Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Patrick1000]

I know that, I even said in the thread that I posted something I lifted.....

The first sentence of this thread's opening post is, word-for-word, identical to this post by fattydash at ApolloHoax, which predates this thread. The rest of this thread's OP was redacted by a moderator because it was copied from another source. A verbatim regurgitation hardly indicates that one has simply been "influenced" by another.

I know that, I even said very directly/openly in the thread that I posted something I lifted for expediencies sake, at least I believe that is what I said. I'll go back and check. No sense in writing out the basic idea again, though I would and obviously did in fact present it differently as the first post's text was removed.

 

[abaddon]

How is that a "strawman" argument Jay?????.......

matt said I stole Karel's ideas, least I though that was his claim, and so I posted, or tried to anyway, "these are my ideas and these are Karel's and they are not the same".

Why, then, are they a C&P of fattydash?
Are you fattydash, or merely plagiarizing fattydash?

If anything, I though this part would sort of be easy, to show that they were not the same, especially given Karel's main theme about the photos, the intentional "errors" so that we would catch on and not read it as a documentary, Karel's lack of detail generally, and his focus on the broad theme of the role of images in culture and their plasticity...

So you thought it was real until you were corrected here.

Anyway, I am sort of OK with dropping the subject. Who doesn't prefer learning about the history of star charting to debating "plagiarism"? But I want to be sure that it does not happen again. So I think I need more information as to what everyone is thinking here.

I bet you do want the subject to be dropped, and in a hurry. The question remains, why was your OP a C&P of fattydash's?
Either you are fattydash, or you plagiarized him.
Which is it?

I remain confused to be honest. It seems matt's views as best i can tell are unchanged. At least I think they are. Isn't he still saying that my themes/views on method of fraud/views on personal participating in the Apollo fraud(who they are and how we know) are those of Karel's?

No. He is saying that you are a plagiarist. This is demonstrable. Or are you now admitting that in fact you are fattydash?

Anyway Loss Leader, not to let this thing get out of control....Once the "plagiarism thing" is cleared up, whatever that means, "plagiarism", as a good faith gesture on my part, I plan on looking into the moon rock issue since you all, and in particular you Loss Leader, seem so interested in my views.

The "plagiarism thing" will be cleared up when you identify whether or not you are fattydash. If you are not, then you are a plagiarist, or, if you are, then you are clearly a liar.

Pick one.

Not to be patronizing either, the rocks are important, as much as I kid/joke about "not doing rocks", so I will check them out. I should.

Yes. You should. But you won't.

That said, I have no intention necessarily of getting into a debate about rocks, though I might.

What did I just say?

That is quite possible given my background.

And your history.

On the other hand, and more likely, you may all wind up somewhat disappointed in what I have to say. There may ultimately be not much for us/me to debate in this regard, with respect to rocks. We shall see.

Have at it. Debate the rocks. You won't of course.

Also, rocks seem particularly difficult for the uninitiated. By that I mean one who has never studied them. That would include me. One thing I will not do is be pressured into taking some position one way or the other with regard too this or that with respect to the rocks without some study.

When has a lack of expertise stopped you before?

Anyway Loss Leader, my next post will have something to say about rocks, fair enough?

Go right ahead. Likely, you will not though.

On the other hand, being accused of plagiarism is sort of like calling me out, fighting words, with respect to where I "come from", so even though this is JRANDI and not NEJM, I don't let that go. AND, I am not looking to make matt out to look bad. Not attempting to even suggest he does not understand the film or anything like that. I think he is wicked smart, honorable and actually I think he thought I was somehow stealing my Apollo fraud ideas from a sort of weird movie, a movie that in truth I watched for the first time 2 nights ago.

The accusation is warranted. Either you plagiarized fattydash, or you are fattydash. Which?

So my issue with this plagiarism stuff is not personal. I like matt fine and think he had his reasons for saying/writing what he did, and he was not being dishonest in any way with regard to his accusations. That said, that does not mean any of it is TRUE, that I watched this movie some months ago and it gave me insight and direction. That is ridiculous.

Your issue is to try and use weasel words to escape your current dilemma.

But Apollo is complicated. So as odd as it sounds, I understand that though ridiculous, it may not be unreasonable for someone like matt who knows my views fairly well and Apollo fairly well to watch such a film and imagine my getting some sense from Karel as to how it all went down, even though it is obviously satire. It still is not unreasonable for matt to have imagined things as he did.

The only imaginings here are yours.

So the charge, the accusation of plagiarism is frankly understandable even though I just also used the word "ridiculous" in reference to it. So it goes with Apollo, and so I believe Karel himself would understand such things possible under such interesting circumstances, ridiculous yet understandable, even in this most extraordinary and extraordinarily limited microcosm of it all, our JRANDI debate.

The charge of plagiarism is quite clear. Your post #1 here was a copy and paste of your post #1 at AH. So either you are fattydash, or you are a plagiarist.

Once again, I invite you to choose one.

And so, I was and still am rather confused by it all. I did at first, but after my long posts and matt's responses, I now do not understand the charge.

See above.

Enough....I am off to swim.... P

Presumably, in the Ganges.

I do not understand your point Jay.....

Jay's point is pretty clear

Fattydash is not one person......Not that it should matter since this is another thread and web site. But for the record, I do share my "Lost Bird" and Borman illness themes with the Fattydash group, who by the way still post here and there actively. I know the Fattydashers.

Of course you do, because they are you.

However, despite the shared views with respect to the Lost Bird business and the Borman illness business, our views, mine and their's collectively, were developed independently, though I am sure we have influenced one another.

Wrong.

Also, with the exception of one person in that group, I have developed these 2 common themes way way way way beyond what they did, have done. ALL of the other themes presented here I don't believe have appeared elsewhere, even in any of the postings by any of the Fattydash group members, though I am not positive.

No one here believes you.

 

[Patrick1000]

Why is it then matt that they carry the SCANNING SCOPE

Just plain wrong. Wrong way past the point of being delusional. You have never looked through a telescope in your life.





Al the unmanned spacecraft you keep saying went to the Moon had, guess what, IMUs. Their IMUs were aligned with star trackers.

Why is it then matt that they allegedly carried the SCANNING SCOPE on Apollo. what pray tell would the scanning scope of zero magnification be for?

My point about the Apollo navigational/guidance equipment is that the aignment of the platform , the star sighting ios not automated. I have posted on this actually at length already. It is not a new point in this thread. MEN cannot tell one star from another through a 20 mag 40mm sextant, period, even with the help of a AGC.

 

[sts60]

The first sentence of this thread's opening post is, word-for-word, identical to this post by fattydash at ApolloHoax, which predates this thread. The rest of this thread's OP was redacted by a moderator because it was copied from another source. A verbatim regurgitation hardly indicates that one has simply been "influenced" by another.

No, it was just the same wall o' text he posted over on apollohoax as fattydash.

Posting as fattydash over on apollohoax:

I have done HIV disease/AIDS work here in San Francisco since 1984. I am well known for my level of expertise with regard to the care of patients with HIV disease. I received a commendation form the mayor's office once upon a time back in 1994 for my work in this field.

Posting as “Patrick1000” in the "Mainstream Lies" thread:

I received an award from the mayor of San Francisco for my work with HIV/AIDS patients in the mid 90s.

And posting in this thread:

My name is indeed Patrick. I am not the Apollohoax "fattydash" poster.

Obviously - embarrassingly so - not true. But on the bright side, copying from yourself isn't really plagiarism. Not having anything worth plagiarizing is an entirely separate problem.

 

[Patrick1000]

How do your points undermine my belief that inhaling salmonella might be dangerous,

Really?

Let's see: I practically have to slap you across the face with my well-known and oft-referenced rebuttals to your claims -- the claims that you say stand so well, and which you've told others you summarized especially for me -- and you respond by quoting the post, ignoring the rebuttals as you have stubbornly done for the past week, and adding more unfounded and unrelated claptrap!

Really, the point escapes you?

Very well. I'll be blunt: You are deliberately and flagrantly ignoring information you know undermines your belief.

And from now on, every time you try to accuse everyone else of narrow- or closed-mindedness, a link to this part of the thread is going to appear, so that everyone can watch you rhetorically stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and say, "La! La! La! You can't change my belief! La! La! La!"

How do your points Jay undermine my KNOWING that inhaling and ingesting salmonella, or any other organsim/pathogen that could be reasonably viewed as responsible for Borman's Apollo 8 Mission illness might be dangerous, might pose a serious health risk? I am a physician keep in mind. I cannot be bluffed or intimidated with regard to such matters.

How do your points undermine my awareness/my KNOWING that influenza vaccines are far from 100 % efficacious and having been vaccinated in no way guaranteed the Apollo 8 astronauts immunity against the Hong Kong flu? The "Charles Berry Defense" of my charges with respect to the bogus Borman illness are dependent on NASA's claim that the astronauts were vaccinated and so guaranteed to be immunized. All physicians knowledgable in this area, including myself, know this to be untrue. Influenza vaccines are absolutely NOT 100% EFFICACIOUS and Charles Berry's explanation as to why astronaut Borman did not have influenza, or was not considered to have influenza would be viewed by any competent physician as an explanation in error. Berry's explanation was flat out wrong. As Berry can be assumed to be a well educated doctor given his position, one may assume his mistake was no innocent error. Berry intentionally mislead, lied, and so the story of Apollo as told to us is known to be wrong without any question, albeit here in this one single instance, that of Berry's covering for the Borman illness gaff.

These are but two of many beliefs I have which are NOT at all undermined by your points Jay. And in this case they are more than beliefs, they are issuses of unmitigated absolute medical FACT. Any knowledgtable physician would and could substantiate these.

Such considerations demonstrate with unmitigated certainty Apollo's fraudulence.

 

[JayUtah]

What, are you saying Jay, Borman's feces were...

Straw man. Please refrain from trying to put words in other posters' mouths.

They cannot invoke their favorite, "What do you know about aerospace science Pat, your only a doctor" line in this case.

That's not the claim; no one believes you're a doctor either. I think I'm safe in saying that no one believes any of your claims to expertise in any area. And your categorical refusal to be tested in any skill area is a big part of why no one believes in you. The phrase being thrown around is "bored teenager."

...in this case I am the expert

No. You explicitly declined to demonstrate medical expertise when asked. And the concerted opinion regarding your offhand statements, among those who do have medical training here, is that you don't know what you're talking about. Therefore you are not an expert. No voir dire, no expert testimony.

Experts whose skills and credentials are not in question have rendered their judgment. Your layman's opinion is irrelevant.

...and any doc looking at this thing seriously for a day or two...

Begging the question. You were invited to provide the verifiable and contactable identity of any appropriately certified physician who endorsed your interpretation. That ball has been in your court for weeks now, and you have failed.

So cut it with the bluffing Jay.

If only I were bluffing. The only demonstrable expertise is on my side, not yours.

You said Apollo 8 was medically unacceptable, but you won't substantiate your own alleged expertise or provide outside expertise.

You said it was operationally unacceptable, but you're a layman and therefore you don't get to second-guess the professional flight director in this case.

You said it was engineeringly unacceptable (i.e., the toilet), but you won't supply an engineering analysis.

You've deployed and abandoned a whole sequence of arguments, utterly unwilling in each case to go farther that simply stating an uninformed belief from a position of anonymity. Who is really bluffing here?

...the better off you'll be with regard to coming to terms with having been scammed.

You're the last person who should be talking down to anyone. But I do think it's cute that you seem to consider Apollo a matter of belief for me and not of professional-level knowledge. Do you really think that everyone but you is somehow deluded when it comes to what they do for a living? Do you really think that your few months of frantic Googling is equivalent to my decades of professional training and experience? How arrogant!

 

[JimBenArm]

All Apollo era, 1960s, inertial platforms were aligned by way of star sightings. that includes all of the inertial platforms of the first great American Ballistic missile submarine fleet, 41 for Freedom, the George Washington and all that followed. These subs employed Charles Stark Draper/MIT Instrumentation Lab Inertial systems. Every single boat. The ships employed 3 platforms to diminish random error accumulation. The ONLY way to align the 3 platforms on such a boat in that era was by way of sighting stars, THE ONLY WAY. A star chart of some sophistication is needed to do this as well as a computer to read the chart.

According to MacKenzie in his INVENTING ACCURACY, CHAPTER 5, the section on UNISTAR, stellar-inertial guidance, for the weapons systems designers to ensure that even near-optimum stars would be available to a star seeking missile, the availability of a large accurate computerized star map was needed.

It is my contention that these star maps were made/created under the auspices of the American Manned Space Programs.

Later, post the fleet of 41, subs became capable as our subs are now, of reading the contours of the ocean floor and orienting themselves that way.

Any submarine launched ballistic missile that employs stellar-inertial guidance MUST by definition utilize a star chart, as the SR-71 did to find its way.

The first polaris missiles allegedly were inertial only affairs. No star charts need for those first pre stellar-inertial missiles. However, the submarines's own IMU/Inertial Platform required star sightings/charts to get themselves straightened out in order to operate properly.

Hey, guess what? I served on the USS George Washington (SSBN 598). Everything you have just said is total BS. Complete nonsense. The only thing you're doing is showing how totally ignorant you are on this subject. When you actually serve on a US nuclear submarine, and earn your Dolphins, then you can try to tell me how these things worked. I was there. You were not. So for you to have the complete arrogance to try to correct me on this subject is not only laughable, but completely stupid.

You know what the first rule of holes is? When you find yourself in one, quit digging.

 

[JayUtah]

The ONLY way to align the 3 platforms on such a boat in that era was by way of sighting stars, THE ONLY WAY.

No. In fact you cited a source a few weeks ago that contradicts this claim.

A star chart of some sophistication is needed to do this...

No. Most people who sight stars as part of their jobs don't need "sophisticated" star charts to do so. The purpose of the star chart is to map the star identity to its absolute location (for attitude orientation purposes) or its time-indexed location (for position purposes). If you can read the deductions on your pay stub, you can use a standard star chart. No sophistication needed.

...as well as a computer to read the chart.

Nonsense. Star charts for navigation purposes have been around for centuries. There is no need for a computer in order to be able to read a star chart, especially if the navigator is a human being.

A computer needs to be able to read the chart only if the computer is performing a primary navigation role, such as what happens on an unmanned ICBM. You seem to think this substantiates that astronavigation per se requires a computer. It does not. The actual requirement works the other way: when the primary intelligence aboard any vehicle is a computer rather than a human, then the computer must be able to navigate in some way. Inertial and/or stellar navigation is a requirement imposed upon the computer in that case, not solvable only by a computer in all cases.

According to MacKenzie in his INVENTING ACCURACY...

Non-expert source rejected.

It is my contention that these star maps were made/created under the auspices of the American Manned Space Programs.

The need for "sophisticated computerized" star charts is merely your invention, arising from your layman's misunderstanding of how the relevant machines operated.

You present zero evidence that any such activity was actually undertaken on, or in place of, any manned space mission. Your proposition is a statement of personal belief only.

You present no rationale or argument for why such an activity would need a manned-mission cover, and could not be done more secretly and more effectively by any other means, including by terrestrial observation.

True to form, you've manufactured yet another bogus "requirement" based on your simplistic understanding of how the universe works, just so you can attribute your overly complicated, scientifically invalid, operationally unnecessary "solution" of it to your secret Apollo military scenario. You have no evidence that it actually happened, it bears no resemblance to reality, and you probably won't address any criticism of it.

Any submarine launched ballistic missile that employs stellar-inertial guidance MUST by definition utilize a star chart, as the SR-71 did to find its way.

Yes. So?

You've never operated any INS-guided equipment, while several of us have -- routinely. Why are you trying to play teacher here?

 

[Patrick1000]

I discuss the LRRR, that is what is relevant....

Where does Matt discuss the LRRR?

Straw man. You consistently ignore the charges actually made against you, then rant at length in defense against imaginary charges that were never brought.

Your "Apollo was military" thesis is not original. Get over it.

I discuss the LRRR, that is what is relevant....

matt claims I plagiarized Karel. If so , then a LRRR should figure in Karel's scheme of things. It certainly is a major player in my view of Apollo as fraud, Apollo as military, Apollo not peaceful.

Measurements obtained in LRRR ranging would have included measurements of distances across the great oceans, measurements of the earth/moon distance, measurements of the Newtonian gravitational constant, measurements of the Gaussian gravitational constant, measurements of the earth's rotational speed and so measurements relevant to Coriolis Effect considerations in ICBM targeting.

The LRRR is a part of a weapons system Jay as these measurements, obtained from LRRR based studies would be employed in American ICBM targetings.

Matt claims I stole my ideas from Karel. This is one of my favorite ideas. I say it is 100 % mine.

If you and matt believe I got it from Karel, show us all where in the film OPERATION LUNE/THE DARK SIDE OF THE MOON an LRRR is discused, and not just an LRRR, but its use as a military tool , a weapon.

 

[Patrick1000]

Loss Leader, by the way......

I do have a few things to say about the rocks already. As soon as I hear back from you I shall post them. Will wait until you are around.

 

[JayUtah]

But what one sees from space THROUGH A TELESCOPE is not the same as what one sees from the earth through one's own pupils.

I agree with Matt: You've obviously never looked through a telescope.

...you are gonna' see way way way more stars than the 3,500 you and I counted there atop Mauna Kea.

You have absolutely no idea what relative magnitude means, do you?

Now Suspilot, even with your Buzz Aldrin autographed star chart featuring all of the 6 magnitude or less/naked eye visible stars you still will not be able to tell with any certainty often times, perhaps even the majority of the time, which star is which looking through your scope.

Begging the question -- rejected.

You were asked, for each of the Apollo reference stars, to list any within the 28X sextant FOV around them that had the same relative magnitude. The ball has been in your court for weeks now on this point, and you continue to fail.

These systems require computers to read their star charts as a human cannot.

No, this is your supposition.

In the case of an ICBM, there is no human onboard to read it. The task must be accomplished by the computer since the computer is the only intelligence aboard. You have the requirements completely backwards. You're trying to tell us that we need a computer to read the computerized star chart, and there's no other way to do astronavigation. Instead the star chart is "computerized" (i.e., stored in digital form, as opposed to just being printed on paper) because that's the form the computer needs it in.

Though in the case of the SR-71 Blackbird ... a pilot can try to help the computer.

That's because the automatic star-tracker is intended as a convenience for the navigator. The human navigator -- not the computer -- is ultimately responsible for completing the ANS calibration.

Just because a cruise control can help an automobile driver maintain a stead speed, that doesn't mean the problem can't be solved any other way, including by manual control and/or assistance.

And of course a SR-71 pilot can fly the plane on his/her own independent of the planes automated stellar-inertial system.

Yes and no. ANS failure was an abort condition. The airplane is flyable, but the mission is aborted.

Spaceships a are a different kettle of fish.

Indeed. The requirements for navigation are entirely different, the criticality of the various components and procedures is different, and the role of the pilots is different.

And the assessment of these is rocket science, and you aren't qualified. You are not the teacher, Patrick. You aren't even a very good student.

...what would happen in the very likely occurrence from time to time of there being uncertainty with regard to the identity of navigational stars?

Asked and answered -- at length.

DISASTER GUARANTEED, one cannot manually fly the thing from cislunar space blind...

False. This is one of the key differences between Apollo and your ill-fitting examples: the Apollo INS did not have to be operating continuously. Missiles have a short mission life with pointing constraints that vary over the mission. Full-time INS is required, and stellar correction for launch dispersion merely improves accuracy. It's not mission-critical. Aircraft are subject to unexpected motion from the air through which they move. Full-time INS is required.

An Apollo spacecraft in cruise flight is subject exactly and only to orbital mechanics. Open-loop control is proven to be amazingly accurate in these cases. Full-time inertial monitoring and control is unnecessary.

And of course for all your hemming and hawing, you have entirely omitted a discussion on the other navigation system each spacecraft employed, which can be used as a backup.

So visibility is variable, UNKOWABLE!

No. That's just a bogus consequence from your handwaving FUD-spewing. It doesn't occur in real life.

THEY HAD NO CLUE AS TO HOW TO ACTUALLY DO THIS...

No, you have no clue as to how these things are actually done.

But with a Surveyor VII, not with a manned craft pretending to navigate by virtue of employing stellar inertial type guidance with or without help from the MSFN.

Bwahahahahaha! Every single spacecraft we've sent aloft since Rangers and Surveyors, including the satellites I help design and build today, uses/used an inertial guidance platform augmented with a stellar fix -- typically far cruder than those used for Apollo.

You have absolutely no clue how space navigation is actually done.

SINCE THEY CANNOT RELIABLY ALIGN THE IMU IN ALL REASONABLY ANTICIPATED CIRCUMSTANCES...

Asked and answered -- your made-up rules don't apply.

Any reasonable person could not read this any other way.

"La! La! La! You can't change my belief! La! La! La! I don't care one whit what you think of my claims!"

If you'd take the fingers out of your ears, you might be able to hear what all these reasonable, properly educated, well-experienced people are telling you.

 

[JayUtah]

How do your points Jay undermine my KNOWING that inhaling and ingesting...

Straw man.

I directed you to my rebuttal of your 11 (or call it 12) points and your discussion of "perps." Your obsession over Borman's poop doesn't even come close to explaining why you are intentionally avoiding a sweeping, comprehensive rebuttal of your entire theory.

I do not accept your "knowledge" as authoritative on any point. You explicitly decline to establish your expertise, therefore you do not enjoy the respect afforded to an expert.

You may either submit to Loss Leader's test of your medical ability, or you may provide the verifiable endorsement of a suitable professional. You may not simply insist that we must believe you.

 

[JayUtah]

matt claims I plagiarized Karel. If so , then a LRRR should figure in Karel's scheme of things.

Asked and answered repeatedly. Matt accused you of copying Karel's allegation of motive for Apollo -- a coverup of military operations as opposed to civilian science. That is your claim as well -- that Apollo was a cover for military operations as opposed to civilian science. Matt did not accuse you of copying the details of your claim from Karel. Your feeble attempt to hold him responsible for a claim he did not make is growing tedious.

...Apollo as military, Apollo not peaceful.

Apollo had stated military objectives. Why do you omit those in your analysis?

Matt claims I stole my ideas from Karel.

No, that is an inaccurate representation of the claim he made against you. You've already conceded the point that he did raise against you, so the discussion is closed from my point of view. Charge leveled, proven, and conceded.

 

[JayUtah]

I know that, I even said very directly/openly in the thread that I posted something I lifted for expediencies sake...

When you copy a post verbatim from another forum, how can you possibly expect anyone to believe that you arrived at the same points entirely independently from the original author? Do you think we're stupid? You obviously copied Fattydash's post from Apollohoax and pasted it here at JREF. You didn't expect it to be deleted, so you can't claim you intended to move the discussion in a different direction all along.

 

[JayUtah]

My point about the Apollo navigational/guidance equipment is that the aignment of the platform , the star sighting ios not automated.

It doesn't need to be.

For the ICBM it has to be, because obviously no human navigator wants to ride along on a suicide mission. Same with the unmanned birds I design and fly. A breadbox-sized nanosat will have a strap-down gyro pack, a sun sensor, and a Canopus sensor. Works well enough. The point is that we have to automate it because we can't put a human there.

For the SR-71 it is automated only for convenience, because the backseat guy has a lot to do running other aspects of the mission. If the automation fails, the navigator is supposed to step in and do it manually. If the navigator is the resource of last resort, then how can you argue that it can't be done without automation?

For Apollo you have much more relaxed inertial navigation requirements and three pilots who, as in the SR-71 case, would be the resource of last resort anyway. And the AGC already does automate the solution somewhat. Do you think automated star trackers work without being "seeded" by an already approximate solution from the IMU?

There is no aspect of the general astronavigation problem that requires computer automation. But since we have computers, we might as well use them.

You've fallen into the layman's common misconception of believing that because we engineers often use a certain machine to solve a certain problem, that problem can only be solved by machine.

MEN cannot tell one star from another through a 20 mag 40mm sextant, period, even with the help of a AGC.

Nonsense. You reason that they can't, based on your misunderstanding of stellar magnitudes. But when I ask you to perform a simple check on your line of reasoning, you stick your fingers back in your ears and accuse everyone else of being deluded.

 

[matt.tansy]

The ONLY way to align the 3 platforms on such a boat in that era was by way of sighting stars, THE ONLY WAY.

How many times are you going to stray into my job in the Navy and get spanked?

Only by your poor choice of words and not by any knowledge of the systems you pretend to understand you have stumbled upon a partially correct answer as to how INS are aligned on the Earth. Earth-based inertial navigation systems are aligned by inserting fixes into them and a sophisticated algorithm called a Kalman Filter computes the most likely cause of the positional and attitudinal errors. There has never been a built-in method to manually adjust the alignment of an IMU. You tell it where's it at and the date and time and that is it. They were aligned by telling them where they are, not by taking the azimuth to stars and comparing the actual azimuth to the computed azimuth and then adjusting them. If the fix was obtained by celestial means then and only then would it be called a "star sighting". The IMUs also communicated with the ship's gyrocompass and if they diverged by a preset amount an alarm would sound. I have repeatedly told you about all the other methods for obtaining a fix that were far more accurate than celestial.

A star chart of some sophistication is needed to do this as well as a computer to read the chart.

Up until the mid-1990s this is the amount of "sophistication" submarine navigators had in terms of celestial navigation:

Books!

The Nautical Almanac provided hourly position of the Sun, Moon, Greenwich Hour Angle of the First Point of Aries (which when added to the Sidereal Hour Angle of a star would give you the star's Greenwich Hour Angle), and navigational planets (Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn). Polaris had its own special table in the back.

After you determined the celestial coordinates of the body of interest you entered Pub 229 'Sight Reduction Tables' and calculated the body's azimuth and altitude. Pub 229 comes in 6 volumes and each volume covers a 15° band of latitude. Each page covered a degree of local hour angle. Latitude ran across the top; the lower 8° of latitudes were in the front half of the book, the higher 8° of latitude were in the back (the middle latitude was in the front and back). Declination (the equivalent of celestial latitude) ran down the page. It is a still a requirement for US Navy ships to carry these books even though nowadays we have computer programs that can do it all. It was published during the Great Depression and unemployed mathematicians were hired to compute each of the individual 2,916,000 tabulations. 6 big thick books to solve these two simple equations:

sin(alt) = sin(lat)*sin(dec)+cos(lat)*cos(dec)*cos(lha)

tan(azm) = sin(lha)/(sin(lat)*cos(lha)-tan(dec)*cos(lat))

This is a tiny part of celestial navigation on the high seas and it did not require anything you are claiming it did.

40 years after the US started building nuclear submarines the submarine fleet was still using these books for celestial navigation.

 

[matt.tansy]

Why is it then matt that they allegedly carried the SCANNING SCOPE on Apollo. what pray tell would the scanning scope of zero magnification be for?

So they could find stars if the guidance and navigational system was shut off (like it was on Apollo 13) or inadvertently misaligned (like it was on Apollo 8). The system was designed to be shut off when it wasn't being used.

The scanning telescope was connected to the sextant so the astronauts could point the sextant to the same star the scanning telescope was on.

My point about the Apollo navigational/guidance equipment is that the aignment of the platform , the star sighting ios not automated.

Nor would it need to be when you have human eyeballs and hands onboard.

I have posted on this actually at length already.

And everything you said was demonstrably wrong.

It is not a new point in this thread. MEN cannot tell one star from another through a 20 mag 40mm sextant, period, even with the help of a AGC.

Every amateur astronomer in the world, including myself, will tell you you are incredibly deluded if you believe that. I find Vega in my scope, roll over to The Kids, then roll over to the Ring Nebula on a regular basis, all the while looking through my 4" Newtonian. One astronomer has any difficulty distinguishing a bright star from a dim star.

Call any amateur astronomer club in the world and present this wacky theory to them and tell us what they say.

 

[Loss Leader]

I do have a few things to say about the rocks already. As soon as I hear back from you I shall post them. Will wait until you are around.

I am always around.

 

[tsig]

Why is it then matt that they allegedly carried the SCANNING SCOPE on Apollo. what pray tell would the scanning scope of zero magnification be for?

My point about the Apollo navigational/guidance equipment is that the aignment of the platform , the star sighting ios not automated. I have posted on this actually at length already. It is not a new point in this thread. MEN cannot tell one star from another through a 20 mag 40mm sextant, period, even with the help of a AGC.

Celestial navigation is impossible? All those sailors for all those years that used it must have been lying.

 

[Tomblvd]

How do your points Jay undermine my KNOWING that inhaling and ingesting salmonella, or any other organsim/pathogen that could be reasonably viewed as responsible for Borman's Apollo 8 Mission illness might be dangerous, might pose a serious health risk? I am a physician keep in mind. I cannot be bluffed or intimidated with regard to such matters.

How do your points undermine my awareness/my KNOWING that influenza vaccines are far from 100 % efficacious and having been vaccinated in no way guaranteed the Apollo 8 astronauts immunity against the Hong Kong flu? The "Charles Berry Defense" of my charges with respect to the bogus Borman illness are dependent on NASA's claim that the astronauts were vaccinated and so guaranteed to be immunized. All physicians knowledgable in this area, including myself, know this to be untrue. Influenza vaccines are absolutely NOT 100% EFFICACIOUS and Charles Berry's explanation as to why astronaut Borman did not have influenza, or was not considered to have influenza would be viewed by any competent physician as an explanation in error. Berry's explanation was flat out wrong. As Berry can be assumed to be a well educated doctor given his position, one may assume his mistake was no innocent error. Berry intentionally mislead, lied, and so the story of Apollo as told to us is known to be wrong without any question, albeit here in this one single instance, that of Berry's covering for the Borman illness gaff.

These are but two of many beliefs I have which are NOT at all undermined by your points Jay. And in this case they are more than beliefs, they are issuses of unmitigated absolute medical FACT. Any knowledgtable physician would and could substantiate these.

Such considerations demonstrate with unmitigated certainty Apollo's fraudulence.

Here we see Dr. Patrick try and slither away from his earlier immunology gaffe.

This is from his earlier post. You'll notice he is stating the exact opposite of what he is saying now:

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.

As is his modus operandi, Pat comes back to a subject he has been completely embarassed on earlier, and then posts information he has been given on this very thread (in this case, by me), and claims it as his own.

No Patrick, as is clearly shown, you thought vaccines were 100% effective and exposure to influenza guaranteed infection.

As I said earlier, these are things an undergrad pre-med student taking immunology wouldn't say.

You are not a doctor. You don't even play one well on the internet.