...SHALL WE DEBATE THE FACTS OF APOLLO, OR WASTE TIME WITH OTHER NONSENSE?
You then post approximately
two thousand, four hundred words, blathering on about everything
except the actual topic of this thread.
Congratulations, though; you just earned a nomination for a Stundie Award.
...Having been an active participant in the development of this theme yourself Jay, you are well aware of my theme in its broad outline.Jay is not the only poster here; you have many outstanding questions and challenges facing you from other posters, including myself. Since you have overlooked or ignored these points, I am going to repeat them for your benefit and pose them as direct questions to you.
I have shown with excellent documentation/references how on the evening of 07/20/1969 it was imperative NASA present the Eagle as a bird lost in the moonlight.Wrong.
Eagle was never represented as lost; if they were lost, flight controllers would not have been able to talk to them. And you have been repeatedly notified that the location
was known to within a few n. mi.
Question 1: Why do you continue to claim that the LM was “lost” when it was demonstrably not so, and why do you continue to claim that NASA presented it as “lost” when this was not the case?
NASA's bizarre tale as documented in its very OWN telling of this story features a pair of superstar fighter pilots who land on the moon and cannot for the life of themselves, even when their lives are supposed to be quite literally on the line, determine where exactly it is they have landed. If their “lives are … on the line” in determining their
exact location, that necessarily means
exact knowledge was necessary for them to ascend and rendezvous for their return to Earth. Yet it has been pointed out repeatedly that this was not necessary for a successful rendezvous, and you yourself have admitted that you do not know what accuracy was required, so therefore you cannot know whether their “lives were on the line” or not.
Question 2: Why
exactly was it essential for the crew to know the “exact” location of the LM, rather than the knowledge to within a few n. mi. that they did have at the time? I require your
quantitative explanation in terms of the ability of the two vehicles to rendezvous.
Everybody it would seem was looking for the Eagle that evening. How marvelously ironic that so many of us were at the same time watching the two bird keepers shuffling around in dust wearing suits they apparently did not need. How can these two not so Eagle scouts be lost if we are all watching them on TV? Indeed, this demonstrates conclusively that they were
not “lost”. Your characterization – and it is solely
your characterization – is a fabrication.
One can only stand in a state of abject jaw dropped incredulity to find that NASA's own contention is Armstrong and Aldrin are providing the "raw data" for this bird hunt NOT in the form of measurements made with the Eagle's navigational equipment, Question 3: What is your
quantitative estimate for the accuracy and precision of a lunar surface position with the LM’s equipment, given the properties of the various systems, the flight profile from undocking to landing, and the state of knowledge of the lunar gravity field?
but rather, by way of descriptions given by the alleged astronauts to their Houston based handlers of the Tranquility Based environs, as though we are expected to believe in the preposterous, that the Eagle's coordinates might have actually been defined with the requisite accuracy based upon the appearance of phony rocks and powder decorating NASA's Apollo 11 sound stage. Question 4: Why is examination of local topography a “preposterous” way to attempt to locate the LM against known landmarks , and why do you refer to “the requisite accuracy” when you have previously said
you do not know what accuracy was required?
…NASA lies. Its story of the moon landing is a story that is not internally coherent and so cannot be true. My claim as to why the lander could not perform a guided ascent is we have no evidence that Aldrin was able to determine lander coordinates for the Eagle ...I do not believe there was an ascent as I do not believe there was a landing. -------------------
They did not have a LM that could land on the moon.If one looks at the facts and concedes the lander works, and I do imagine the builders constructed the thing well. I am not trying to play games. I grant the lander works, fine.-------------------
Yes we know there was most definitely no telemetric transmission of the coordinates.This makes sense given the general features of Apollo guidance. It is for the most part telemetric. Although the people who actually understand this subject, unlike you, do not find the story “internally incoherent”, this leads directly to
Question 5: Given that your story is not internally coherent, when will you admit that you are lying, and your story is not true?
My best guess as to why NASA needed to hide the Eagle on the evening of the bogus landing has to do with the presence of the Russian unmanned craft LUNA 15, sinteringWrong. “Sintering” is a materials science term and has nothing whatsoever to do with spaceflight.
as it hovered about, Wrong. Luna 15 did not and could not “hover” for any purpose other than an immediate landing.
threatening to photograph the Eagle's "landing site" were Ivan only able to get his hot little Ruskie hands on the Tranquility Base coordinates that evening.First, the lander was not equipped for high-resolution imaging from flight, and did not land anywhere near the A11 landing site, so this is wrong. Second, this makes no sense, as if it was possible to precision-land and deploy an LRRR, it was possible to land a suitably convincing LM. Third, the entire premise is both counterhistorical and absolutely unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.
Of course the silly story about the Eagle without an address won't fly with a few select Apollo 11 workers. It's an elite group, the scientists that never in a million years would buy into the notion that the Eagle was lost...I am a practicing space engineer, and your claim that the majority of the Apollo engineers and scientists could be fooled by phony landings is laughable.
Question 6: What
exactly are your qualifications – education and expertise – relevant to space flight and large space projects?
Question 7: What
exactly do you claim prevented Apollo 11 from working as advertised? Or subsequent missions?
… There is only an LRRR there, nothing else, no Eagle, no astro-actors, no nothing. Well there is a mirror/LRRR and the unmanned craft that brought it up to the moon's surface well before 07/20/1969. Question 9: Exactly what evidence do you have to support your claim of a separately-built, launched, and deployed reflector?
Question 10: Why, if you acknowledge the LM could work, and an unmanned LRRR could be landed as well, could NASA not simply have landed a suitably convincing LM in the spot? Why could they have not landed the
actual LM in that spot as advertised? What is the
point of faking and concealing something that by your own claims could have been done just as it was supposed to have been?
Question 11: Why do you continue to harp on the LRRR ranging experiment, when it has been repeatedly explained to you that lasing the reflector was not a mission objective and not part of the flight plan?
I also seemed to have learned that it really really bothers people here that someone like me might admire and greatly respect Neil Armstrong I do not see them in a negative lightand other remarks implying that fattydash does not disrespect the Apollo astronautsspace buffoons
the Keystone Nauts
what are we to do but poke fun at Mike Collins and his lack of common sense?
the clowns that perpetrated the fraud
If Michael Collins, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin lie as they do
these three very bad actors
These men are phantoms, they never existed as real astronauts.
I would not trust this guy to drive me back from a bar at night let alone pilot a spaceship.Question 11: Why have you lied about “respect” for the astronauts?