So is the LAM-2 a REAL THING Loss Leader, a real big fat fake map...
No, it's not fake just because you don't understand it.
If I may be so bold as to point out the main issue with regard to the LAM-2 Map, the issue which you all are so deftly evading...
No, you're pounding the table over the LAM-2 map issue to avoid having to deal with
any of the other issues that affect your theory. You claim explicitly that this one issue trumps everything else, thus allegedly freeing you from having to deal with any other evidence. That's not how proof works.
No one is evading the map issue, because as yet there is nothing to evade. your claim is:
THE MAP IS INTENTIONALLY MISLABELED MISGRIDDED.
...but you haven't shown evidence of intent.
I find it rather ammusing that most of you posting about the mislabeling of the LAM-2 Map seem to be trying to counter my discovery by insisting the astronauts could find the targeted landing site [...] irrespective of the map's lacking accuracy. This is most decidedly NOT THE POINT!
It was your point until you lost that argument. And it becomes your point again at the end of this post.
Who cares if they could or could not find the targeted site in practice.
You do, just as recently as yesterday. You told me my pilot couldn't get to Beijing without a map that fit your criteria. You named other cities and told us that without such a map they were unnavigable.
But as today is a new day, you're off and running on a brand new tangent.
...and indeed it would have been gridded by a master cartographer were this thing real
Too bad you assiduously ignore the attempts of our resident master cartographer to educate you on why the maps are instrumented the way they are.
Since some are having a problem with this critical issue, I shall elaborate...
Translation: All I will do is repeat my debunked claims over and over again, using more and more words and CAPS each time. Thank you for abating the punctuation this time around, it's much less puerile in today's version.
So why is it that on the flown map of Apollo 10 [...] the Eagle's targeted landing site on all of these images can be found at 00 43' 53" north and 23 38' 51" east, while ONLY ON THE APOLLO 11 LAM-2 FLOWN MAP OF MICHAEL COLLINS WHICH FEATURES MILITARY TYPE LATITUDE LABELING...
This is an important premise to your argument. You're trying to argue that the singular Apollo LAM-2 was doctored by the military to mislead everyone. Therefore your characterization of the grid reference as "military" is important and must be established by stronger evidence that simply your say-so.
The UTM alphanumeric grid reference system is hardly limited to the military. Further, I -- as an engineer -- use the same horizontal-and-vertical alphanumeric grid reference strategy to locate points of interest on large drawings for cross-referencing purposes. So you cannot make the case that any system of alphanumeric coordinates is necessarily military.
Conversely I have in my collection an original LEC-1A lunar surface map, prepared in 1968 under the direction of the U.S. Defense Department, from various sources. It uses ordinary degree latitude markings. So clearly the military does not use only its UTM-based coordinates when preparing maps of the Moon.
Therefore your premise fails its categorical line of reasoning -- alphanumeric map references do not necessarily mean "military."
There is a separate line of rebuttal that arises out of your laborious presentation -- given the number and type of other references available, how successful can
one "misgridded" map be at creating the confusion you say it was designed to achieve?
The difference in projections pertaining to the map reference, and the difference in purpose for each map, have been explained to you
ad nauseam and will not be repeated.
Only on the intentionally misgridded differently produced Apollo 11 LAM-2 Flow Map of Collins do we find the physical point of original Eagle targetature to be at an erroneous 00 42' 50" north and 23 42'28" east.
That's right, on only
one map. Yet you argue that this was meant to mislead an entire civilian agency into working for the military.
There is one and only one explanation for all of this.
Only because you ignore all the others.
The physical landing site originally selected for the Eagle's landing was intentionally misrepresented in the Apollo 11 Press Kit published/released 6 July 1969.
The Apollo Press Kits are riddled with errors and simplifications. They are prepared by journalism majors hired by NASA to write them for other journalists. Those guys do their best, but they aren't technical and the amount of detail they have to deal with means a lot slips through the cracks at press time, and at times conscious decisions are made to give the layman's version rather than a pages-long treatise on cartography. That's what press kits are for. So yes, if you tell me you found a discrepancy in the Press Kit, I'll say, "So what?"
So are
all discrepancies in the Press Kit intended as military misinformation to deceive the public? Or are they just ordinary errors and glosses? How were you able to tell that this one instance was a deliberate deception? You continue...
IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AN INNOCENT EEROR AS THE COORDINATES OF THE TARGETED LANDING SITE WERE WELL KNOWN BEFOREHAND AND THE GRIDDING OF THE MAP WITH THE ASTRONAUTS GOING TO THE MOON WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE BY THE MOST EXPERT OF MAP WORKERS WERE THE ADVENTURE AUTHENTIC. AS SUCH, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO ROOM FOR ERROR, NO ROOM FOR SUCH CARELESS MISGRIDDING WITH BRAVE MEN'S LIVES ON THE LINE AS NEVER BEFORE IN THE HOSTORY OF THE WORLD.
Oh, the drama! The manufactured horror!
At the top of your post you took exception to the rebuttal offered by some that an "inaccurate" map wouldn't keep them from landing safely on the Moon. And now at the bottom of the same post you're trying to hype up the near-fatal dangers of one "mislabeled" map so that you can claim it couldn't be an accident (or a simple difference in cartographic technique).
Really, Patrick? Is it that difficult for you to stay consistent during a rant? As usual, your argument boils down to nothing more than what you think should have been the case. Not convincing in the least.
AND FINALLY, AND MOST DAMNINGLY, THE LAM-2 FRAUDULENT COORDINATES MATCH EXACTLY THE COORDINATES PUBLISED 6 JULY 1969 IN THE PRESS KIT. THIS WAS NO ACCIDENT.
No, it probably wasn't an accident. Which is to say, someone in the PAO had to call around and get the final landing site coordinates from Mission Planning, and the person there just read off the coordinates from LAM-2, perhaps not knowing or caring that those coordinates might not work for any other map.
From this almost heart breaking analysis...
Who's heart is breaking? I'm laughing.
This is why you fail at being an historian, Patrick. You approach historical investigation with the layman's belief that the records of a true event should be laid out at your feet, entirely absent of error, bias, inconsistency, omission, or ambiguity. On the contrary, it is the historian's job to make some sort of sense out of all that impurity which naturally occurs in the historical record. The historian sifts through the "messy" documents of real life and distills what is most likely to be the truth.
It's proper to ask why the maps differ. It's proper to ask why the coordinates are one way in one case and another way in a different case. It's proper to ask why the Press Kit is so inaccurate.
But what it's
not proper to do is attribute to invisible nefarious forces what doesn't meet your personal, uninformed standards of purity. And that is what you're doing.
