon unless he had actually been to the Moon to see it. He either went, and (2) is true, or he did not go, in which (3) cannot be held on the basis of (1) because Worden would not be an authority.

Get it?

Your argument is actually circular. You are well and truly pinioned. Even among the most conscientious claimants, circular reasoning is insidious and difficult to detect. Ponder it carefully.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The same argument could be made about finding Polaris -- on any given night, it might be hazy and the constellations visible, or a crisp clear night in the middle of the ocean and ten thousand stars blazing in the sky. How could you be sure you were shooting this one star (not one of the brighter stars in the sky) in its not-particularly-distinctive constellation made up of stars too dim to see on many nights? (The typical urban way to find Polaris is to start with Ursa Major and use two of the handle stars as a rough pointer).

How could any navigator on a bobbing boat in the middle of the ocean be sure he was sighting Polaris, and not some other similar-appearing star?

Apparently, Patrick has now disproved terrestrial navigation as well. Apparently all those long ocean voyages were fake, too.

Heh, you think that is bad? Try coming and navigating down here. At least in the north there is a star at approximately due north. We just have a big empty space there. To find due south you need to be able to locate three stars!

 

[Patrick1000]

Unbelievable!!!!

Just when one thinks the Apollo narrative cannot get any more obscenely unbelievable, one comes across a fact that reinforces the reality of Apollo's fraudulence all the more, and the thought crosses one's mind, "Do I REALLY look THAT STUPID?" And the answer is, "YES!", They really do think we are THAT DUMB. They think, the Apollo script writers do, that they can tell us anything, no matter how RIDICULOUS, and we'll buy in based on NASA's fraudulent authority.

Wait until you get a load of this……you so ain't gonna' believe it……..

Over the last couple of days I have reread the Apollo 11 Technical Crew Debriefing said to have been made 07/31/1969, and in doing so, I came across one of those little pieces of circumstantial evidence that perhaps doesn't make a sign sealed and delivered case for Apollo 11 fraudulence in and of itself, but mulling it over in one's mind, the Apollo researcher can do little else but walk away shaking his/her head muttering, "What nonsense!………How can they expect anyone in his or her right mind to think that this cock and bull story is anything other than a cock and bull story?"

In section 11.10, MONITORING LUNAR ACTIVITY, Michael Collins states that the preflight plan was for all of his transmissions to be relayed to the LM and vice versa, the astronauts' transmissions relayed to Collins. Collins says the relay was rarely enabled due to a ground switching problem. Collins stated he would have preferred the S-Band relay be continuous. He went on to state that as this continuous relay was not in effect, he felt somewhat cut out of the loop, "THOUGH IT WAS NOT A SAFETY PROBLEM".


NO KIDDIN' MIKE?????! NOT A SAFETY PROBLEM!!!!!???? Can any of you actually believe this cringing, shameless, preposterous NONSENSE!!!!!!!!??????? Not a safety problem? It is the first moon landing. The ground and Collins himself wound up "not knowing" where the astronauts were. Collins was supposed to be the moonwalkers' bloody lifeline, and he was not patched in to them by continuous S-band relay, nor the moonwalkers patched in to Collins. What if there had been a problem? What if there had been a need for an immediate abort upon touch down and the response to "STAY?" was a resounding "NO GO! ABORT!"

This is such a moon load of bogusly bogus lunar jive. One can only scream, vomit or both in abject disgust.

I imagine they, the Apollo 11 script writers, perceived great potential for the fraud's exposure were they to risk "cross talk". Say geologists/mappers pressed the capcom, and to be sure they would have, to ask Collins to "directly" interact with, DIRECTLY COMMUNICATE WITH, the moonwalkers as regards the mystery of their location(such as direct communication was possible under s-band relay circumstances). Were this to have occurred, were the moonwalkers and Collins to actually have spoken between themselves in "real-time", the fraudulent Apollo scripted nonsense would have been exposed as the insanely ludicrous narrative that it was/is, and NOT the great adventure/journey it was pretended to be. And what a weak and ever so feeble pretense Apollo was.


LANDED ON AND WALKING ON THE MOON, YET THE COMMAND MODULE IS NOT IN CONTINUOUS RELAY COMMUNICATION WITH THE MOONWALKERS, AND THE MOONWALKERS NOT IN CONTINUOUS RELAY COMMUNICATION WITH THE COMMAND MODULE?

I say BULL ! BULL ! BULL ! Patently fraudulent ! ! !

Pure unadulterated lunar bull my friends, nothing more than pure unadulterated lunar bull…….. those astronauts should be ashamed of themselves……..

 

[Loss Leader]

It is the first moon landing. The ground and Collins himself wound up "not knowing" where the astronauts were. Collins was supposed to be the moonwalkers' bloody lifeline, and he was not patched in to them by continuous S-band relay, nor the moonwalkers patched in to Collins.

So, once again you choose to believe Collins when he says he didn't have relay communications with the lander yet disbelieve him when he says he went to the moon.

Even if the statement about the relay was inconsistent with a moon landing, there's no reason to believe one over the other. All we would know is that one statement would be wrong. We cannot know which one.

But you've ignored this before. I don't know why you think that you alone are exempt from the requirement that one's conclusion actually be supported by one's evidence.

What if there had been a problem? What if there had been a need for an immediate abort upon touch down and the response to "STAY?" was a resounding "NO GO! ABORT!"

Does Collins ever say that he was out of contact with EARTH long enough for this to matter? Was he out of contact with EARTH during the LM descent? If the LM had needed to abort its landing, would he have been out of contact with EARTH long enough to endanger the LM?

Collins couldn't do much from the CM except look out the window and wait. He couldn't help the Eagle at all with anything until they were back in orbit and ready to dock. So, what would it matter if he didn't know in real time whether the LM was having a problem?

 

[Erock]

Wait until you get a load of this……you so ain't gonna' believe it…….. snip

I don't. I don't believe that you have just come across it and I don't believe that you genuinely understand what you are reading. I don't believe you are here to debate, if you were you would be holding your hand up and conceding pretty much all you have written to jayutah's rebuttals. I don't believe anybody here agrees with anything you have said. None of it.

I do believe that you lack credibility in the most profoundest way possible. With your numerous lies, failure to respond to posts where your limited understanding of Apollo is woefully exposed, headshaking contradictions, flawed maths (and this from a Berkeley MathS sic degree holder), deeply biased misrepresentation of book quotes, constant posturing from a position of weakness, showboating where you have nothing to showboat about and a generally disrespectful attitude to an achievement that you have 'seemingly' researched with hoax believers blinkers on.

Yes, I don't believe you!

 

[JayUtah]

Just when one thinks the Apollo narrative cannot get any more obscenely unbelievable...

Translation: since I can't do any more on the other topics I've raised except state and restate my uninformed belief, ignore my critics, and declared my incredulity...

NO KIDDIN' MIKE?????! NOT A SAFETY PROBLEM!!!!!???? Can any of you actually believe this cringing, shameless, preposterous NONSENSE!!!!!!!!??????? Not a safety problem? It is the first moon landing.

Translation: ...I'll just change the subject and invent yet another mission "rule" that I'll claim the astronauts "broke," even though I can't demonstrate even the slightest correct understanding of basic space flight. And I'll wrap one sentence of evidence in a wall of hysteria and hyperbole.

The S-band relay wasn't needed for or used in ascent and rendezvous operations. Nor would it be especially useful, given the time delay; nor especially safe, given the systemic complexity. The LM and CSM have their own means of direct radio communication for that, when they have line of sight. But the EMU circuits aren't patched into that radio, and they don't need to be. The S-band relay was simply a courtesy to Collins. It had no effect on mission safety.

Have we lost count yet of the things you don't understand about Apollo?

 

[matt.tansy]

NO KIDDIN' MIKE?????! NOT A SAFETY PROBLEM!!!!!???? Can any of you actually believe this cringing, shameless, preposterous NONSENSE!!!!!!!!??????? Not a safety problem?

Again your ignorance of how Apollo actually worked is astounding.

The data Collins would need to effect a rendezvous with an aborting LM would be provided by Mission Control, not by the crew in the LM. Voice communications in the event of an abort from the surface would not be of any help because the spacecraft were too far apart from each other. The rendezvous radar on the LM did not require any relay between the spacecraft. Telemetry, command, tracking and ranging signals from the LM could not be read by the CM so those signals didn't need to be relayed.

Neither computer on the spacecraft had the capability to compute the maneuvers necessary to conduct a rendezvous. Mission Control would calculate that and send the data to the spacecraft, ergo a relay is not required for an abort.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

...Collins was supposed to be the moonwalkers' bloody lifeline, and he was not patched in to them by continuous S-band relay, nor the moonwalkers patched in to Collins. What if there had been a problem? What if there had been a need for an immediate abort upon touch down and the response to "STAY?" was a resounding "NO GO! ABORT!"

OK. What if there had been an abort? What exactly would you have wanted Collins to do in the seconds between the LM reporting it and Mission Control telling him?

Collins couldn't do much from the CM except look out the window and wait. He couldn't help the Eagle at all with anything until they were back in orbit and ready to dock. So, what would it matter if he didn't know in real time whether the LM was having a problem?

Exactly. This new "revelation" must surely be the weakest yet. Patrick appears to have scraped right through the bottom of the barrel and is now steadily digging a pit.

 

[abaddon]

In section 11.10, MONITORING LUNAR ACTIVITY, Michael Collins states that the preflight plan was for all of his transmissions to be relayed to the LM and vice versa, the astronauts' transmissions relayed to Collins. Collins says the relay was rarely enabled due to a ground switching problem. Collins stated he would have preferred the S-Band relay be continuous. He went on to state that as this continuous relay was not in effect, he felt somewhat cut out of the loop, "THOUGH IT WAS NOT A SAFETY PROBLEM".


NO KIDDIN' MIKE?????! NOT A SAFETY PROBLEM!!!!!???? Can any of you actually believe this cringing, shameless, preposterous NONSENSE!!!!!!!!??????? Not a safety problem? It is the first moon landing. The ground and Collins himself wound up "not knowing" where the astronauts were. Collins was supposed to be the moonwalkers' bloody lifeline, and he was not patched in to them by continuous S-band relay, nor the moonwalkers patched in to Collins. What if there had been a problem? What if there had been a need for an immediate abort upon touch down and the response to "STAY?" was a resounding "NO GO! ABORT!"

I am curious. In the event of a problem with the LM, what precisely do you think Collins could have done about it?

 

[Patrick1000]

Unbelievable?...YES!, You Betcha', Yet Again.....

and it's getting to be more than just a bit of a bad habit. Wait 'til ya' hear this one.......


Yet another one of my reports on utter nonsense from the annals of the Apollo 11 Technical Crew Debriefing, July 31 1969.

Section 17.0, GEOLOGY AND EXPERIMENTS, features a discussion by the "astronauts" with respect to the maps that they carried. Collins opens with a comment to the effect that the LAM-2 Map's gridding system could have been/could be improved upon. Then Aldrin comments, unbelievably, that he did not know whether the maps he and Armstrong "carried on the LM" were gridded/numbered/lettered as was Collins' LAM-2 Map.

So here we have "the first moon landing", and as it turned out, there was landing site coordinate uncertainty, at first blush the uncertainty not entirely unreasonable given its initially alleged degree, 4-5 miles. Regardless, were any of this real, one would of course expect the astronauts on the ground moonwalking to have at least one map that Collins had as well so that were there any uncertainties, had one party determined the landing site's coordinates, those coordinates could be communicated to the moonwalkers, or Collins, as the case may have been, by way of simple direct communication via S-band relayed signal with REFERENCE TO A COMMON MAP. It not only makes simple sense, the fact that there was no ongoing/regular s-band relayed communication between the alleged moonwalkers and alleged lunar orbiter, AND given the lack of any planning/certainty with regard to preparation for location communication by way of providing Collins and the alleged moonwalkers with THE SAME MAP, at least ONE common map, a common frame of reference, we may conclude, with unmitigated metaphysical certainty, that the Apollo 11 Mission was Fraudulent , top to bottom, front to back, north to south and east to west. CHARADE!!!! PHONY!!!!! Not even remotely credible this is nothing more than a joke of a C rate Italian Space Spaghetti Western.

No certainty about having common maps, ONE lousy common reference frame, ONE COMMON PICTURE OF THE MOON ? ! ! ! No ongoing communication Collins with alleged space walkers ? ! ! !

PHONY!

Wait, it gets even better......

Get this......

Armstrong says at the end of that section that it would easier to sort this all out, whether they even did have common maps if they had the actual pictures. So the "astronauts" don't bring the maps to the debriefing, and no independent party, say navigation people, brings the maps there to the debriefing so that it might have been possible to at least quickly check to see if one map was or was not common to those carried in the LM and command module.

Obviously, not bringing the maps, was a way to avoid having very incriminating evidence entered into an official record when a simple straight forward visual analysis of the maps would have shown there to be no commonality gridding/reference frame wise. I say this of course because there would have to be a common map, at least ONE, carried by Collins and also carried in the LM, no question. That is, were any of this real.

How much worse can this get? Just douse me, hose me down matter of fact, drown me for God'd sake, with a compazine/Zofran cocktail before I puke my insides out. UGGGHHHHH, this is bad.......just sickening.......

 

[Loss Leader]

those coordinates could be communicated to the moonwalkers, or Collins, as the case may have been, by way of simple direct communication via S-band relayed signal

Do you see what you did there?

the fact that there was no ongoing/regular s-band relayed communication between the alleged moonwalkers and alleged lunar orbiter,

You know Aldrin and Armstrong were stopped, right? And Collins was still moving. Collins spent regular periods out of line of sight of the earth and the landing site. So, it was impossible for him to have ongoing communications with anybody. I'm pretty sure that was all built into the mission.

AND given the lack of any planning/certainty with regard to preparation for location communication by way of providing Collins and the alleged moonwalkers with THE SAME MAP, at least ONE common map,

Wait until you get to Apollo 13 and find out the LM and CM had completely incompatible CO2 filters.

no independent party, say navigation people, brings the maps there to the debriefing so that it might have been possible to at least quickly check to see if one map was or was not common to those carried in the LM and command module.

You realize that they were home by then, right?

You also realize that just because Collins and Aldrin didn't know if they had the same maps, it doesn't actually mean they didn\t have the same maps? Or that somebody on the ground knew whether they had the same maps? Or that somebody on the ground had already concluded they didn't need identical maps?

Just douse me, hose me down matter of fact, drown me for God'd sake, with a compazine/Zofran cocktail before I puke my insides out. UGGGHHHHH, this is bad.......just sickening.......

I'm worried about the pleasure you seem to be taking from negative attention.

 

[Patrick1000]

More.... if you can tolerate it.....

Check out the Apollo 11 Debriefing Report, 07/31/1969 section 10.0, LUNAR SURFACE. Aldrin claims that after touchdown, they naturally went to the P68 landing program. Completion of that program was alleged to have provided the astronauts with latitude/longitude/altitude as determined by the PNGS, Apollo Guidance Computer's navigation and guidance system. Since the Eagle doesn't "fly again" until its alleged lunar surface liftoff off, this off course would have been the only latitude/longitude/altitude determination made by the PNGS. One may look to the Apollo 11 Mission Report's Table 5-IV, Landing Site Coordinates, for the real-time coordinate determinations as made by the various modalities that were alleged to have been available. The latitude and longitude per Apollo 11 Mission Report Table 5-IV were 0.649 north and 23.46 east respectively. If one employs the trajectory to reference map correction factors, the coordinates are 0.689 north and 23.39 east. With or without the correction factor consideration, the coordinates are exceedingly close to the then(1969) alleged "true" landing site values of 0.6875 north and 23.43 east.

What's so uncertain about these numbers given to Aldrin by the PNGS immediately after touchdown and the P68 run's completion?????? NOTHING!!!!!! Obviously, everybody in fact has a very very very good idea as to where the astronauts are at that time. They should anyway. Good enough idea, close enough idea, to easily verify that location with a 2 mile wide laser beam targeting an LRRR.

Why does Collins state in the Apollo Technical Debriefing section 11, CSM CIRCUMLUNAR OPERATIONS, that he didn't know where the LM was and the ground did not know either? The PNGS sure knew. Why are geologists and mappers looking all over the equivalent of lunar Timbuctoo for the LM? Collins says that the ground's clues being given to him with regard to where he should look were as much as 10 LAM-2 Map squares apart. One square is roughly 2 minutes of arc on edge, so .628 miles or a kilometer more or less. The PNGS has the LM close to pegged and they are feeding Collins coordinates more than 6 miles away from one estimate to another. Collins says he thought the ground did not have a handle on where the LM was, but the astronauts sure have a good handle, just take a look at those impressive numbers. And we know Surveyor VII was tracked by MSFN right to its landing site so that it could be targeted with the lasers from California and Arizona.

So there is no reason at all for us to believe this utter bull of Collins and the others that no one has any idea where the LM is. Its landing site is pegged to a high degree of accuracy from the get go by way of the PNGS. Just ask Aldrin and take a look as to what NASA reported in the Mission Report as to what were Aldrin's exact numbers for the PNGS measurement after the P68 had been run.

If this thing can get any more fake, I honestly don't know what further ridiculous finding could put it more over the top. We are lost in space here to be sure when it comes to an Apollo 11 reality check.

PHONY!!! Big time……..

 

[Garrison]

Patrick1000 you've consistently demonstrated you know nothing about cartography(Julian Co-ordinates), can't do simple math(the Apollo budget calculations), and have no comprehension of the Cold War politics(the inability to understand why missions pushed head despite onboard incidents). All of which contributes to the personal incredulity that is the main driver of your arguments, and which no one here takes seriously given your lack of credibility. You are not going to persuade anyone by simply rehashing your mistaken ideas about maps, sickness, lightning strikes or militarizing the moon.

 

[abaddon]

and it's getting to be more than just a bit of a bad habit. Wait 'til ya' hear this one.......

And that bad habit is yours alone. No one else here buys your poorly thought out arguments.

Yet another one of my reports on utter nonsense from the annals of the Apollo 11 Technical Crew Debriefing, July 31 1969.

Not a report, just another poorly thought out post.

Section 17.0, GEOLOGY AND EXPERIMENTS, features a discussion by the "astronauts" with respect to the maps that they carried. Collins opens with a comment to the effect that the LAM-2 Map's gridding system could have been/could be improved upon. Then Aldrin comments, unbelievably, that he did not know whether the maps he and Armstrong "carried on the LM" were gridded/numbered/lettered as was Collins' LAM-2 Map.

You do understand that a 2D projection onto a map of a 3D object will perforce have errors and inaccuracies?

So here we have "the first moon landing", and as it turned out, there was landing site coordinate uncertainty, at first blush the uncertainty not entirely unreasonable given its initially alleged degree, 4-5 miles. <snip>

Yet you cannot provide any valid reason why this should have stopped the show, as it were.

No certainty about having common maps, ONE lousy common reference frame, ONE COMMON PICTURE OF THE MOON ? ! ! ! No ongoing communication Collins with alleged space walkers ? ! ! !

Different maps for different functions, no biggy.

PHONY!

ALL CAPS do not an argument make.

Wait, it gets even better......

Get this......

Armstrong says at the end of that section that it would easier to sort this all out, whether they even did have common maps if they had the actual pictures. So the "astronauts" don't bring the maps to the debriefing, and no independent party, say navigation people, brings the maps there to the debriefing so that it might have been possible to at least quickly check to see if one map was or was not common to those carried in the LM and command module.

And sure enough, it would have been easier if the photos were available, but the were not ready at the time of press conference. There was a lot of work to be done in the aftermath of the mission.

And in the absence of photos, what difference would it have made whether the maps were different or not.

Obviously, not bringing the maps, was a way to avoid having very incriminating evidence entered into an official record when a simple straight forward visual analysis of the maps would have shown there to be no commonality gridding/reference frame wise.

Unwarranted conclusion. It would matter not a whit if there were differences between the maps on the CM and those on the LM.
Different maps for different purposes are not unusual. Why do you suppose there are different projections of the surface of the Earth?

Why is the Mercator projection the most commonly seen in atlases, but the Great Circle projection is used for aircraft navigation?

I say this of course because there would have to be a common map, at least ONE, carried by Collins and also carried in the LM, no question. That is, were any of this real.

Yet you provide no evidence why this should be necessary.

How much worse can this get? Just douse me, hose me down matter of fact, drown me for God'd sake, with a compazine/Zofran cocktail before I puke my insides out. UGGGHHHHH, this is bad.......just sickening.......

I cannot answer that question, as I have no idea what unsupported claim you will wheel out next.

While I am at it, ytou failed to answer this:

I am curious. In the event of a problem with the LM, what precisely do you think Collins could have done about it?

I am going to take a flyer here and suggest that you cannot.

 

[JayUtah]

and it's getting to be more than just a bit of a bad habit.

Was there a point in all that, or was it just more incredulity? Given that you ignore practically everything I write, I want to know whether there's any hope that you'll follow a discussion before I actually attempt to engage you.

Apparently you seem to believe that the final test flight (that's right, Apollo 11 was a test flight) should have gone off without a hitch and that every last detail of an international project with a looming deadline should have been well thought out ahead of time.

The crew debriefing is the time for them to report difficulties and suggest improvements based on their newly-acquired hindsight. If you read the debriefing, you'll discover it's filled with gripes and regrets. That's the purpose of the exercise. If you're going to try to cite every single reported glitch as "proof of fraud," according to your uninformed presumption of you would have done, then this is going to be a long winter.

How much worse can this get? Just douse me, hose me down matter of fact, drown me for God'd sake, with a compazine/Zofran cocktail before I puke my insides out. UGGGHHHHH, this is bad.......just sickening.......

I know some actual drag queens who can communicate with less drama than this. Any chance you can keep the hyberole and rhetoric down to less than 75% of the total post in the future?