Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[abaddon]

Spurious analogy notwithstanding...pfffft. I'm running my monitor at 1920*1080, that's 2,073,600 pixels. And I can pick out the one blasted dead pixel on it from the other side of the room.

Yes, and oddly, the eye is always inexorably drawn to it.

I had a new monitor with three, but I still had to have a hell of a rant to get it replaced.

 

[SUSpilot]

Patrick, you're trying to change the subject again.

When will you provide the data that you believe proves that the Apollo 13 oxygen tank could not have burst due to the PTFE fire?

Will you or will you not provide Jay your contact data? On a personal note, I would have far more respect for you and your convictions, however mistaken they are, if you actually owned up to them.

 

[Patrick1000]

But the point is, can you tell that ONE pixel is a LM?

Spurious analogy notwithstanding...pfffft. I'm running my monitor at 1920*1080, that's 2,073,600 pixels. And I can pick out the one blasted dead pixel on it from the other side of the room.

But the point is, can you tell that ONE pixel is a LM?

And the answer of course is NO....and can only be no....

There can be no RESOLUTION with that single bit of information.......

 

[nomuse]

This one is guaranteed to tickle your funny bones......

I just read in the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal that the Apollo 11 CM sextant view of the lunar surface from 60 ish miles up, Collins' view, was 3.2 kilometers in diameter, or featured a view with a radius of 1.6 kilometers, equals a radius of a mile, 5280 feet. As such, Collins was purported to be viewing a disc of moon with an area equal to pieRsquared or 3.14(5280)(5280) equals 87,538,176....eighty seven million five hundred and thirty eight thousand 176 square feet.

The LM/Eagle was said to have been 14 feet wide or 196 square feet in area when viewed directly from above.

Now are we to believe that Collins could make out a dot in his sextant viewer amounting to 196 divided by 87,538,176 or 2.24 X 10 minus 6, two and one quarter millionths the sextant's viewing area or ONE FOUR HUNDRED THOUSANDTHS OF OF THE VIEWING AREA?

Allow me to put that into perspective. A football field, including the end zones is 360 feet by 160 feet or 57,600 square feet. One four hundred thousandth of that is .144 square feet which is a square 4.5 inches on a side.

So if we are to believe NASA's cock and BULL with respect to Collins wild goose chase, we would need to believe it reasonable that Collins would look through his sextant and there would be an area if equated to the size of a football field including end zones that would have somewhere in there a four and a half inch by four and a half inch eagle.

Another way to think of it would be to say, Collins total view of the lunar surface was comprised of 400,000, FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PIXELS, and to find the EAGLE, he has to pick out ONE, YES ONLY ONE ONE ONE UNIQUE PIXEL OF THESE FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND. What a bunch of JIVE JIVE JIVE.

Apollo gets more fraudulent by the day.....

Which works out to about half the diameter of a football.

So, according to you, it is absolutely impossible to tell the shape of a football from anywhere in the viewing stands.

In addition, the numbers on the jerseys are around that same four inches in width. So, again, according to you, no fan can ever tell if it is number 23 or number 01 playing. All anyone ever sees is "I I."

Amazing anyone even bothers to attend a football game, isn't it?

Oh, but let's not stop there. The angular diameter of Rigel as seen from Earth is 2.55 milli-arc-seconds. Approximate the human angle of view as 90 degrees; the result is Rigel subtends a mere 1/127,000,000 of that width.

(Which is how this is done, by the way; not by area, but by angle).

Apparently, Rigel, and certainly any star that doesn't happen to be a blue supergiant, is completely invisible from Earth. Perhaps now you have the answer you were seeking as to why stellar navigation was so difficult for the astronauts!

 

[Garrison]

Since no one believes you possess any qualifications or expertise in either engineering or medicine Patrick1000, even you don't seem to be able to keep your claims straight, why don't you stick to the issues at hand; the questions on Teflon and Oxygen, the opportunity offered to you to face those you accuse rather than, allegedly, writing letters that doubtless never got further than some PA and their rubbish bin?

 

[abaddon]

But the point is, can you tell that ONE pixel is a LM?

And the answer of course is NO....and can only be no....

There can be no RESOLUTION with that single bit of information.......

False analogy.

A doctor would know that the human eye does not operate in terms of pixels.

Nonetheless, it is possible to estimate the equivalent comparison of the human eye to digital imaging devices. Estimates range up to 576 megapixels for the full visual field.

Furthermore, your 400,000 estimate is risible, as you failed to take into account the fact that light sensitive cells in the human eye are concentrated around the center of focus, so the sensitivity is not homogenous across the entire visual field. Something else a doctor would know.

Finally, where are your answers to my questions?
Do you not know how visual acuity is measured? Surely a doctor would.

 

[abaddon]

Which works out to about half the diameter of a football.

So, according to you, it is absolutely impossible to tell the shape of a football from anywhere in the viewing stands.

In addition, the numbers on the jerseys are around that same four inches in width. So, again, according to you, no fan can ever tell if it is number 23 or number 01 playing. All anyone ever sees is "I I."

Amazing anyone even bothers to attend a football game, isn't it?

I concede the floor. Great example.

Oh, but let's not stop there. The angular diameter of Rigel as seen from Earth is 2.55 milli-arc-seconds. Approximate the human angle of view as 90 degrees; the result is Rigel subtends a mere 1/127,000,000 of that width.

Minor quibble, about 120 degrees in the horizontal axis, but 60 degrees in the vertical. On average correct.

(Which is how this is done, by the way; not by area, but by angle).

No, no, no. He cannot be suggesting he knows not how visual acuity is measured. A doctor would know that surely?

Apparently, Rigel, and certainly any star that doesn't happen to be a blue supergiant, is completely invisible from Earth. Perhaps now you have the answer you were seeking as to why stellar navigation was so difficult for the astronauts!

Prediction: Patrick will ignore this post.

 

[Erock]

Who says? You? You aren't in a position to determine what medical evaluation they received, and your shoe horning of your ill-informed opinion in, to make your hoax work is just daft.

"The whole reason you contrived for them 'pretending to' land long was to fool the Russians into not finding where the LRRR was located, then by heavens those silly old NASA people then pass it on to LICK (alongside all the other estimates)!! Then by heavens they go and publish the mission reports a few weeks later."

Now, that is just absurd. Got an answer, 'cos you seem (as usual) to have ignored it?

Quite how you repeatedly ignore complete rebuttal from experts tearing your argument to pieces, is beyond me.

Put up or shut up.

Here is just a tiny example of what frustrates the hell out of everybody posting. My tiny little post got completely ignored twice, yet it is a drop in the ocean compared to just Jayutah's disassembling of everything you have written.

Now, you going to ignore 3 times? It being the OP and having been raised and ignored hundreds of pages back - time to answer.

Put up or shut up. Or change the subject with drivel infested walls of text, that progressively ignore major points already raised!

 

[FatFreddy88]

I'd like to hear Jay Windley's analysis of this anomaly.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1

I was instructed to take this discussion to this thread.

Thread closed. There is currently a [ Moderated ] thread for Apollo Hoax discussion. Please take it there.

I asked Jay Windley a question on a moderated moon hoax thread once and the post got deleted. That's why I started a thread on this. I hope this post doesn't get deleted as it's a legitimate Apollo issue.

 

[TjW]

Consider a sheet of standard binder paper 8.5 X 11 inches in dimension. Such a sheet of paper is 93.5 square inches in area. Something ONE FOUR HUNDRED THOUSANDTH of this area would be 2.34 X 10 to the minus 4 square inches, 2.34 ten thousandths' of a square inch or a little over ONE FOUR THOUSANDTHS' OF A SQUARE INCH. That is a square roughly ONE SIXTY THIRD OF AN INCH ON A SIDE, or a square roughly ONE TWENTY FIFTH OF A CENTIMETER ON A SIDE or roughly a square FOUR TENTHS OF A MILLIMETER ON A SIDE.

Try that on for size. Take a piece of 8.5 X 11 inch paper, "draw" a square on that piece of paper such as you can, 0.4 X 0.4 millimeters in dimension.

Michael Collins was alleged to have been practically looking for something of that size within such a field. Pretty ridiculous ain't it?

And yet people routinely see commas and periods printed on such a piece of paper, even when the punctuation is in an 8-point font.

 

[Laton]

But the point is, can you tell that ONE pixel is a LM?

And the answer of course is NO....and can only be no....

There can be no RESOLUTION with that single bit of information.......

Lets see:

Dull grey moon, dull grey moon, dull grey moon, dull grey moon -sun reflection/shiny spot! <-- LM!

 

[Loss Leader]

But did it ever occur to you that it might not be the best of strategies to stake Apollo's authenticity on you belief in my inauthenticity, in your hope that I am not a doc.

I didn't do that. Why? Did you hear me do that?

There's an awful lot at stake there, for Armstrong, Aldrin, Shepard, Slayton, Kranz, Aaron, Kraft, Lovell, the ever loving whole lot of 'em.

No, there isn't. I don't represent any of these people. Why? Do you think that I represent them?

What happens to their reputations if I turn out to be a genuine doc with lots of experience taking care of patients with INFLUENZA and other infectious disease problems?

Nothing.

What if INFLUENZA is in the air I breath?

Nothing.

What happens to Apolo's authenticity if it turns out I do have a medical license and know lots and lots and lots about INFLUENZA, and as such, everything I wrote in the long post just above would then be acknowledged as true?

Even if you were a doctor, and even if everything you said about the flu were factually true, it would not make your deductions about the Apollo program any more logical. Your beliefs about the Apollo program do not logically follow from any facts you've written about the flu. Why? Do you think your beliefs are logical?

 

[Garrison]

I'd like to hear Jay Windley's analysis of this anomaly.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1

I was instructed to take this discussion to this thread.


I asked Jay Windley a question on a moderated moon hoax thread once and the post got deleted. That's why I started a thread on this. I hope this post doesn't get deleted as it's a legitimate Apollo issue.

So like Patrick1000 you want everyone to ignore the sheer mass of evidence in favour of the reality of Apollo because something 'doesn't look right' to you? You find one small segment of video in which an object moves strangely and choose to ignore the great mass of it which was clearly filmed in either zero gee or the one-sixth gee of the Moon. Do you really think that's a rational approach to video analysis?

 

[Erock]

Lets see:

Dull grey moon, dull grey moon, dull grey moon, dull grey moon -sun reflection/shiny spot! <-- LM!

+ Dirty great big black shadow - all pointy and about 21 metres long.

Patrick1000 is using obfuscation of the highest order, with inept analysis.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I'd like to hear Jay Windley's analysis of this anomaly.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1

I was instructed to take this discussion to this thread.


I asked Jay Windley a question on a moderated moon hoax thread once and the post got deleted. That's why I started a thread on this. I hope this post doesn't get deleted as it's a legitimate Apollo issue.

Your post would only be deleted if it went against the rules for posting.
You did read them when you signed up to the board didn't you?

Why only Jay? What is wrong with the opinion of any other poster?

 

[abaddon]

I'd like to hear Jay Windley's analysis of this anomaly.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1

Why are you obsessed with Jay? Why is no one elses answer valid?

I was instructed to take this discussion to this thread.

Yes. To eliminate a pointless extra thread. What is your issue with this?

I asked Jay Windley a question on a moderated moon hoax thread once and the post got deleted. That's why I started a thread on this. I hope this post doesn't get deleted as it's a legitimate Apollo issue.

And in other news, the world does not revolve around you. Jay is an active participant on this very thread.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Not that it matters all that much given the reality here Loss Leader....But did it ever occur to you that it might not be the best of strategies to stake Apollo's authenticity on you belief in my inauthenticity, in your hope that I am not a doc. There's an awful lot at stake there, for Armstrong, Aldrin, Shepard, Slayton, Kranz, Aaron, Kraft, Lovell, the ever loving whole lot of 'em.

You have your cause-and-effect arrows reversed. We don't discount your medical claims about Apollo because we don't believe you're a doctor. We know that you're not a doctor because of your ridiculous medical claims about Apollo.

What happens to their reputations if I turn out to be a genuine doc with lots of experience taking care of patients with INFLUENZA and other infectious disease problems? What if INFLUENZA is in the air I breath? What happens to Apolo's authenticity if it turns out I do have a medical license and know lots and lots and lots about INFLUENZA, and as such, everything I wrote in the long post just above would then be acknowledged as true?

Nothing, because you'd still be wrong. If we could somehow bring Karl Friedrich Gauss back to life, and he proclaimed that 2 + 2 = 5, he'd still be wrong, no matter how eminent of a mathematician he was.

 

[Erock]

I'd like to hear Jay Windley's analysis of this anomaly.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1

I was instructed to take this discussion to this thread.


I asked Jay Windley a question on a moderated moon hoax thread once and the post got deleted. That's why I started a thread on this. I hope this post doesn't get deleted as it's a legitimate Apollo issue.

If you ask a question and ignore replies, why should anybody take you seriously? We've already got one major poster doing that to extreme, we hardly need another.

 

[abaddon]

Nothing, because you'd still be wrong.

And there is the nub of the issue.

 

[JayUtah]

I'd like to hear Jay Windley's analysis of this anomaly.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1

Too bad.