Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[JayUtah]

Patrick, while you're re-reading (the Google Books version of) Kelly's Moon Lander, don't skip over

"We ran a special vehicle-level vibration test on LM-1 using electrically driven vibration generators. This test gave us confidence that these wires would not break when the LM was being shaken in flight during launch or from its own rocket engines." (p. 179)​

Does that give you some insight into how assemblies intended for space really are tested?

 

[Loss Leader]

The pilot is then required to acknowledge the transfer to P66 and take the attitude and descent-rate controls to fly the terminal maneuver manually. If he did not do this, the ship would crash.

Ha ha ha! I have caught JayUtah being wrong! You are wrong, sir. You are wrong.

Five of the six LM pilots turned their rockets off before they had completed the terminal maneuver. They dropped onto the surface of the moon like stones. Only one pilot, Armstrong, had all feet down before he disengaged. Everyone else described a HARD LANDING.

So, the terminal maneuver was not entirely flown manually. The last two or three feet of the terminal manuever were hardly even flown at all!

What you should have said was, "The pilot is then required to acknowledge the transfer to P66 and take the attitude and descent-rate controls to fly the vast majority of the terminal maneuver manually. If he did not do this, the ship would crash unless it was so close to the surface and going so slowly that it would be perfectly safe to disengage."

I await your acknowledgement of your failure.

 

[JayUtah]

That's it is it? I posted Jayutah's complete dismantling of everything you wrote...

And your reply to the rebuttal is, 'they stand well'?

Yes, I tend to believe that ignoring his critics is how is able to write this:

I am hardly desperate Jay, I feel rather relaxed in all of this actually.....Quite confident.

Yet that confidence eludes him when he is asked to solve a couple of rudimentary orbital mechanics problems that relate to his claims of lunar module guidance. And it fails him again when he is asked to solve a couple of elementary problems involving the Doppler effect, which was the basis of his lunar navigation claims.

It's easy to have confidence when one writes from the comfort and safety of anonymity, secure in the belief that nothing one says or does will ever have any real consequences. And if one's confidence should ever flag, some situations allow one to conjure up an army of admiring former lurkers with a few clicks of the mouse.

But do confident scholars need to accuse their subjects of stupidity also, when the charge is putatively fraud? Do confident scholars need to pile on the exclamation points?

Less bluster, please, and more content.

 

[nomuse]

The projections for the Apollo 10 and 11 flown maps are the same.....Check that out for yourself.

Also, if such were the case, that the map was accidentally misgridded, they would have mentioned the misgridding/projection problems as a reason as to why Collins and the NASA boys in Houston could not find the Eagle. Nothing was ever said and so the misgridding "secrecy" is confirmed as ever so ever so ever so intentional.....,

Err, what?

It isn't "accidentally" misgridded. It is very intentionally a different map. This happens. Compare any "tube" map to a street map and try, TRY to line up the station locations.

I have to question if you even understand the underlying geometry of translating the surface of a spheroid on to a flat representation. Do you truly not understand that every projection is a compromise, and different projections are chosen for specific task optimizations? (Aka the world projection you chose to plan an intercontinental flight is not the same projection you chose to compare arable land areas on different continents).

And there was no "secrecy" involved. The map has a label. That's why they put those there, you know. The people involved were quite capable of recognizing they were dealing with different maps.

I've mentioned this before...if you go hiking around the Marin headlands the GM angle is I believe 14 E. If you are an ordinary and experienced outdoors person you will make this conversion (or set it on your compass) without hardly thinking about it. You won't, unless you are an amateur indeed, get flustered, complain, use it for a few minutes then forget again, then start shouting about the great map conspiracy and why isn't your map gridded correctly.

And the men who flew Apollo were far from amateurs.

 

[Garrison]

Is it not the case then Garrison that the landing ellipse center on the LAM-2 map is at the very coordinates listed in the Press Kit as those of the targeted landing site; 00 42' 50" north and 23 42' 28" east, or am I wrong about that?

I thought that was a pretty straight forward undemolishable simple point of looking..... No?

Not going to get drawn into another of your sidetracks. The substantive issues Patrick, moon rocks, pictures, evidence for your military hardware; those are what I suspect everyone else is waiting on you addressing. So please no more waffle about which books you've read, no more false bonhomie, no more quoting posts and ignoring the questions raised; just the substantive matters or admit you can't do it and stop wasting everyones time.

 

[Robrob]

Could someone please explain to me what is the implied significance of the previously claimed discrepancy between map coordinates?

 

[SpitfireIX]

Every gifted person makes fundamental gaffs.

Granting for the sake of argument that this is true of all gifted people, those who are intellectually honest admit and correct their errors when proven wrong. They do not continue hawking pamphlets that perpetuate those errors.

Further, when an error is so egregious that it reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic principles underlying a subject, it necessarily calls into question a person's claim to expertise and competence in that subject. For example, would you hire a cartographer who repeatedly claimed that the Earth is flat? Saying that misunderstanding pi is an equally serious error is no exaggeration.

That does not negate the good points that they make.

That is correct; but the question is why anyone should assume that any of Rene's points are good to begin with. You have demonstrated that you lack the expertise to evaluate his Apollo claims. You have been informed by real experts that those claims are all bogus, and that Rene lacked any real credentials in science or engineering. Yet you persist in holding him up as having somehow proven at least some aspects of Apollo to have been faked. Apparently you are doing this simply because Rene supports your theory.

 

[JayUtah]

I await your acknowledgement of your failure.

Well I could draw the parallel between that and a fixed-wing pilot cutting power during the pre-touchdown "flare," and the finesse with which he must do that in order to avoid a hazardous hard landing. And I could point out that while the DPS was indeed shut down above the surface, the RCS could still be used to alter lateral velocity, rotate the ship, and affect the descent rate. But your facts are in order and the spirit of your argument is sound, so I think you can petition the Apollohoax T-shirt judges to see if you get one.

Yes, the last five feet or so of all but one LM descent were essentially unpowered drops and, for all intents and purposes, not "flown" at all. The key, of course, is that the LM was expected to be in velocity state for which that would be normal operation. That requires the pilot to have nulled the lateral velocities to below that which would have caused a tipping moment on touchdown, and to have achieved a combination of altitude and descent rate that would not overload the shock attenuators in the struts.

When solving a sequential problem such as landing a vehicle, we break it up into a series of phases. Why? Because different stages of the sequence involve values for the parameters of the dynamic state that imply different control laws. For example, both parallel parking and highway driving involve an automobile, but require completely different control strategies.

When we break it down into phases and develop control laws for each phase, the goal is to meet the entry conditions of the subsequent phase. The "contract" is that if the system is able to enter a phase with all the process variables within certain discrete ranges, the control laws in that phase will be able to function properly and manage the system forward to the next phase. If any of the process variables are out of range, the system is not guaranteed by design to converge them to usable values.

The LM will touch down safely if the vertical velocity at touchdown is below a certain value, if the underlying slope is sufficiently flat, if the vehicle attitude is sufficiently upright and not rotating faster than a certain amount, and if the lateral velocity is below a certain value. It is up to the pilot, flying in P66, to achieve that state before committing to the touchdown by cutting the DPS motor.

Working backwards, the entry conditions for P66 are that the vehicle will be at an altitude of 200 feet plus or minus a certain amount, and that the vertical velocity will be 12 fps, plus or minus a certain value. There is no fully automatic control mode after this.

A certain decision point occurs in P64, called low gate. This is at 500 feet, when the pilot can see the terrain well enough to determine whether P64 has sent them to a suitable landing site. If it has, he remains in P64 until P66 entry conditions are met -- another half-minute or so hence. If it has not, he enters P66 immediately and flies the ship manually to a new landing site, using vehicle manuevers not within the P64 control laws. Low-gate is generally the terminology for the point at which any pilot has committed to land, typically because his vehicle lacks the power to regain safe altitude after that time. The decision to abort, to descend further in P64, or to prematurely invoke P66 at low-gate is what the Smithsonian author is talking about.

Conversely high-gate marks the beginning of the approach-oriented control laws, as opposed to cruise flight. For a fixed-wing pilot this means certain wing configurations and power settings designed to manage his airspeed and sink rate while retaining the ability to climb out of a missed approach. For the lunar module, this means a transition from orbital flight to trajectory management, at about 7,000 feet (plus or minus) and a descent rate of 500 feet per second (plus or minus).

The conceptualization of entry conditions as a "gate" is apt. Success means getting through the gate, whether you go right down the centerline or are dramatically to the left or right. As long as you clear the gate, you're good to go for the next phase. Predictably we build the control laws such that they aim for the middle of the gate, and use the extra width as an operational margin. This exemplifies the general principle of good system design that says, "Be strict in what you provide, but lenient in what you accept."

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Earning an "I corrected JayUtah" t-shirt is a very high hurdle.

Better luck next time!

 

[Loss Leader]

The key, of course, is that the LM was expected to be in velocity state for which that would be normal operation. That requires the pilot to have nulled the lateral velocities to below that which would have caused a tipping moment on touchdown, and to have achieved a combination of altitude and descent rate that would not overload the shock attenuators in the struts.

When solving a sequential problem such as ...

Blah, blah, blah. I win the thread. Keep your t-shirt.


Redeem yourself by answering this question about the only real conspiracy in the space program: It is well-known and easily demonstrated that women are more ideally suited for spaceflight than men. They're generally smaller, weigh and eat less, and, I think, tend to remain more healthy and more fit. from an engineering perspective, they are the better choice to send to the moon. The whole spaceship could weigh less:

When, if ever, did the engineers at NASA or the contract companies seriously propose in writing that NASA launch a female astronaut?

 

[Patrick1000]

Fair enough.....

Granting for the sake of argument that this is true of all gifted people, those who are intellectually honest admit and correct their errors when proven wrong. They do not continue hawking pamphlets that perpetuate thosThat is correct; but the question is why anyone should assume that any of Rene's points are good to begin with. You have demonstrated that you lack the expertise to evaluate his Apollo claims. You have been informed by real experts that those claims are all bogus, and that Rene lacked any real credentials in science or engineering. Yet you persist in holding him up as having somehow proven at least some aspects of Apollo to have been faked. Apparently you are doing this simply because Rene supports your theory.

I certainly have not the time to debate the merit or lack thereof with regard to Rene's points, and this thread is not about Rene, nor his ideas. That said, I've seen Rene on film, his enegy, his enthusiasm, and have some general sense for his investigative method.

We simply differ here SpitfireIX. I think the guy, Rene, has something to say, if nothing else, he encourages the open minded to take a close hard and careful look at Apollo,. Apollo may not be what its apologists claim it to be. Rene gets that point across well enough and deserves credit for it, whether he is correct with respect to the details of his arguments, I cannot really say with great confidence as it would take some time to look into the details of his claims. His method of approaching Apollonian history is so very different from mine.

You view Rene from a different light Spitfire IX, and I think that is fine as well. At some point I'll check his stuff out in more detail, for now, I'll focus on my own views, strategy, angle of attack.

 

[Patrick1000]

Looking over old posts.........

I like alternate history; it's one of my favorite genres of fiction. Where can I pick up your book? Is it in stores?

Looking over old posts the last couple of days has been interesting for me. Some say "history" is written by the winners and so cannot be true in that regard as its perspective is so very limited/narrow.

Having looked into Apollo's history for the last 8 months or so, I've come to realize that history is more or less like science, "creative" in the same sense that science is. Histories of this or that are NOT tied so tightly to events, not so tightly tied in the same way scientific theories always prove to be not so very adherent at all ultimately to the realities they purport to model/describe.

 

[Robrob]

When, if ever, did the engineers at NASA or the contract companies seriously propose in writing that NASA launch a female astronaut?

During the space race? Never.

At the time the only persons with that level of test pilot experience were male.

Do I get a T-shirt?

 

[SpitfireIX]

It's a metaphor, sorry if you were mislead.....Sword of Damocles type thing.

They would have to be crazy I think to leave nukes up there because of problems with discovery by the public. Too risky for that reason...

Again, planting bombs overhead is/was a figure of speech/metaphor.....

All right, now how about answering the other questions I asked (including the hard ones)?

Jay gave you a basic overview of how ballistic missile warheads are actually tested that completely contradicts your assertions; is he lying, crazy, or incompetent? What's your answer, Patrick?

Also, you have failed to explain how these purported secret tests would have provided meaningful data, when the warheads didn't actually detonate, and in most cases the wrong launch vehicles were used.

Project Mercury was concluded before the limited test-ban treaty took effect, and a live-fire Polaris test occurred in the same timeframe. So why the need for a secret testing program?

GPS was originally designed to allow American ballistic missile submarines to fix their positions more accurately so that they could launch their missiles more accurately, and to allow American bombers to navigate to their targets more accurately. However, GPS was encrypted so that the Soviets couldn't use it for the same purposes (a far less accurate, non-encrypted system was included for civilian use). These facts were public knowledge years before the first GPS satellite was ever launched. So please explain why all the nations of the world didn't "freak out" over GPS.

As noted, even if the LRRRs were intended as targeting devices (and you have provided no evidence that they were, nor have you explained how they could be used as such), there was nothing to prevent the Soviets from using them as well. So I pose the question, Patrick, why would the US military have bothered to do this, and why would they have tried to keep the true purpose a secret?

Please explain what [the fact that not all weapons are nukes] has to do with your argument.

Finally, you still haven't answered my original question: Why wasn't the side that first put nuclear weapons in space (whether temporarily or indefinitely) outed by the other side?

 

[Patrick1000]

It is interesting and rewarding/helpful going over old posts.....

Does anyone wanna break the news to this guy about the russians and the three radio receivers thing, or do we wanna watch him squirm for a while?

It is interesting and rewarding/helpful going over old posts.....

I have never really done it before. Here is a comment from Sword_of_Truth that would have sort of given me pause back in August. Perhaps not a lot, but some anyway. Now when my attention is drawn to something like this, Russian awareness of Apollonian fraud, I think to myself, "It goes without saying, the Russians would not say "boo", they were doing the very same thing too"........

 

[Patrick1000]

Here is another interesting and very good post from MRC Hans.....

I realize this guy is likely a troll, but let's look at his claim:

The basic claim when you strip off all the word salad is really this:

Facts:

Apollo 11 did not land in the exact planned spot.
In consequence, a group trying to make a laser ranging to the retro-reflector placed by the Apollo 11 team, failed to find the reflector.
Without establishing their actual position, the Apollo team could not have reconnected with the command module.

Claims:

The above mentioned laser ranging team apparently did not get a precise update on the position.
So Apollo 11 is a hoax.

Rebuttals

1) Of course the whole claim requires a huge leap of faith. Just because some team failed to catch a laser reflector it makes no sense to conclude some huge conspiracy.

2) There may be a number of reasons why the laser team did not get the updated position: Maybe NASA forgot/didn't bother to tell them; maybe there was an error in the transferred info (remember, this was before the age of e-mails, so such info would be transferred with telex, phone or the like), maybe something else went wrong.

3) Even if they did get the updated info, obtaining a laser return is not a simple matter. The laser beam, when it reaches the moon, is only about 4 miles wide, so actually hitting the laser corresponds to aiming a rifle to hit a dime 2 miles array. Finally the light that can be detected back on earth is just a few photons. So even if they did get a return, they mat easily have missed it.

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

Hans

Here is another interesting and a very good post as well from MRC_Hans.....His points were well taken I believe, though of course I do not agree with them.

At that point in time, it would seem MRC_Hans assumed I was basing my entire argument, or was planning to anyway, on the LRRR issue, the fact that it was not successfully targeted on the night of the landing given the fact the Lick scientists AND MacDonald Observatory scientists as well had coordinates accurate enough to hit the LRRR, provided they had exercised a bit of ingenuity(the MacDonald boys that is, their coordinates perhaps not being as good as those given to Lick).

As time has gone on I have introduced at least 11 points of Apollo narrative incoherence that taken collectively well substantiate my claims of Apollo fraud. I have moved well beyond my introductory point as regards the LRRR and Lick Observatory/Houston Eagle landing site coordinate discrepancy.

I suspect Hans still finds my arguments inadequate. But with my investigation moving forward at a clip of better than one major fraudulent point of contention per month, I may have as many as a couple dozen issues suggestive of Apollo space shenanigans by this time next year.

I suspect Hans would have a more difficult time now resonding to the LRRR issue now given all the additional information provided in the thread since these very early posts.

 

[Patrick1000]

Think of it in terms of Tranquility Base's location Robrob....

Could someone please explain to me what is the implied significance of the previously claimed discrepancy between map coordinates?

Think of it in terms of Tranquility Base's location Robrob....

If the LAM-2 map is gridded correctly/accurately, then Tranquility Base would be at J .65 and longitude line 7.52. Accurate gridding is indeed the case if a map were to be gridded with the landing ellipse center at 00 43' 53" north and 23 38' 51" east, the targeted landing site coordinates as reported in the Apollo 11 Mission Report published November 1969.

However, the LAM-2 map is not gridded that way, not gridded accurately. It is gridded inaccurately, and we know it was INTENTIONALLY gridded inaccurately because first of all, the Apollo 10 flown map though rotated counterclockwise, was at least gridded such that the ellipse center was at 00 43' 53" north and 23 38' 51" east. So they, "the NASA cartographers", know those are the correct coordinates for the landing ellipse center, the very ones that they used for the Apollo 10 map.

However, and unbelievably, unless one is open minded enough to consider the REALITY OF FRAUD, they didn't use those appropriate coordinates for the Apollo 11 flown LAM-2 map of Michael Collins, they used 00 42' 50" north and 23 42' 28" east. These are the targeted landing site coordinates as reported NOT in the Mission Report, but rather are the coordinates reported before the Apollo 11 launch in the Apollo 11 Press Kit published 07/06/1969. Since the coordinates on the LAM-2 flown map match up exactly with the coordinates in the Press Kit, we know that this gridding is INTENTIONAL. Since the Apollo 10 flown map features the targeted landing site coordinates accurately represented as does every other map published before or after the Apollo 11 mission that one cares to look at, one may conclude with absolute certainty that the intentional misgridding is done with a mind toward abject deception. there is no other way to read this. IT IS NOT AN IINNOCENT MISTAKE.

So, if one uses the inaccurate degrees/minutes/seconds LAM-2 Map gridding to find the landing site, then Tranquility Base winds up being at K 0.2 and longitude line 5.6. That is over a mile of "boulders and craters" from its true location.

So the significance of their having done it this way, intentionally misgridding the map, is that it is a way to help "hide the bird".

Remember that there is a blue dot right at K 0.2 and 5.6 on the actual Apollo 11 flown LAM-2 map. There is absolutely no other reason for that dot to to be there than to mark "Tranquility Base's location" given the bogus degrees/minutes/seconds gridding. No reason, NONE AT ALL, except for that, except EXPLICITLY AND VERY VERY INTENTIONALLY TO DECIVE..

If I am a geologist looking for the Eagle on the night of the landing, my degrees/minutes/seconds coordinates are not the same as Michael Collins' degrees/minutes/seconds coordinates. So if I find "Little West Crater" and determine the Eagle is just west of there based on "astronaut descriptions of terrain" , then I will tell whomever to tell Michael Collins to look at roughly 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east. On an accurately gridded map, Collins attention would then be drawn to J .65 and longitude 7.52, as that is where Tranquility Base is and that is where 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east maps to on an accurately gridded image. But Collins', and presumably those advising him where to look, have a different set of degrees/minutes/seconds numbers and they will map to an altogether different lunar location geographically and those degrees/minutes/seconds coordinates will of course correspond to a different set of LAM-2 map lettered latidude and numbered longitude coordinates. So on the DEGREES/MINUTES/SECONDS WISE INACCURATELY GRIDDED LAM-2 MAP, 00 41' 15" north and 23 26'' 00" east is found at K 0.2 and longitude 5.6 . THESE NUMBERS, THIS GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION DOES NOT RESPOND TO THAT OF TRANQUILITY BASE ON AN ACCURATELY GRIDDED MAP. In this way, Collins never pretends to look in the correct place for the Eagle as he allegedly hunts overhead for the "LOST BIRD".

Of course this is all a ruse anyway. The not looking in the right place business is just for the sake of innocent onlookers, Collins never looked at anything as he was never orbiting the moon.

Also, my presentation above is somewhat oversimplified as the map is also intentionally rotated out of position. The rotation issue explains why so many of the targets/coordinates/landing site location guesses given to Collins are well north of the pretended landing site. Look at them for yourselves in the Mission Report. I have gone over them as well in my previous posts. The moon's image is rotated counterclockwise giving the left side a "southern bias" . So all of the coordinates Collins is given are too far north. He is aiming where he should aim were the map not rotated.

Again, this is all phony, just done for the sake of onlookers who do not realize the map is gridded with longitude lines shifted westward and rotated counterclockwise about a central axis.

Very diabolical and effective. I am the fist person to have discovered this particularly important aspect of the fraud.,..


It is so very significance because the LAM-2 map cannot be undone. It is HARD EVIDENCE, that screams FRAUD and NASA can do nothing about it now. They have played their lying hand....

 

[Andy_Ross]

Still no reasons as to why an actual warhead had to be flown rather than an instrument package?

What info can you get from a crashed warhead other than it suffered damage or ont?
You can't tell what was damaged when and how to any meaningful level if you have to dig it out of a field after it has hitthe ground.

 

[JayUtah]

As time has gone on I have introduced at least 11 points of Apollo narrative incoherence that taken collectively well substantiate my claims of Apollo fraud.

And I and others addressed each of those 11 points individually and at length, and have directed your attention several times to those rebuttals. To date there has not even been an acknowledgement from you that a rebuttal exists, much less any substantive treatment of any of them. Are you lazy or just evasive?

Let Robrob ask you to repeat a claim, however, and another wall of text issues forth without so much as a second thought. Clearly you're more interested in an audience than in a discussion.

But with my investigation moving forward at a clip of better than one major fraudulent point of contention per month...

Amazing the speed one can attain if one ignores the opposition. Or the facts. Or doesn't stop to do any research. Consider that speed is not the objective here, but correctness.

 

[JayUtah]

However, and unbelievably, unless one is open minded enough to consider the REALITY OF FRAUD...

No. The people who disagree with you do not do so because they are closed-minded. Conspiracy theorists brandish a skewed notion of "open-mindedness" that is simply a euphemism for "believing what I say, even though I provide no proof."

I am the fist person to have discovered this particularly important aspect of the fraud.,..

"Me, me, me! It's all about me!"

What happened to the part where you're just a layman pointing out the obvious?