• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
In American courts of law, on a daily basis, jurors are asked to decide this or that, decide whether an occurrence seems reasonable to them or not, decide whether something happened or did not happen, decide whether something was real or was made up, decide as to whether something might or might not constitute a lie based on common sense, based on what a reasonable person raised and living in our culture would do, would think about, would think of when it came to such and such. Our court system is predicated on this.

I am only doing the same here. It is the very first moon landing. Were this thing real, not all, but some of the photography would be scripted. In the same sense Armstrong "took" the scripted panoramas in the case of the fraudulent reality that is the Apollo 11 Mission, had it been a real mission, a genuine manned lunar landing, Aldrin would have been instructed to have taken some "set" photos which would have included Armstrong. Of course there would be some improvisation. But with limited time and history on the line, there would have been a dedicated effort to script some photos prominently featuring the first man on the moon, WHETHER ARMSTRONG LIKED IT OR NOT!.

It its high time you were called this recurrent and pathetically oh so weak weak weak weak argument of yours Loss Leader, called on your incessant appeal to this particularly feeble defense of the official narrative. Of course you are welcome to say and write over and over that because Patrick is making an appeal to common sense, that does not make his claims, his points based on common sensical appeals accurate, make them correct. But as common sensical thinking, as appeals to what is and is not only reasonable for most of us, demonstrates more and more that Apollo can only be viewed, must only be viewed as fraudulent, as Apollo becomes less and less and less credible with NASA's cock and bull becoming ever so not worthy of more than a giggle, you'll find yourself surprisingly in that shrinking minority Loss Leader, a shrinking minority of individuals still conned by this HOKEY UNREASONABLE UNCOMMON SENSICAL JIVE.

Of course you are welcome to say, "people don't think as you do Patrick, so what you are saying is not necessarily true".

But as time goes on, more and more people will realize that my statement, "would you send a guy to the moon and NOT plan to take his picture, a good picture, a dedicated picture, the best you could muster, a picture of him out in front of his space ship? Of course not!!!!" is only too reasonable a statement. And they shall come to know it not only as an all too reasonable statement , but A TRUE STATEMENT AS WELL. It must be. It can only be so, just add a little common sense. It is a statement that must be true because it is the type of thing that we all do, and that includes NASA people. They do this picture taking stuff too, at weddings, birthdays, WHEN THEY TRAVEL. Whoever gave the astronauts but one camera and instructions for Armstrong to handle all the pics more or less, that person, that guy, is a big fat PERP!

Taken together with the rest of the Apollo narrative "facts", the lack of a good Armstrong photo, one that would have shown him on the moon proudly standing in front of his "new car", will one day become a piece of evidence undermining the bogus old official story, a piece of evidence that helps to proclaim the truths of the real story, MY STORY, THE IMPOSSIBLE TO LOSE BUT NEVERTHELESS LOST LOST LOST EAGLE STORY.

This is a court of law of sorts Loss Leader. I am suing the U.S. Government and NASA, figuratively speaking, for 20% of an annual US fiscal budget. We the REASONABLE want our money back! Kick and scream and cry about it all you like Loss Leader, appeal to NASA's special privilege to not engage in the common sensical all you like, but at the end of this all, there is only one possible outcome, the obvious outcome. The Apollo 11 Mission will be EXPOSED like a poorly lit studio pic for the fake fake FAKE, phony baloney charade that it is, sure as the lunar day is long long long my friend.

Ask yourself this Loss Leader; ever been to the Roman Colosseum? If you have, bet someone took your picture out in front of that bad boy. If you haven't, bet you'll have someone take your picture in front when you do go.........

This thing is so very fake fake fake fake, just ask the guy next door what he thinks. Ask him what he does when he goes to Paris and visits the Eiffel Tower Loss Leader...........

They weren't tourists.
 
...We get it: you're disgusted by Apollo. Ranting and raving about it repeatedly doesn't help people think of you as a rational researcher.

When I go to the Smithsonian I usually end up answering tourists' questions that stump the guides. Let that sink in.

I don't believe P1k/fd gets taken by his parents to the National Air & Space Museum very much, either the original NASM on the Mall or the Udvar-Hazy Center by Dulles Airport. (Jay well knows, even if P1k/fd might not, that there is no single "Smithsonian".) However, if this is wrong I would be happy to drive down and discuss spaceflight with him on one of his many trips to "the Smithsonian".

What's funny is that NASM continues to be one of the biggest draws for visitors both domestic and international who are fascinated by the story of flight and the intrepid explorers who wrote it. It's routinely jam-packed. I've been there for a few closed events and the chance to walk around without feeling like a sardine is great. But I, too, enjoy talking with people about the exhibits.
 
Oh please Loss Leader, how ever so ridiculous. For crying out loud, Armstrong allegedly landed on the moon and the only photo we have of him looks as though the guy is checking for a blown muffler on the underside of the Eagle. It's beyond painful to look at this garbage.

As I said previously, whenever I go to the Smithsonian, I don a paper bag over my head and utter not a word in English. I speak Italian and broken Cantonese so the foreigners won't know I'm an American and connected to this monstrous embarrassment.

As this is causing you so much pain and gastric distress maybe you should let it alone for awhile.
 
1. Do you believe there are situations when the risks of inhaling fecal matter might be disregarded by reasonable people in order to pursue rewards they value?...

Two words: bathroom attendants. They do this all day long for minimum wage and tips. Personally, I think most people would consider a pioneering journey of exploration to another celestial body, riding the ultimate expression of human ingenuity, and gaining eternal fame to be just a wee bit bigger "reward".
 
I'll look it up for you, don't have it off the top o' me head.....

Patrick, exactly what does Noun 43 mean?

I'll look it up for you, don't have it off the top 'o' me head....

But, I do have proof now of the Apollo 11 LAM-2 flown map being intentionally rotated and therefore fraudulent.


Go to;

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/landing_site/

Note the images 4th and 5th from the top are rotated roughly 10 degrees counterclockwise from true lunar north. The Apollo 11 LAM-2 Flown Map is rotated in the same way without there being any indication as to true lunar north as there is here on these images.

Go to Google Earth;

http://www.google.com/earth/index.html

If you have never downloaded their software, do so. Go to the moon reference and note that indeed the LAM-2 flown map image for Apollo 11 and the flown map image for apollo 10 are rotated 10 degrees counterclockwise when compared with the Google map lunar reference.

http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a10LandingSite2.jpg

http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a10LandingSite2lbl.jpg

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

Then David Harland's presentation featured in the Apollo 11 image library from an alleged shot taken by the Eagle with landing ellipse superimposed;

http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/ALS-2_vertical_w-ellipse.jpg

Note the CORRECT ORIENTATION HERE with the ellipse running true east to west with respect to its long axis. But in this case the background lunar surface is not rotated 10 degrees counterclockwise as in the above images.



Google map confirms my previous suspicion of LAM-2 Map counterclockwise rotation with ellipse running east to west over this rotated image. The ellipse should run east to west over an unrotated image as it does in Harland's presentation.

Pirates get ready!!!!!

And as for you my friends, my detractors, PREPARE TO BE BOARDED, THIS WAR IS OVER.....!!!!.....
 
Ask any doc, "is it ok to inhale and ingest(orally) infected fecal material? Is it OK to inhale/ingest diarrhea from a man said to be infected with some UNKNOWN agent resulting in infectious gastroenteritis?"

Well, I'm a "doc" (DMD) and I say "how much fecal matter"? The truth of the matter is that, depending on the location, we ingest plenty of fecal matter every time we flush a toilet. Indeed, in some places, merely entering an enclosed area with a toilet is enough to be exposed to loads of fecal (and other nasty) bacteria.

Port-o-let anyone???

As with anything, the dose makes the poison.
 
MSFN didn't need to be "notified" of the PGNCS and AGS landing site coordinates because that information, along with all the other parameters provided by the PGNCS and AGS, including system health, is telemetered directly to the MSFN via the Unified S-Band communication system.

Oh, dear. You mean the navigation telemetry Patrick1000/fattydash/etc. already said existed? (bolding mine)

fattydash/Patrick1000 said:
That is where the coordinates appear, and if McCandless and the others in Houston are able to "see" this via telemetry, then they saw the 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E that I referred to above in the R windows as the Eagle landed.

This makes sense given the general features of Apollo guidance. It is for the most part telemetric. The crafts are tracked, positions determined "in Houston" and guided remotely. Star sightings and so forth serve as checks, but they do NOT navigate celestially per se as a sailor would because sailors boats are not remote control as the Apollo crafts are.

The point, if McCandless sees 10244 27 in the R 2 window, then given the information available to us, and there really is no good reason to question it, at least in outline, Charlie Duke saw 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E when the Eagle landed.

Since Charlie Duke and McCandless are CapComs not guidance people we know at least the guidance crew, scientists, engineers and so forth they are watching the relevant telemetry like hawks, especially now, and that includes the data Aldrin inputs and the read out data, 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E.

... one day after saying there was no such telemetry:

fattydash/Patrick1000 said:
Yes we know there was most definitely no telemetric transmission of the coordinates. The US Geological Survey people were frantically looking for the landing site based on descriptions of the terrain provided by Aldrin and Armstrong, hardly a situation compatible with Mission Control already having the coordinates.

Please do not ask this question again. I provided ample evidence in the body of my piece from both NASA's own documents and independent sources as to why this could not have been the case. And importantly, may I remind you Bob, NASA itself claims they did not know where the Eagle was, did not have the coordinates.

"Inconsistent, and therefore untrue." Patrick1000/fattydash's own words, not mine.
 
Patrick, to add to the list of questions you haven't answered, I'd like to add a couple of my own requests:

When will you address the physical evidence brought back from the Moon, as requested by several others?

How's the "extensive research" into aircraft lightning protection and it's relationship to Apollo 12 coming along? Been a couple of weeks now...
 
From http://web.mit.edu/digitalapollo/appendixa.html, I find NOUN 43 refers to latitude, longitude and altitude. Does that match the result of your references Loss Leader?

We all knew what Noun 43 was before we asked you. The point was to determine whether you knew what Noun 43 means, and therefore the implications of Duke's confirmation that the contents of Noun 43 had been received in Houston by telemetry. You didn't notice the inconspicuous little P00E at the top of the checklist page?

When Aldrin asks whether Noun 43 has been copied, he's asking whether the PGNS-reported landing site coordinates (i.e., the contents of Noun 43) have been received at Mission Control. You naively thought that the report listed in the checklist had to be a verbal read-down. Yet another mistake in a long and ongoing series of errors you've committed and never acknowledged.

I've reproduced your previous tantrum

Why didn't they notify MSFN? Why didn't they notify MSFN? Why didn't they notify MSFN? Why didn't they notify MSFN? Why didn't they notify MSFN? Why didn't they notify MSFN? Why didn't they notify MSFN? Why didn't they notify MSFN?

Why didn't they notify MSFN as to the Eagle's approximate coordinates? It was only in the LM LUNAR CHECKLIST FOR GOD'S SAKE !!!!!!!!!!!!!

FAKE!!!!! FAKE !!!!!! FAKE !!!!!!!!!

Proof positive my friends so very very very very very very FAKE!!!!!!!!

and I'm asking you if you have any pertinent comment or retraction at this point.
 
Nav system considerations

Patrick, you're clueless. There are much more important considerations in the siting of navigation beacons than providing continuous coverage. Navigation is not broadcasting.

Geometry is everything in navigation. The stations have to be sited such that small changes in position result in the largest possible changes in whatever you're observing, e.g., Doppler shift. Otherwise, even a small error in measuring that Doppler shift turns into a very large error in the position fix.

For this reason, siting the beacons on the moon and at the L4 and L5 points is about the silliest thing I can think of. Oh, and the great distance to those points means having to use much more powerful transmitters, about 25x GPS power levels. And electric power is a very precious commodity in space.

Go read a book on the basics of radionavigation theory with special emphasis on the concept of "geometric dilution of precision" (GDOP). You really need to undestand this. You will find it discussed in many texts on GPS. Yes, it's even a factor there but the constellation was designed to keep it as small as possible over as much of the earth as possible for as long as possible. And the operational system does a pretty good job because the people who designed it knew what they were doing.
 
From http://web.mit.edu/digitalapollo/appendixa.html, I find NOUN 43 refers to latitude, longitude and altitude. Does that match the result of your references Loss Leader?

It was your claim that the PNGCS coordinates were not in the transcript at all.
In the very first few lines of the transcript, Aldrin calls out N43, and McCandless confirms reciept via telemetry.

Are you retracting that claim?


I'll look it up for you, don't have it off the top 'o' me head....

But, I do have proof now of the Apollo 11 LAM-2 flown map being intentionally rotated and therefore fraudulent.


Go to;

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/landing_site/

Note the images 4th and 5th from the top are rotated roughly 10 degrees counterclockwise from true lunar north. The Apollo 11 LAM-2 Flown Map is rotated in the same way without there being any indication as to true lunar north as there is here on these images.

Go to Google Earth;

http://www.google.com/earth/index.html

If you have never downloaded their software, do so. Go to the moon reference and note that indeed the LAM-2 flown map image for Apollo 11 and the flown map image for apollo 10 are rotated 10 degrees counterclockwise when compared with the Google map lunar reference.

http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a10LandingSite2.jpg

http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a10LandingSite2lbl.jpg

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

Then David Harland's presentation featured in the Apollo 11 image library from an alleged shot taken by the Eagle with landing ellipse superimposed;

http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/ALS-2_vertical_w-ellipse.jpg

Note the CORRECT ORIENTATION HERE with the ellipse running true east to west with respect to its long axis. But in this case the background lunar surface is not rotated 10 degrees counterclockwise as in the above images.



Google map confirms my previous suspicion of LAM-2 Map counterclockwise rotation with ellipse running east to west over this rotated image. The ellipse should run east to west over an unrotated image as it does in Harland's presentation.

Pirates get ready!!!!!

And as for you my friends, my detractors, PREPARE TO BE BOARDED, THIS WAR IS OVER.....!!!!.....

No, you are going to ignore that and switch horses, and pretend you were not caught out.

I ask again, will you retract your claim, now that your N43 debacle is plain for all to see?
 
Patrick, you're clueless. There are much more important considerations in the siting of navigation beacons than providing continuous coverage. Navigation is not broadcasting.

Geometry is everything in navigation. The stations have to be sited such that small changes in position result in the largest possible changes in whatever you're observing, e.g., Doppler shift. Otherwise, even a small error in measuring that Doppler shift turns into a very large error in the position fix.

For this reason, siting the beacons on the moon and at the L4 and L5 points is about the silliest thing I can think of. Oh, and the great distance to those points means having to use much more powerful transmitters, about 25x GPS power levels. And electric power is a very precious commodity in space.

Go read a book on the basics of radionavigation theory with special emphasis on the concept of "geometric dilution of precision" (GDOP). You really need to undestand this. You will find it discussed in many texts on GPS. Yes, it's even a factor there but the constellation was designed to keep it as small as possible over as much of the earth as possible for as long as possible. And the operational system does a pretty good job because the people who designed it knew what they were doing.

Welcome to the nuthouse, KA9Q.

Here is a quick primer of Patrick's lack of understanding of the Doppler effect:
-it measures an object's total velocity, not radial velocity.
-the Earth's rotation increases the accuracy of the measured Doppler shift. It is not an error that needs to be eliminated to properly measure an object's radial velocity.
-the Doppler shift is only 2 dimensional and by happy coincidence that 2D plane always passes through the receiver's position no matter where it is and no matter where the transmitter is or its orientation.
-only one location on Earth will correspond to a certain Doppler shift (his gross misunderstanding of how the TRANSIT satellite system worked), not the infinite number of locations of a hyperbola projected onto the surface of the Earth.

There's more but I don't want to give you lateral whiplash.
 
Why did you quote the post containing all his questions, but fail to answer a single one of them?

Because this is his SOP when he doesn't know the answers, or does and realises that they will hurt his case, he quotes the post, then goes off on a rant about one of his four favourite topics (Lost Eagle, Floating Crap, No Armstong, Rotated Maps) and hopes that no-one will notice that he actually failed to answer any of the questions asked of him.

I would like to hear your answers to them. It would help convince us that you are the serious historian you claim you want to be. Real scholars face their critics, not run from them.

So would I, just as I would like to see him answer my questions, your questions, and half a dozen more that have been asked and totally ignored.
 
As should be obvious, I am anything but intimidated by your mainstream view oriented questions.

It's not obvious at all, in fact exactly the opposite. People who aren't intimidated by questions actually answer them rather than avoiding doing so multiple times. Please respond to the questions asked and then I might accept that you aren't intimidated by them.

As mentioned , I try my best to answer the most difficult and relevant. All of this takes a great deal of time.

I don't accept that. You don't answer the questions in any way shape or form; you totally avoid them and instead write long waffling posts that are totally irrelevant to the questions. You claim it takes a lot of time and yet you repeatedly waste your time with your long-winded, capital-letter filled, repeated word, and highly irrelevant rants. If you don't know the answers to the questions then you shouldn't be making the claims you are, as the questions go to the very heart of your claims, and if you haven't considered the questions asked, you haven't actually considered the logic and sense of your own claims.

Have you yet learned the math describing satellite ephemerides? I have not. Though the general concepts are rather easy, mastering the MTh will take a month or so I would imagine and I am mathematically much more literate than most. You need to exercise a bit of patience here.

Once again this is totally irrelevant to what I actually asked from you. You don't have to learn the math to answer the questions I asked, I specifically didn't ask anything overly taxing or mathematical. Once again you are using irrelevancies to dodge answering the questions asked and hoping that no-one will notice. Once again you are wrong.
 
Somewhere in this 130 pages of goo, was it brought up that the LM nearly crashed on landing and Armstrong had to find another place to land? The original site was too close to a crater?
 
And as for you my friends, my detractors, PREPARE TO BE BOARDED, THIS WAR IS OVER.....!!!!.....

Enough of the prideful boasts...when will you be addressing the questions you have so far ignored.???

Oh, and there was never a "war", for if there was, it would be over before it started since you forgot to bring ammunition.
 
Welcome to the nuthouse, KA9Q.
Thanks. I saw the note over on apollohoax that our friend fattydash was here ranting about stuff I actually know, so I had to join the fun.
Here is a quick primer of Patrick's lack of understanding of the Doppler effect:
Looking them over, I think that he probably sees the existing tracking and orbit determination networks as a black box that track Doppler for a while and then magically spits out a complete set of orbital elements. He has no real understanding of how it works or what its requirements and limitations are. Especially those factors that control accuracy.

In fact you can determine a reasonably accurate orbit from Doppler alone if the spacecraft is in ballistic motion, i.e., unpowered flight, moving only under the influence of gravity from bodies whose own positions and gravity fields are very well known. In addition, you have to meet at least two of the following three conditions:

1. You spread your Doppler measurements over a wide period of time.

2. Your Doppler measurements are very accurate.

3. You make Doppler observations from multiple stations, preferable spread widely apart on the earth.

NASA, ESA and the other space tracking networks rely on 2 & 3 to give quick results but the numbers always improve with additional tracking over time.

Also, the most accurate Doppler measurements are made with coherent transponders operating in the 2-way mode, as that eliminates any uncertainty associated with the drift of an onboard oscillator. A coherent transponder locks an oscillator to the uplink carrier frequency, multiplies it by a fixed frequency ratio (e.g., 240/221 for S-band) and transmits that as its own carrier. Then the ground station need only apply the same ratio to its own uplink to provide an unshifted frequency and phase reference for the received signal. Now you can literally count individual RF cycles as the range to the spacecraft changes. The receive phase will advance by 360 degrees every time the spacecraft moves 1/2 RF wavelength closer to you, and it will retard 360 degrees for every 1/2 wavelength it moves away. And you can easily measure fractions of a cycle. Considering that the wavelength on S-band is about 13 cm, you see how accurate this can be.

Without knowing how many integral RF cycles are between you and the spacecraft you can only see changes in the range, i.e., the range rate or velocity along the line of sight. But if you can determine an initial range you can update it by integrating the Doppler measurements. You do that by turning on a ranging code, typically a long pseudorandom sequence like that used in spread spectrum, have the transponder turn it around, and then you slide the received sequence in time with respect to the transmitted sequence to determine the round trip delay. Once you have your measurement you can turn off the ranging code and simply update the range by adding or subtracting RF cycles from the doppler loop.

NASA had been using this scheme since the early 1960s. It was the basis of Apollo USB tracking and it's still used today. It's been a remarkable technology.
 
Because this is his SOP when he doesn't know the answers, or does and realises that they will hurt his case, he quotes the post, then goes off on a rant about one of his four favourite topics (Lost Eagle, Floating Crap, No Armstong, Rotated Maps) and hopes that no-one will notice that he actually failed to answer any of the questions asked of him.


Yep, thems definitely his favorites. But let us not forget some of his other evidence-free gems:

-the LRRR was placed on the Moon to measure and refine the AU. Never mind the Sun is not the Moon's primary.
-Inertial Navigation Systems must constantly, constantly I tell you!, be updated. His refutation of my 20 years experience of operating INSs in the US Navy was quote-mining a 60 year old Popular Mechanics article and his very special interpretation of the word "frequent".
-A multi-megaton warhead missing its target by one mile is a catastrophic miss but a position difference of half a mile on the Moon is very very very very very very good.
-He admits TRANSIT was working by 1964 but the distance between Washington DC and Moscow was unknown to within one mile until Apollo landed on the Moon and the LRRR could be used to refine the distances across the oceans.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom