Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Patrick1000]

Thought I was addressing matt's concerns, Ralph Rene.....

Patrick, why do you quote a post, such as the one by matt.tansy, in several posts (such as #5753, #5754, #5757 and #5758) and yet completely fail to actually address the post which you quote every single time?

Further, you are still claiming "intentional misgridding" of Collins' map, despite it being patiently explained to you several times that there waas no misgridding at all, simply two different maps with different grids. Every time you claim "intentional misgridding" you expose your lack of understanding of cartography, and in doing so, your argument fails even further. Can you not see that by repeating something shown several times to be nothing but a product of your own ignorance, your posts become more risible?

Thought I was addressing matt's concerns, Ralph Rene.....The comic book matt claims I plagiarized, DARK MOON, and so forth.

 

[Patrick1000]

Of course it is misgridded, check the landmarks for yourself.....

Patrick, why do you quote a post, such as the one by matt.tansy, in several posts (such as #5753, #5754, #5757 and #5758) and yet completely fail to actually address the post which you quote every single time?

Further, you are still claiming "intentional misgridding" of Collins' map, despite it being patiently explained to you several times that there waas no misgridding at all, simply two different maps with different grids. Every time you claim "intentional misgridding" you expose your lack of understanding of cartography, and in doing so, your argument fails even further. Can you not see that by repeating something shown several times to be nothing but a product of your own ignorance, your posts become more risible?

Of course it is misgridded Agatha, check the landmarks for yourself....Did they, the landmarks, the craters, the boulders, move more than a full mile one month to the next, from the time of making the Apollo 10 flown map to the time of making the Apollo 11 flown map?

The LAM-2 map is not gridded differently from one other map Agatha, it is gridded differently from EVERY OTHER LUNAR MAP!!!! Shall we say the LAM-2 map is not gridded accurately then Agatha and the other maps are? I am fine with that. Last I checked Tranquility Base should be at J .65 and LAM-2 map numerical longitude line 7.52. Why then is according to the LAM-2 gridding Tranquility's Base is at K .2 and 5.6, EXACTLY WHERE THERE IS A "MYSTERIOUS BLUE DOT" as Eric Jones is so fond of calling it?

DON'T JIVE ME WITH YOUR NONSENSE Agatha. You think me a fool!? That map is so FAKE and it is something the perpetrators can never take back. I found it and I'll throw it in NASA's lying face every day of the week from now 'til the day of their reckoning......

 

[Garrison]

Thought I was addressing matt's concerns, Ralph Rene.....The comic book matt claims I plagiarized, DARK MOON, and so forth.

Except that's the wrong book, as has been pointed out to you already. How about you address the long list of substantive questions that you have outstanding instead of going off on another pointless detoru?

 

[Loss Leader]

Your posts imply that in your view the Smithsonian article indicated something other than that the Grumman pilots, the Grumman engineers and the Jim Lovell character all believed the Lunar Module had the capacity to land without human piloting assistance.

Edited by Locknar: 

Edited, breach of rule 12.

And now you are not going to answer my question? Your claim about the article Loss Leader MAKES NO SENSE to repeat myself anyway, seeing as you care not to defend your own position.

Fine. For the record, the article does not state that the LM could land without the assistance of an astronaut. The article does not quote any pilot or engineer as saying the LM could land without a pilot onboard. The article does not quote Jim Lovell as saying the LM could land without a pilot onboard. Jim Lovell never believed and still does not believe that the LM could land without the assistance of a pilot. Those playing the character of Jim Lovell (notably Tom Hanks and Tim Daly) did not and do not believe the LM could land without a pilot onboard.

You have misread the article.

 

[Patrick1000]

But that is silly SpitfireIX, you don't throw the baby out with the bath water....

As noted, Rene claimed that pi is equal to 3.146264. Any bright secondary school student who's taken geometry can demonstrate that this is incorrect (see here). What does that say about Rene's credibility, Patrick?

And Jarrah White is still offering to sell people Rene's pamphlet "proving" this incorrect value. What does that say about his credibility?

But that is silly SpitfireIX, you don't throw the baby out with the bath water....

Every gifted person makes fundamental gaffs. That does not negate the good points that they make.

 

[Patrick1000]

Fair enough, I read the article differently.

Edited by Locknar: 

Moderated content removed.

Fine. For the record, the article does not state that the LM could land without the assistance of an astronaut. The article does not quote any pilot or engineer as saying the LM could land without a pilot onboard. The article does not quote Jim Lovell as saying the LM could land without a pilot onboard. Jim Lovell never believed and still does not believe that the LM could land without the assistance of a pilot. Those playing the character of Jim Lovell (notably Tom Hanks and Tim Daly) did not and do not believe the LM could land without a pilot onboard.

You have misread the article.

Fair enough, I read the article differently.

 

[JayUtah]

Your posts imply that in your view the Smithsonian article indicated something other than that the Grumman pilots, the Grumman engineers and the Jim Lovell character all believed the Lunar Module had the capacity to land without human piloting assistance.

Yes, his posts imply just that. And the proposition they imply is correct. That proposition has been verified according to the most authoritative source that can exist: the actual computer program code. And just to be safe, it is further covered in depth in a book from which you have quoted and must therefore consider correct.

As I've already written, your suggestion that the LM could land on the lunar surface without a human pilot is based on your personal interpretation of words like "autopilot" and "automatic" as used in an article in the popular press. You interpret these words to mean "without human intervention," but that is not a correct understanding of those words, either in their broad context of avionics or in the specific context of the lunar module's control system. And to be sure, specific examples of required pilot input were given to you.

You appear unable to distinguish interpretation from fact. That makes you a poor reporter of fact, and a poor analyst of the situations from which those facts arose. You cling desperately to one brief article, and ignore the reams upon reams of technical data that -- while consistent with the article's theme -- do not support your beliefs.

Your claim about the article Loss Leader MAKES NO SENSE to repeat myself anyway, seeing as you care not to defend your own position.

Irrelevant, since Loss Leader will undoubtedly call upon me to defend it according to my substantial education, expertise, and experience. And it is highly disingenuous of you to accuse Loss Leader of dereliction when you have failed for months now to address the actual demonstrated and documented behavior of the Apollo lunar module. You are the one running from the debate, Patrick. Make no mistake.

Is that why you've suddenly come up with this new claim that the military secretly modified the lunar module? Is it so that you'll have some reason to disbelieve what other people tell you about the technical details of flying it? Is it so that every time I show you just how and why the lunar module couldn't be flown without a human pilot, you can just suppose that this must be one of the ways in which the military changed it?

Of course you've provided zero evidence that this actually occurred, despite my numerous requests. How does your claim then achieve any more strength than wishful thinking?

 

[Patrick1000]

Not sure what you me, I sort of get the sarcasm point....

You missed the important parts of my post in favour of an irrelevant answer. Do you not realise I was being sarcastic? You are as uninitiated a person in the sciences pertaining to Apollo as you could get.



How ironic that you don't answer the questions in a post pointing out that you don't answer the questions

Still not entirely sure what you meant. I sort of get the sarcasm point...But given my work you are off target. I guess you can say I am not an LRRR expert, but once any science literate student becomes familiar, gets "initiated" it is not difficult.

Anyway, now that I sort of understand your point I'll leave it.

 

[Agatha]

Of course it is misgridded Agatha, check the landmarks for yourself....Did they, the landmarks, the craters, the boulders, move more than a full mile one month to the next, from the time of making the Apollo 10 flown map to the time of making the Apollo 11 flown map?

The LAM-2 map is not gridded differently from one other map Agatha, it is gridded differently from EVERY OTHER LUNAR MAP!!!! Shall we say the LAM-2 map is not gridded accurately then Agatha and the other maps are? I am fine with that. Last I checked Tranquility Base should be at J .65 and LAM-2 map numerical longitude line 7.52. Why then is according to the LAM-2 gridding Tranquility's Base is at K .2 and 5.6, EXACTLY WHERE THERE IS A "MYSTERIOUS BLUE DOT" as Eric Jones is so fond of calling it?

DON'T JIVE ME WITH YOUR NONSENSE Agatha. You think me a fool!? That map is so FAKE and it is something the perpetrators can never take back. I found it and I'll throw it in NASA's lying face every day of the week from now 'til the day of their reckoning......

Differently gridded maps are a function of different projections. There is nothing inherently wrong, or surprising, in having maps gridded differently. That you think there is some great mystery about one map being gridded differently from another map merely exposes your woeful misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of cartography.

Just because a map is gridded differently from another map does not mean that the features of the earth or moon have shifted; if you actually believe that is implied by a map with a different grid then quite frankly I am amazed. I had not thought it was possible for someone who is old enough to write with a relatively good grasp of grammar and spelling (though poor and immature in content and understanding) to be so ignorant of something which is taught to schoolchildren in the UK, and I suspect in every developed country in the world.

Every time you claim intentional misgridding you will be showing yourself up as a wilfully ignorant person, given how many times you have been corrected on this.

As to the highlighted part, as long as you persist in making kindergarten errors while claiming to be an educated person, what do you think I am forced to believe?

 

[Patrick1000]

Regardless, my point about the map stands and stands well......

Which is good because as you demonstrated during the Apollo budget debacle you don't know the difference between multiplying and dividing.

Regardless, my point about the map satnds and stands well......

Whether one can do long division or not, the Apollo 11 LAM-2 flown Map's status remains unchanged. At the center of its landing ellipse are the coordinates for the targeted landing site as given in the 6 July 1969 Apollo 11 Press Kit; 00 42' 50" north and 23 42' 28" east. No none can change that FACT. One need not even be able to add and subtract to understand the horrific implications.

 

[Patrick1000]

Another poster challenged me about weapons in space....

You are stating that you have no idea if such projects exist in reality. We know this already.


And again, you state that you have no knowledge of such a project or program.



Again with the repetition. We get it. You don't know.


Indeed.



So of the hundreds of launches, what was "special" that had to be hidden by means of faked manned missions? You don't know that either.


Jay already toasted you on testing principles, but as usual you ignore posts inconvenient for your conjecture.

As an engineer by training and profession, I concur with Jay, and you are flat out wrong.



Indeed YOUR arsenal is. You constitute less than 5% of the worlds people. I am not American, nor are most of the people in the world. Lay off your racist bias.


Already explained ad nauseum. You are not an engineer of any colour. Your unevidenced expectations are not evidence, as you have no training or experience in those fields.


Wrong. Mercury was a manned space flight system which used boosters proven on the preceding ICBM testing.


Childish slur noted. Lack of content noted.



In a single paragraph, 3 wild claims, yet not a single piece of evidence.



Why didn't the Russians use it against the US? It is a corner cube reflector, it's not like you can turn it on and off.
Why would the US provide such a facility free gratis to the USSR?
Why would the US provide for free what, according to you, would allow the USSR to more accurately target US cities?

Another poster challenged me about weapons in space....

The poster's comments implied that I believed there may be nukes in space. At least that is how I read it.

I personally do not believe there to be nukes in space on any more or less "permanent" basis.

I know for a fact that the military would have to test nuclear warhead reentry to assure themselves of weapons' viability and functionality in case a bona fide shooting war were to begin.

My claim is that nuclear warheads were routinely flown above and then back down through the atmosphere to so test their viability in/through space and the atmosphere. One of the contexts in which this was done was the in the context of the American manned space programs. They could not do this openly, even under the auspices of a military testing program as such testing has been directly prohibited by various treaties.

AND above and beyond that, were the public aware that live warheads were routinely flying through space as part of a weapons testing program of any sort, it would be the end of such programs forever. The concern about testing accidents and the consequences of such accidents would be far too great.

Manned space was and continues to be the perfect cover.....

 

[Patrick1000]

The only way to be sure an ICBM does what it is supposed to do is to test the entire

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't warheads considerably more rugged than the missles designed to deliver them? They really shouldn't need identical testing to missies even if carrying one inside a manned space capsule on top of a relativly gentle booster like the S-V did somehow qualify as identical testing.

The only way to be sure an ICBM does what it is supposed to do is to test the entire missile along with its warhead, and if not detonate the nuke, at least recover it for inspection.

See my posts above regarding Barry Goldwater and his criticism during and beyond his 1964 presidential run with respect to the ICBM testing we had done. See also my comments regarding RAND analyst and Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger's concerns about the "truth" in our testing..

 

[Patrick1000]

What do my ideas have to do with the nutty DARK SIDE guys matt....

I said you plagiarized it from Dark Side of the Moon. But you knew that. That is why you are posting walls of text to try to deflect attention away from your plagiarism by intentionally mentioning the wrong book hoping I would correct you and ignore your plagiarism.

What do my ideas have to do with the nutty DARK SIDE guys matt....?

Pretty much everything you write makes sense and good sense to me (even though I often disagree with you) except this DARK SIDE stuff.

The DARK SIDE guys are so very Kooky. I cannot help but think the book is "calculated" and calculated in the sense that it is meant to confuse people in some way. Disinformation perhaps? It so very very very very much that whacked. Aliens! Extraterrestrials! It is flat out stupid.

If there is anything in there that is in synch with my stuff please clue me in matt. I cannot for the life of me see it, find it. That said, I flipped through the book last night for about 15 minutes so I do not know it all that well, nor do I want to for that matter.

I ultimately decided to keep the book instead of toss it for yuks, but the thing as alternative Apollo History is more than worthless.

It is on the other hand very very very very very very FUNNY!


EDIT: My mistake, matt was referencing something else altogether, not the book DARK MOON. I'll be sure to take a look at the film matt recommended and report back.

 

[Garrison]

Regardless, my point about the map satnds and stands well......

Whether one can do long division or not, the Apollo 11 LAM-2 flown Map's status remains unchanged. At the center of its landing ellipse are the coordinates for the targeted landing site as given in the 6 July 1969 Apollo 11 Press Kit; 00 42' 50" north and 23 42' 28" east. No none can change that FACT. One need not even be able to add and subtract to understand the horrific implications.

Patrick it's been demolished every single time you bring it, that's the only fact. Your knowledge of cartography is actually worse than your maths. It's past time you stopped with the dodging and addressed the hard issues. Explain where NASA got all of those moon rocks if the Apollo astronauts didn't collect them? Come up with one shred of evidence for your automated/modified LM and all those military 'toys'. Explain all those photgraphs and video of astronauts on the moon that is back by the telemetry and the rocks? Come on Patrick, show us you have some semblance of an argument instead of flaunting your ingnorance of maps and mathematics time after time.

 

[Patrick1000]

I read about why it started late Jay.....

And try to work out why it started late.



You are obviously not an orbital mechanics expert.



No. I've elaborated for you on numerous occasions, only to have you simply ignore what I write. When you have at least addressed my response to your 11 points, then you may ask for elaboration on this and other points. The time has come when I will no longer spoon-feed you expert information. Since my expertise is now well established among the readers of this thread, I will now simply point out your errors and wait for you to figure out how to correct them.

I read about why it started late Jay. We have been over this material have we not? I don't think any of us disagree on the story line there with respect to how it is that the bird went long.....

I referenced one relevant section of the Mission Report to get the other guy, vtbub, started.....

 

[Patrick1000]

I need not go over this in deatail again.....

And you can't even do that. Your error here has been explained to you numerous times, and it does involve mathematics.



No, it's simply a different projection. Projections are the mathematical expression of practical cartography.

And your claim that this was done intentionally is a purely circular argument. You don't understand what was done, so you conclude it had to have been done "intentionally" so as to mislead.

Have you figured out yet that no one buys into your arguments for motive when you just invent a motive?

I need not go over this in too much detail again.....

The Apollo 11 LAM-2 Flown Map of Michael Collins features 00 42' 50" north and 23 42' 28" east at the center of the landing ellipse. These are the targeted landing site coordinates as reported in the Apollo 11 Press Kit published 07/06/1969.

The landing ellipse center's true coordinates are those published November 1969 and are indeed the coordinates that correspond to the geographical location of the targeted landing site on ALL OTHER MAPS, EVERY OTHER LUNAR MAP JAY. These are coordinates 00 43' 53" north and 23 38' 51" east.

No math is required to understand this deception.

If the LAM-2 map was not intentionally misgridded in an effort to deceive per my previous posts, why are the coordinates at the ellipse center those of the very numbers given in the the Press Kit? Why is there NO OTHER MAP SO ERRONEOUSLY GRIDDED???????

 

[Patrick1000]

He is not an authority......

Ralph Rene was scientifically illiterate, shown to be dishonest, and, in many people's estimation, mentally ill. That you would consider him an authority of any kind speaks volumes for your work.

He, Rene, is most decidedly not an authority......

I already mentioned Rene, Kaysing and White as interesting researchers that have nothing to say about motive. Their presentations are devoid of context and therefore weak.

That said, Rene has made some great points, as has Kaysing, as has White, and the 3 of them should be commended.

That said, not a one is an alternative Apollo history authority, all of them having an overall rather feeble approach to the topic of Apollonian Fraudulence. As such, their results are themselves rather anemic.

 

[Patrick1000]

The Smithsonian article implies otherwise.......

Utterly false.

I have given you specific examples of what input was required from the pilot, verified from the actual computer program code. You have yet to address any of that, except to make the vague claim that the military modified the LM in some way unknown to its manufacturer. And you have yet to describe or substantiate those modifications.

You are the one interpreting words such as "automatic" and "autopilot" to mean "without the need for a human pilot." That is your interpretation of what you're reading, and I have confirmed many times that it is the wrong interpretation. Further, your source explicitly says that the autopilot relieved some of the tasks from the pilots. That should have given you some clue that the corrections your critics are offering is the right answer.



The Grumman pilots and engineers are not expressing the opinion in your article that the LM could be landed without a human pilot.

Further, if you had actually read the Frank O'Brien's book from which you quoted, you would have seen this covered at length. But since you merely mined a quote from the excerpt you read on Google Books, you aren't aware of what your sources really say.

The Smithsonian article implies otherwise, and as a matter of fact, strongly so.......

Whether the article's author is correct in this regard remains open to debate. I am currently rereading the relevant sections of Thomas Kelly's book in an effort to convince myself one way or the other as to what the truth was/is about the lunar module and its landing capabilities, at least as those capabilities were/are presented to the public......

 

[Patrick1000]

Actually I didn't know about THE DARK SIDE OF THE MOON.....

Responding to the reference to William Karel's, Dark Side of the Moon, Patrick writes:


It's a film. Explain how you can claim to own it, yet get wrong what it actually is.



Yes, and I responded to it at length, as requested. And you have utterly ignored the response, yet have the temerity to ask me to elaborate again on other points.

Actually I didn't know about THE DARK SIDE OF THE MOON....I'll look into it.....

 

[Patrick1000]

Sorry matt, my mistake, thought you meant, DARK MOON....

I said you plagiarized it from Dark Side of the Moon. But you knew that. That is why you are posting walls of text to try to deflect attention away from your plagiarism by intentionally mentioning the wrong book hoping I would correct you and ignore your plagiarism.

Sorry matt, my mistake, thought you meant, DARK MOON....

I shall indeed check out Dark Side Of The Moon and report back......