• 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.
But naming the spacecraft was suspended after Molly Brown.

For Gemini, yes. Grissom wanted his Gemini spacecraft to be thought of as "unsinkable," (cf. his sunken and lately raised Liberty Bell 7) but NASA's public affairs office (PAO) wasn't amused. Only when Gus threatened to call it Titanic did the PAO agree to Molly Brown, but then persuaded NASA administration to end the practice for the remainder of Gemini. Since Grissom flew the lead ship in the Gemini program, that's why almost none of the Gemini missions flew memorably-named spacecraft.

Wasn't it Snoopy and Charlie Brown that prompted NASA management to put their foot down and say they had to approve the names?

The Mercury spacecraft had suitably dignified names so there wasn't any real need for NASA to step in.

The spacecraft names serve as radio call signs. By longstanding aviation tradition, the pilot names his aircraft and/or call sign and is given great latitude in doing so. So at NASA, spacecraft names were issued by the Astronaut Office, which was only slightly less in stature than the PAO. Remember, NASA is a bunch of squabbling directorates and centers. Internal power struggles abound.

Gemini used the mission designation as the radio call sign. As Apollo 9 first involved multiple spacecraft for a mission, the mission designation alone couldn't distinguish spacecraft that were under way separately. Hence each ship again had to have a separate call sign. Naturally the Astronaut Office lobbied the argument that pilots had always been free to choose their own radio call signs, so that's how they got NASA to relax its Gemini-era restrictions. The CMP would name the command module and the CDR and LMP would agree on a name for the lunar module.

The whimsical names the Apollo 9 gave their ships once again angered the PAO, but the Astronaut Office had negotiated a renewed carte blanche. The PAO beseeched the Apollo 10 crew to do better than Gumdrop and Spider, but didn't go far enough in articulating their expectations. What they wanted were politically correct names that would look good in the history books.

When the Astronaut Office first announced Charlie Brown and Snoopy, the PAO was again livid. However they had to admit that the Apollo 10 crew had improved over their predecessors, first by obtaining the proper legal licenses and approval from Charles Schulz, and second by choosing call signs that were at least crowd-pleasing if not historically solemn. When the PAO saw the enormous marketing success of the tie-in and the enthusiastic collaboration with Schulz, they knew when to shut up. It wasn't their idea of a proper name, but it fulfilled the PAO objectives probably better than any of their own ideas.

Nevertheless the PAO again went to NASA Administration and won increased say over radio call signs. While the crews would still be the creative origin, it was understood that the call signs would have to be more dignified in order to avoid another internal political mess.

It really came down to a question of culture clash. Pilots had always drawn call signs and aircraft names from whimsical, bawdy, irreverent, and personal sources. When my engineering workload is light, I go pal around an old B-17 named Short Bier. The nose art features a cartoon Hitler with his feet sticking out of a too-short coffin. Enola Gay is Col. Tibbits' mother. Glamorous Glennis was Yeager's girlfriend -- and he remarked that every ship that bore Glennis' name brought him back safely.

Combat pilots have some traditions and superstitions that aren't lightly trodden upon, so to tell a pilot he can't name his ship the way he wants to is going to rankle him. It's just not done. And historically the brass who approved those names had themselves risen from the rank and file, so they understood that a pilot's choice of call sign and ship name often had a deep significance that would improve his morale.

But NASA hired professional PR guys, journalism and marketing majors who didn't always understand or agree with those traditions. To them the Apollo spacecraft were not just bombers, fighters, or test planes being churned out by the thousands only to fade into obscurity. They were historic ships that would be mentioned in the same breath as the Mayflower, the RMS Queen Mary, and the USS Arizona. They had to have names worthy of their expected place in history. While history tolerates such famous ships as HMS Beagle and USS Shangri-La, NASA PAO felt that they had the opportunity to choose better names in anticipation of the fame that would be attached to them.

So the compromise was eventually reached that while the Astronaut Office would still have the privilege of naming the spacecraft, the names would be chosen not from the pilots' whimsy but from a more mainstream catalogue of good old American ship names and traditional astronomical names.
 
Pirates get ready!!!!!

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

As has been pointed out repeatedly this kind of posturing convinces no one. What is needed is evidence, which you have repeatedly failed to provide, with regard to lightning strikes, military hardware, budgets, photographs, etc. On the other side is a mountain of evidence that you choose to ignore in favour of personal incredulity. Evidence Patrick that's what's wanted not caps locked rants.
 
Borman was suspected of having viral gastroenteritis, but he could have had anything

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.

Borman was suspected of having viral gastroenteritis, but he could have had anything Tomblvd were this thing true; Samonella, Shigella, C. Dif. enteritis, staph food poisoning, influenza and so forth and so on. We know it's all so very much not true because once they "got back", no one did anything about this to "fix the problem", see to it that if someone did have diarrhea, say on Apollos 9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17, the rest of the crew would not be placed in jeopardy, or at the very least, would at least have the risk of getting sick reduced some.

I found it comical that once the NASA/Apollo script writers realized they had botched this by concocting this unbelievable story about infectious diarrhea in outer space and couldn't undo the nonsensical story they had told, they decided to deal with the fraud exposure so created by claiming the astronauts could not have contracted influenza in the midst of the Hong Kong flu epidemic of 1968/1969. This false claim of course was necessary in a sense because were Borman to have had influenza, Lovell and Anders under those circumstances would be expected to get if for sure. So what can they do but make up this jive about the boys having been vaccinated? LOL..... Got 'em there...... So what, Borman still could have contracted influenza, especially in the winter of 1968.

Additionally, Borman wrote a piece in Life magazine in which he unbelievably said he thought the seconal sleeping pill was what made him sick in outer space. So do you know what he said he did to check this out Tomblvd? He took a half of another seconal tab to see if that might not might make him sick again, sort of an experiment. Which it did, the seconal did make Borman sick again, per his account, albeit minimally so. How dumb could this guy be? Not that dumb thankfully, this ain't true.

Is this diarrhea story idiotic or what Tomblvd?

Makes perfect sense ?..?..? The guy is only flying to the moon for the world's most exotic Bible reading, why not give yourself another bad case of diarrhea for whatever reason? It's not as though being the commander of the ship they needed him or anything of the sort you know.....
 
Last edited:
They alleged landed, they allegedly ran the p68. Assuming these things occurred, they are supposed to cough up the numbers, the landing site coordinate numbers. At the time, it was the single most important datum simply based on safety concerns. They did not disclose any landing site coordinates whatsoever. This bird is nowhere and this Apollo 11 Mission is proven FAKE, sorry, but true true true Loss Leader. FAKE!

And you've done what you did in post #5086; you quote a post with a number of questions in it and then proceed to answer none of them. Why can't you answer Loss Leader's questions? Just take them a couple at a time and provide nice concise answers, is there a reason why you won't do that?
 
I've talked about this several times.....

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...

I've talked about this several times.....

Narrative analysis proves Apollo 11 fraudulent, and that includes proving the material evidence to be "fraudulent" as well. Though with regard to the material evidence, it is fraudulent in a special sense.

By this I mean that one cannot say with any certainty that the rocks are or are not lunar, some of them may actually be rocks from the moon for all I or anyone knows. That said, the stones certainly were not collected by Armstrong and Aldrin.

Also, the pics may have been taken remotely, taken from 240,000 miles away. That is possible, conceivable. At least some of the pics. However, the pictures featuring pretend astronauts such as of Armstrong standing under the LM with his back to the camera changing the Eagle's oil, and the other pics with Aldrin in them, those of course are 10 plus bogus, super phony, triply doubly and oh so very insanely fake fake fake.

I am not a material analyst as I have said many times. I don't do rocks and pics. I can prove them fraudulent in my special sense, prove the pics and rocks fraudulent as I have just done again by showing the LAM-2 map was intentionally rotated counterclockwise some and misgridded as well. Collins' flown map is a fraud, a fake map, so the whole Apollo 11 thing is fake in terms of it not being as advertised, not being manned. That said, some of the pics might have been taken with Apollo 11 equipment, certainly Apollo equipment generally speaking, but the pics are NOT evidence of an authentic manned lunar landing.

As I mentioned before, I am more like a theater critic than anything and I specialize in plot credibility and performance. This plot is NOT believable and these are very very very very very very very bad actors.
 
NOUN 43 Latitude, Longitude, Altitude
NOUN 60 Forward velocity, altitude rate, altitude.

It's commonly accepted that Aldrin misspoke regarding Noun 60, which was the important bit of telemetry MOCR had been monitoring during the descent and landing. He intended only to ask whether Noun 43 had been copied.

The long pause prior to Aldrin's request for a copy confirmation is when Aldrin was executing the steps on the checklist that asked him to write down several pertinent guidance values as the result of post-landing computation.
 
No, my SOP is that when I don't know an answer I read up on the subject....

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.



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.

No, my SOP is that when I don't know an answer I read up on the subject, assuming I believe the question relevant and a question more challenging than most.

For example, have you looked at the math on doppler determinations of ephemerides Phantomwolf. It is very difficult. Not much more I can say on the subject now myself until I am more literate with regard to details. However, in broad outline, my points with regard to the satellite issues are all on target....
 
Iy this I mean that one cannot say with any certainty that the rocks are or are not lunar, some of them may actually be rocks from the moon for all I or anyone knows. That said, the stones certainly were not collected by Armstrong and Aldrin.


Exactly how were the rocks collected and returned to scientists for study?


As I mentioned before, I am more like a theater critic than anything and I specialize in plot credibility and performance. This plot is NOT believable and these are very very very very very very very bad actors.


Yet, you'd at least agree that the movie exists.
 
No, my SOP is that when I don't know an answer I read up on the subject, assuming I believe the question relevant and a question more challenging than most.

But you keep making bold claims on a variety of subjects, surely you must have assembled the evidence before making the claim? And if you haven't then how can you even judge what is or isn't a relevant question? And how can you dismiss the opinions of those who clearly have the knowledge and experience in these subjects that you lack?

For example, have you looked at the math on doppler determinations of ephemerides Phantomwolf. It is very difficult. Not much more I can say on the subject now myself until I am more literate with regard to details. However, in broad outline, my points with regard to the satellite issues are all on target....

And this shows the problem perfectly. You admit to not having studied a subject in detail but you are quite sure your conclusion about the subject is sound.
This is not some subjective political debate where one persons opinion may be as good as anothers; To prove an 'Apollo Hoax' you will require hard evidence, technical knowledge, and demonstrable understanding of the issues involved in the decision making, all of which you have so far failed to offer.
 
Quantification of the fraud......

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.....!!!!.....

Quantification of the fraud......

To straighten out this picture;

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/images/hi_res_vertical_lg.gif

required 23 degrees of clockwise rotation.

To make the surfboard shaped landing ellipse square in this one;

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

required 9 degrees of clockwise rotation.

Either way, it is a lot. The map is fake right there. I'll move on. It is even more fake as you'll see.

The US Geological Survey Post Fight Map (Maurice Grolier, 1970) would have to be considered the most accurate of its time;

http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11-Geo-Map-sm.JPG

It features West Crater at roughly 23 degrees and 27 minutes east, 23 27' 00" east

The Apollo 11 flown Map;

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

features West Crater at roughly 23 30' 24" east. Note that the Apollo 10 flown map also features West Crater at 23 27' 00" just like Maurice Grolier's fancy US Geological Survey Post Flight Map from 1970, (http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a10LandingSite2.jpg). So one cannot claim they didn't know any better. Actually, one can see they knew plenty plenty plenty and in fact gridded the LAM-2 map intentionally 3 minutes and 24 seconds of arc to the east of where it should have been gridded. That's equivalent to about 1.07 miles.

This is a particularly tough one for all of us to take and so will leave it at that for a while......
 
No, my SOP is that when I don't know an answer I read up on the subject...

..then ignore anything that proves the Moon landings happened, and instead post made up junk.

...assuming I believe the question relevant...

Irrelevant...you are not a respected authority on this subject, therefore, your biased, willfully ignorant opinion is worthless

much more I can say on the subject now myself until I am more literate with regard to details.

...my points with regard to the satellite issues are all on target....

Why do actual scientists disagree with you???

What makes you smarter than the scientists who have CONFIRMED Apollo as real???

Why can't you address the questions that other posters have nicely asked of you?


Why should we treat you with any form of respect, (by continuing to post responses), when you can't return that "favor" by answering relevant questions??
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Borman was suspected of having viral gastroenteritis, but he could have had anything Tomblvd were this thing true; Samonella, Shigella, C. Dif. enteritis, staph food poisoning, influenza and so forth and so on.

Or it could have been motion (space) sickness, or a reaction to the meds. IOW, nothing serious.

We know it's all so very much not true because once they "got back", no one did anything about this to "fix the problem", see to it that if someone did have diarrhea, say on Apollos 9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17, the rest of the crew would not be placed in jeopardy, or at the very least, would at least have the risk of getting sick reduced some.

That doesn't even make sense. What do you mean "fix the problem"?

I found it comical that once the NASA/Apollo script writers realized they had botched this by concocting this unbelievable story about infectious diarrhea in outer space and couldn't undo the nonsensical story they had told, they decided to deal with the fraud exposure so created by claiming the astronauts could not have contracted influenza in the midst of the Hong Kong flu epidemic of 1968/1969. This false claim of course was necessary in a sense because were Borman to have had influenza, Lovell and Anders under those circumstances would be expected to get if for sure. So what can they do but make up this jive about the boys having been vaccinated? LOL..... Got 'em there...... So what, Borman still could have contracted influenza, especially in the winter of 1968.

We now know that Patrick is not a physician. There are statements in that jumble of words that could not have been written by a physician.

I'll let the words percolate for a while and see if the eminent doctor can weasel his way out of his precarious predicament before I blow the whistle on him.

But please feel free to jump in and call him on his idiocy if you like.

Additionally, Borman wrote a piece in Life magazine in which he unbelievably said he thought the seconal sleeping pill was what made him sick in outer space. So do you know what he said he did to check this out Tomblvd? He took a half of another seconal tab to see if that might not might make him sick again, sort of an experiment. Which it did, the seconal did make Borman sick again, per his account, albeit minimally so. How dumb could this guy be? Not that dumb thankfully, this ain't true.

Is this diarrhea story idiotic or what Tomblvd?

Makes perfect sense ?..?..? The guy is only flying to the moon for the world's most exotic Bible reading, why not give yourself another bad case of diarrhea for whatever reason? It's not as though being the commander of the ship they needed him or anything of the sort you know.....

I realize you are completely out of your depth here, but you didn't even manage to approach mentioning anything I said. As a matter of fact, I can't even make out a single point in your latest wall of text. All I see is incredulity. And that isn't an argument.
 
I've talked about this several times.....

No, you have dodged this question numerous times.

Narrative analysis proves Apollo 11 fraudulent, and that includes proving the material evidence to be "fraudulent" as well. Though with regard to the material evidence, it is fraudulent in a special sense.

No...none of that is demonstrated by any evidence. Why do you believe things that are not true?

...one cannot say with any certainty that the rocks are or are not lunar...

This only demonstrates your ignorance...OF COURSE WE CAN SAY WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, that the returned lunar samples came from the Moon...hell, some of those samples are documented by still and video photography...and it was done live, on site.

...yet you deny, deny, deny...proving your willful ignorance.

...the stones certainly were not collected by Armstrong and Aldrin.

Excuse me...stones?...do you mean Lunar regolith??

Re-read my last comment...your "disbelief" in the returned, DOCUMENTED samples is irrelevant.

...the pics may have been taken remotely...

Prove it.

That is possible, conceivable.

Nope...no evidence for that...

At least some of the pics.

Nope...no evidence for that...

...the pictures featuring pretend astronauts such as of Armstrong standing under the LM with his back to the camera changing the Eagle's oil, and the other pics with Aldrin in them, those of course are 10 plus bogus, super phony, triply doubly and oh so very insanely fake fake fake.

Why are you having such difficulty proving that? What's the "hold-up". We've given you sufficient time, yet you continue this obvious "dodge".

I am not a material analyst as I have said many times.

No...you are a credulous hoax believer, who misunderstands the facts and makes up things he doesn't understand...

I don't do rocks and pics.

Well, guess what...you better start "doing" them, as it is the only way you'll convince anyone other than yourself of the "Apollo fraud".

I can prove them fraudulent in my special sense...

You have not demonstrated that you are in possession of any "special" investigative abilities...just the opposite is the actual fact.

...prove the pics and rocks fraudulent as I have just done again by showing the LAM-2 map was intentionally rotated counterclockwise some and misgridded as well. Collins' flown map is a fraud, a fake map, so the whole Apollo 11 thing is fake in terms of it not being as advertised, not being manned. That said, some of the pics might have been taken with Apollo 11 equipment, certainly Apollo equipment generally speaking, but the pics are NOT evidence of an authentic manned lunar landing.

As I mentioned before, I am more like a theater critic than anything and I specialize in plot credibility and performance. This plot is NOT believable and these are very very very very very very very bad actors.

Another load of irrelevant crap. Nothing is stopping you from answering outstanding questions, so why continue "dodging"??

Answer the question....why do the scientists of the world acknowledge Apollo as real? Are they all wrong?

Why can't you answer this straightforward question?
 
A few more points on the map thing......

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.....!!!!.....

A few last points (for the time being anyway) on the map thing......

Comments to put the map issue in all the better perspective.

Maurice Grolier's US Geological Survey Map should be viewed more or less as our standard.

http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11-Geo-Map.JPG

The Grolier Map is detailed and was very accurate for its time. The map is gridded similarly to the flown map of Apollo 10 in that West Crater on both maps is located roughly at 23 27' 00" east. It differs from the Apollo 10 flown map however in that the flown map of Apollo 10 features an inappropriate depiction of the landing site ellipse running due east west across this rotated map.

Were the landing ellipse drawn in on the Maurice Grolier USGS post flight map, it would run diagonally across the map's rectangular frame with the east end in the upper right corner and the ellipse's west end in the map's lower left corner. Such an ellipse depicted on the USGS Map would feature the latitude lines running parallel to the ellipses long axis and the longitude lines running perpendicular to that ellipse long axis. Note that indeed the latitude lines of the Grolier USGS map do run diagonally upper right to lower left across the map's rectangle. This map of USGS is gridded accurately/appropriately. To straighten the Grolier USGS Map to the orientation of the Apollo 10 and 11 flow maps' orientations requires roughly 12.5 degrees of clockwise rotation.

Keeping the above in mind, one is now in position to state explicitly in what senses the Apollo 10 and 11 flown maps have been manipulated.

In the case of both of these maps, the landing ellipse runs parallel to the latitude lines and so defines those lines as indeed lines of latitude(east/west determinants). With respect to the landing ellipse, east/west is determined by/parallels the long axis of that ellipse, and so one may say that the lettered latitude lines of the Apollo 11 flown Map and the lines running parallel to the long axis of the ellipse in the images of the Apollo 10 flown map represent east/west latitude lines as defined by the orientation of the ellipse. Ditto for the longitude lines that perpendicularly cross the long axis of the Apollo 10 and 11 flown map ellipses. These lines represent north/south lunar longitudinal lines as committed to by the orientation of the ellipses.

I'll show in a moment how though these lines represent east/west and north/south as defined by the landing ellipse orientation, they do not represent true east west and north/south with reference to the lunar surface itself, and the lunar surface itself is of course the only thing that matters here. The ellipse image should be thought of as nothing mare that an outline superimposed over an already accurately oriented and gridded map.


As demonstrated previously, the landing ellipses featured in both the Apollo 10 and Apollo 11 flown maps are superimposed over a lunar surface image that is rotated roughly 12 degrees counterclockwise. (I'll use the Grolier map as a standard. The important issue here is that the image is rotated to a significant degree. The exact amount of rotation is not critical here, not yet anyway, and this rotational amount/quantity is indeed somewhat difficult to define with accuracy at this time.)

So in the case of the Apollo 10 and Apollo 11 flown map cases, the latitude and longitude lines are "appropriately" squared up with reference to the landing ellipses BUT! the latitude and longitude lines are very much NOT appropriately squared up with respect to the rotated lunar surface images which the ellipses overlay. In this regard, we see just how the flown maps have been tampered with, falsified, and indeed tampered with in an effort to intentionally deceive. Presumably to deceive map readers in various ways on the night of the the alleged "landing".

The Apollo 11 flown map is further falsified in the sense that the grid is shifted eastward by roughly 1.07 miles or 3 minutes and 24 descends of arc.

These are the details of the Apollo 11 LAM-2 flown map fraud such as they are now known. More of course will come shortly.

This fraudulent flown map is the most significant piece of Apollo Fraud evidence to date as it is utterly irrefutable and utterly concrete. It is a map intentionally falsified, no way around that, no way whatsoever.....
 
Or it could have been motion (space) sickness, or a reaction to the meds. IOW, nothing serious.


A long time ago in this thread, I mentioned that space sickness was a well-known open secret at the time. Though no astronaut would admit to it, some of them had experienced some hard times even before Apollo. We also had information that the Soviets were having problems with it, too.

It's hard to treat a problem when everybody affected keeps denying it exists.
 
You really, really need to read up on map projections.

As I've pointed out before the LAM2 flown map (UTM) and the Grollier map (transverse mercator) use different projection systems and datums which, in part, will result in the 'rotation' and coordinate shift that you seem to find so diabolical.

Really, when you work with maps and airphoto or satellite imagery all the time, datum shifts, affine transformations, projection changes, scale shifts, false origins and rotations are just every day occurences.
 
Correction.....

Quantification of the fraud......

To straighten out this picture;

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/images/hi_res_vertical_lg.gif

required 23 degrees of clockwise rotation.

To make the surfboard shaped landing ellipse square in this one;

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

required 9 degrees of clockwise rotation.

Either way, it is a lot. The map is fake right there. I'll move on. It is even more fake as you'll see.

The US Geological Survey Post Fight Map (Maurice Grolier, 1970) would have to be considered the most accurate of its time;

http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11-Geo-Map-sm.JPG

It features West Crater at roughly 23 degrees and 27 minutes east, 23 27' 00" east

The Apollo 11 flown Map;

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

features West Crater at roughly 23 30' 24" east. Note that the Apollo 10 flown map also features West Crater at 23 27' 00" just like Maurice Grolier's fancy US Geological Survey Post Flight Map from 1970, (http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a10LandingSite2.jpg). So one cannot claim they didn't know any better. Actually, one can see they knew plenty plenty plenty and in fact gridded the LAM-2 map intentionally 3 minutes and 24 seconds of arc to the east of where it should have been gridded. That's equivalent to about 1.07 miles.

This is a particularly tough one for all of us to take and so will leave it at that for a while......

As the Harland representation begins with the ellipse running with its long axis true left/right, east/west;

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

I should have written that 9 degrees of COUNTERCLOCKWISE rotation was required to orient the image as the image appears in the LAM-2 Apollo 11 flow map.
 
Correction.....

Quantification of the fraud......

To straighten out this picture;

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/images/hi_res_vertical_lg.gif

required 23 degrees of clockwise rotation.

To make the surfboard shaped landing ellipse square in this one;

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

required 9 degrees of clockwise rotation.

Either way, it is a lot. The map is fake right there. I'll move on. It is even more fake as you'll see.

The US Geological Survey Post Fight Map (Maurice Grolier, 1970) would have to be considered the most accurate of its time;

http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11-Geo-Map-sm.JPG

It features West Crater at roughly 23 degrees and 27 minutes east, 23 27' 00" east

The Apollo 11 flown Map;

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

features West Crater at roughly 23 30' 24" east. Note that the Apollo 10 flown map also features West Crater at 23 27' 00" just like Maurice Grolier's fancy US Geological Survey Post Flight Map from 1970, (http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a10LandingSite2.jpg). So one cannot claim they didn't know any better. Actually, one can see they knew plenty plenty plenty and in fact gridded the LAM-2 map intentionally 3 minutes and 24 seconds of arc to the east of where it should have been gridded. That's equivalent to about 1.07 miles.

This is a particularly tough one for all of us to take and so will leave it at that for a while......

Small correction....

Second to last paragraph should start, "features West Crater at 23 30' 48" ", I wrote above " 23 30' 24" " . Not a big deal, but worth the mention....
 
One does not get diarrhea with space sickness....

A long time ago in this thread, I mentioned that space sickness was a well-known open secret at the time. Though no astronaut would admit to it, some of them had experienced some hard times even before Apollo. We also had information that the Soviets were having problems with it, too.

It's hard to treat a problem when everybody affected keeps denying it exists.

One does not get diarrhea with space sickness....Though at the time, 1968, that fact was not well known. (It may have even been why the Apollo 8 script writers featured the illness as they did, erroneously believing space sickness would cause diarrhea.) Regardless, space sickness is eliminated as a diagnostic consideration. It most decidedly is NOT associated with diarrhea. Nausea and vomiting YES.
 
The other point about the diarrhea, and my main point.....

A long time ago in this thread, I mentioned that space sickness was a well-known open secret at the time. Though no astronaut would admit to it, some of them had experienced some hard times even before Apollo. We also had information that the Soviets were having problems with it, too.

It's hard to treat a problem when everybody affected keeps denying it exists.

The other point about the diarrhea, and my main point all along has been that the Apollo staff needed to fix the toilet. Whether Borman's alleged diarrhea was due to salmonella, influenza, food poisoning, seconal side effect, or the nauseating smell of close contact of the wrong kind in close quarters, what proves Apollo 8 fraudulent is that when the astronauts return, the toilet was not fixed.

You can't have astronauts breathing in feces for whatever reason the poop was aerosolized to begin with...It is dangerous, even with docs around it would be. In outer space, this is utterly ridiculous and thankfully it is fake and did not happen. We know this because nothing was done about the ppop problem. Armstrong could have been breathing in Collins' feces were he to have gotten sick in cislunar space and died instead of pretending to walk on the moon. This thing is very FAKE!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom