...divorced from any meaningful context.
Last evening I looked over a couple prints I have of of Lunar Orbiter II 2085(2085) and AS-37-5447HD(5447)...
So you printed them out. That adds your printer to the list of sources of error.
I took three measurements of distances between landmarks...
May we please see which landmarks you used?
Units?
They are fairly close I'd say.
Well, I
don't say. Prove to me that you have managed the error accordingly.
I am not going to stress over this point, nor press it to any appreciable degree.
I'm not going to stress over it, but I am most certainly going to press it to the degree required to convince you that you have absolutely no credibility here as someone who has ever done any work in any field where correctness matters. You're no doctor, scientist, or engineer. In fact, I doubt whether you've even had a college-level science class.
At the beginning of this week you said you "didn't do photos." Now, barely a week later, you're trying to tell people with professional credentials and experience that they're wrong and that your naive floundering is right. Do you have any idea how arrogant that is? I told you before that my photo analysis has been covered in
Science -- probably the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the English language. Do you really think your week's worth of frantic Googling and "common sense" pretension rises to a comparable level of competence?
...there is indeed lots of room for error to be introduced That said, and regardless, there is so very much fraud...
Delusion noted. You casually brush aside the fact that you've committed egregious errors of method and engaged in a long-standing pattern of sloppy and uninformed work. Yet you maintain that -- somehow -- you are still correct and Apollo must be fraudulent. I have to ask whom you think you're fooling?
I'll let this one go for now and move on...
Let me underscore Loss Leader's question to you: why is it so hard for you to concede any sort of error? It's clear that, from time to time, you see how badly wrong you are. Do you realize how obvious your error is to everyone else? Do you realize how insecure and deceptive you appear when you try to save face like this?
If you want people to listen to you, you need to let them know honestly that you can be swayed by evidence. You instead display stubborn ideological belief. That is inimical to science, and ensures that no one but the very lazy and gullible will subscribe to your theory.
It is important to keep in mind that the LAM-2 map has already been proven inaccurate...
No. It is important to keep in mind that your attempts to discredit LAM-2 have fallen comically flat.
...and therefore fraudulent given its intentional misgridding and THAT!!! is not a point in dispute...
Nonsense! It was disputed first by me, and then later in more detail by Laton. You just ignored it. And I believe you ignored it
intentionally: you quoted the post and then wrote a lengthy harangue on an entirely different topic. Egregious sidestepping is not equivalent to strength.
I have been reading quite a bit about the origins and developments of the star sighting systems that were and are used in ICBM guidance beginning in the 1960s.
And hereby you've bounced violently off of another clear refutation and have changed the subject to distract from your gross incompetence.
Stay tuned to "Lost Bird" and brace yourselves for these particularly disturbing revelations.........
The only revelations this thread has produced is the alarming extent to which you're willing to wrap clumsily made-up stuff in a package of astonishing puerility. And yes, it's disturbing: you expect us to believe you're a 54-year-old physician writing these posts. I'm amazed at how one set of arguments can be so arrogantly wrong.
