|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 19, 2011 22:57:18 GMT -4
It's sad that fattydash has to invent supporters.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 19, 2011 22:59:33 GMT -4
I think it's sad that someone who relies so heavily on imaginary supporters is so ham-fisted with them. They're so obvious.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 19, 2011 23:26:49 GMT -4
I'll confess that I didn't read his references, but I don't understand the engineering enough to debate the point anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Jul 20, 2011 2:18:08 GMT -4
I started skipping the chess team's posts after day one. Very low content to words ratio.
Maybe it should invest all that verbosity in writing one of those long-winded doorstopper fantasy novels. I hear there is money to be made with that.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 20, 2011 4:48:04 GMT -4
I may be getting lost in the verbiage, but hasn't fatty's argument pretty much evaporated down to "But someone said they had the numbers?"
That's all I've seen in his last dozen posts; different attempts to point at the same quote or incident where someone says "Here's the coordinates for the LM" and fatty crowing that if they had coordinates, they couldn't possibly be lost!
It's like the worst confusion of map and territory I've ever seen. Literally, too. This is the sort of person math teachers were talking about when they cautioned that you should learn to do division by hand before you are allowed to use a calculator. Because to this sort of person a "number" has a believability to it (it's even better if it has a lot of decimal places) and having that "number" written down short-circuits their ability to judge whether the number is any good.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 20, 2011 4:58:06 GMT -4
That's all I've seen in his last dozen posts; different attempts to point at the same quote or incident where someone says "Here's the coordinates for the LM" and fatty crowing that if they had coordinates, they couldn't possibly be lost! That's right, and had he bothered to do even minimal research he would have learned that there were eight different estimates of the Apollo 11 landing site, each set produced by a different method and each set a little different from the others. It's only human to work slower and make more mistakes when you're doing something very complicated for the very first time, especially when lives are at stake, huge amounts of money are involved and the whole world is watching. How hard is that to understand, really? And how difficult, really, is the concept of an "estimate"? Hasn't fattydash ever had anything repaired where the cost couldn't be exactly determined in advance?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 20, 2011 9:33:22 GMT -4
I didn't read most of what fd referenced to because many times he made a reference to an entire source for one small point without telling what specific place he was referring to. He also refused to answer questions as to why anyone should give his interpretation of his sources any credence. In the latter case, he made claims about the medical treatment give to Borman, but would not answer questions about his knowledge of Apollo medical protocols or the extent of his research beyond a few published sources. Without delving into real research, he was in essence saying he didn't approve of something when he had no specific knowledge of how it was supposed to work or what really happened.
Providing adequate references and documenting one's skills at interpretation are important considerations for anyone that wants to be taken seriously. Clearly fd was more interested in bluster than discussion and he got the attention that corresponded to the seriousness of his presentation.
To me its funny that he comes back with such a obvious sock-puppet, only to give people an opportunity to further respond to him. If he has any desire for collegial respect, then his colleagues are elsewhere. I take back my earlier support for his recanting his claim. My desire to encourage what appeared to be the initial signs of a positive attitude was misplaced.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jul 20, 2011 9:56:05 GMT -4
I didn't read most of what fd referenced to because many times he made a reference to an entire source for one small point without telling what specific place he was referring to. He also simply refused to give the specific reference when asked. He referred me to the MIT navigational manual, but could or would not direct me to the relevant page for his claim despite a direct request to do so.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 20, 2011 10:10:25 GMT -4
I’ve gone over the Apollo transcripts fattydash was referencing and I just don’t see any validity to his claim. Everything looks internally consistent to me, as I explained in Post #524. The only thing that ‘looked’ like a discrepancy was fattydash’s claim that the numbers entered into the DSKY gave a conflicting position, but ajv cleared that up and we know now the fattydash botched it.
The only thing I’m not sure about is when the coordinates were given to Lick. Originally fattydash claimed the correct coordinates weren’t given to Lick until 8/1/69, which makes sense. But then he changed his story and said the coordinates were given to Lick on the night of 7/20/69. I think he was claiming the coordinates given to Lick on 7/20/69 matched to final corrected coordinates that didn’t become official until after Apollo 11 returned to Earth. If true, then that would be a discrepancy. However, his ramblings are so incoherent, and he changed his story so many times, that I don’t know what he was using as his sources. I also have little faith in fattydash to interpret his sources correctly.
I tend to believe fattydash isn’t interpreting his sources correctly, or he’s assumed something that wasn’t true, or the sources are simply in error. Sources can be wrong, errors can be made, and people can recall things incorrectly. It happens all the time and it’s nothing to get bent out of shape about. To HBs there’s no such thing as mistakes – only lies.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 20, 2011 11:12:58 GMT -4
All this suggests to me that Fattydash at one time did some spearhead research, but cannot now go further. Lacking his original materials, he cannot clarify or provide detailed quotes and references; he can only refer broadly to the works. He cannot provide additional supporting documents. He doggedly refers only to the same materials for each new question.
Once he's off his script, he has limited ability to improvise. Hence the sock puppets, which ironically simply refer back to the same materials and endorse Fattydash's interpretation of them.
|
|
|
Post by Glom on Jul 20, 2011 12:39:37 GMT -4
Wasn't the problem also fattydash's refusal to pay any heed to the repeated talk of the inaccuracies in the dead reckoning, which means while the numbers may have been precise, they were not accurate. (Or is it the other way round?)
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 20, 2011 14:30:05 GMT -4
He also simply refused to give the specific reference when asked. He referred me to the MIT navigational manual, but could or would not direct me to the relevant page for his claim despite a direct request to do so. I've not been involved with this forum for long, nor the subject material. I have noted from BAUT and other forums that the HBs enter into gish gallop tactics, as well as evasion when pressed with real science. FD's post were another example of their dishonest debating. The IMBd is a good example of how this was dealt with by Jay. Jay simply did not concede ground until the first point was discussed in full. Of course, the first point was never answered properly, and sticking to one's guns shows how ignorant the HBer is. I once asked an HB if he was so confident about his argument, then why not present it here. He said that when HBs answer questions here they are not accepted, so the forum does not allow honest debate. What he really meant to say was when HBs answer questions and they have no numercial basis, they are pressed harder to provide real science. The answer to a question here is not subjective and relies proving the claim with a good deal of science and engineering. I wish the HBs would understand that you cannot handwave at radiation or orbital mechanics.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 20, 2011 15:03:58 GMT -4
I didn't read most of what fd referenced to because many times he made a reference to an entire source for one small point without telling what specific place he was referring to. He also simply refused to give the specific reference when asked. He referred me to the MIT navigational manual, but could or would not direct me to the relevant page for his claim despite a direct request to do so. We could make a post as long as fds's flowery rants listing his lack of response for reasonable citations and his unqualified judgements. I have neither the time nor the patience for such work.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 20, 2011 17:04:48 GMT -4
Wasn't the problem also fattydash's refusal to pay any heed to the repeated talk of the inaccuracies in the dead reckoning, I think you're right. I don't think he had any understanding of Apollo navigation despite my attempts to explain at least part of it in simple language. The part I explained was how the ground determined the position of an Apollo spacecraft. The other part was that the resulting state vector was loaded into the spacecraft computer and then "propagated" over time by double numerical integration. (Acceleration is integrated to velocity, and velocity is integrated to position.) Every inertial navigation system works in exactly this same way, and they're all subject to the same errors: misalignments of the stable inertial platform; inaccuracies in the accelerometers; inaccuracies in the gravity models. The results necessary diverge from their true values over time, and that's why the crew kept performing P52s to realign their platforms and why the ground kept tracking the spacecraft and uploading new state vectors. It's still amazing to me that it worked as well as it did, but fd thinks the fact it wasn't perfect is somehow nefarious.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 20, 2011 23:06:41 GMT -4
I don't think he had any understanding of Apollo navigation despite my attempts to explain at least part of it in simple language. I hate to tell you lot this, but the general idea of "simple language" around here seems to presuppose you not only took and passed calculus but that you remember anything from it. It's not a universal supposition, but I am not always of a more clear understanding after the explanation is finished than I was before it started. Often less so.
|
|