|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 13, 2012 14:14:09 GMT -4
That does not seem to be the case with this OP. He(she?) is not changing his(her?) fundamental story. Hogwash. In post #54 in this thread you told us no LM had ever been anywhere near the lunar surface. By the end of the thread you had acknowledged that the missions had been flown as claimed, but that there was only some irregularity in the documentation. Reversing one's claim constitutes a fundamental change in the story. You may think what you want. You've tried for months to sweep your flip-flops and backpedaling under the carpet by saying you were correct "in outline form." It would be charitable to say your belief has remained unchanged and you've simply deployed on contradictory argument after another to try to support it. That's what the typical conspiracy theorist does. But in fact you can't even remain true to your core belief. Do you believe the LM actually land on the Moon? Who can tell from what you write? Your apologetics here are like saying that even though you've mistaken the murder victim, changed the time and place of the alleged murder several times, and accused several different people of the crime, your story must still be somehow believable because it revolves around the central theme of murder. And if you weren't Patrick, that would mean something. You know something? Conspiracy theorists all think their claims are somehow universally appealing and somehow simply point out roughly self-evident truths. In fact, since there are practically an infinite number of ways to misunderstand something, the chances of two different people making exactly the same mistakes and exactly the same twisted interpretations and exactly the same misconceptions are remote in the extreme. No, you simply followed the same broken line of reasoning as the original poster. You are completely oblivious to the notion that different constraints, requirements, and tolerances apply variously. You want to apply the language of one to the constraints of the other. This was explained at length in this thread. You didn't acknowledge it as Fattydash which is why you're not acknowledging it now. Straw man. That is not where your mistake lies.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 13, 2012 10:56:05 GMT -4
You deserve credit for taking this position, as so many hoax advocates claim that radiation was some sort of impenetrable barrier to human spaceflight to the moon. You may choose to give Patrick credit here, but I do not. I see it merely as having been refuted before he was out of the gate. He has so commonly before set up straw-man expectations for documentation, and has so flagrantly ignored people's posts before realizing they contained pertinent information pertinent, that I'm simply not willing to overlook the hoaxish line of reasoning insinuated in "If this were all real then there'd be plenty of documents" -- after one of the big documents was referred to by name.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 11, 2012 1:33:58 GMT -4
Nice one carpediem. I suspect the current absence of Doctor Socks from his known haunts means only that he is currently pontificating at some other forum, playing expert with all the the knowledge he didn't have until he came here. No, he was apparently preparing an encyclopedia of excuses for why he didn't have to supply the computations he promised.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 8, 2012 19:41:46 GMT -4
Wait -- is this while he was programming radar systems in China, or was this the chess club?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 7, 2012 14:06:28 GMT -4
I can't ever keep track of my socks either.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 7, 2012 11:42:00 GMT -4
...rather than asking your hypothetical GF? Are you saying dastardly's sister isn't real?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 6, 2012 20:07:30 GMT -4
They need to sight stars to determine the orientation of the guidance system. If it is precise enough to do that then the method should be precise enough for them to locate themselves. No, you're making the same elementary mistake as the OP. Orientation does not give you this. Nor does orientation plus a gravity-vector value. A star sight plus a gravity vector plus time can give you a rough guess of where you are on the lunar surface. The star sight is not equivalent to an orientation, and the method works because both the star sight and the gravity vector are reckoned according to the spacecraft's reference frame.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 6, 2012 17:32:54 GMT -4
A camera in hand on the lunar surface is worth a million inside a lander. Says who? Special pleading.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 6, 2012 17:31:34 GMT -4
Two cameras seem better than one especially given safety concerns. According to whom? And what relevance to safety does the camera hold? Viewed by whom? And for what reason? Not a mission requirement. Convincing to whom? Equivocation. Exactly what does that mean, and are you claiming relevant expertse? Yes, hoax claimants have been beating this drum for decades without any significant credibility. How are you defining "anomaly?"
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 6, 2012 17:26:03 GMT -4
Why did Aldrin say that the star chart was important to them then? What does Aldrin's comment have to do with measuring the elevation of stars above a terrestrial horizon? You can measure elevation above the horizon at sea, but that's irrelevant to the Moon.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 6, 2012 17:24:04 GMT -4
Why are your references still vague?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 6, 2012 17:07:37 GMT -4
On the other hand it would go a long way to convince many people that the program was "authentic" to use a term the OP seems to be fond of. On the contrary, it convinced a lot of people the program should be canceled.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 6, 2012 17:06:36 GMT -4
I was under the impression sighting the stars and horizon and knowing the exact time of day on the moon would give the astronauts the location. Your impression is wrong. Elevation angles measured from a local terrestrial horizon are worthless. That's basic navigation. Everything is visible generally. What makes you think astronauts could have seen it with the naked eye? And why are all your references vague?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 6, 2012 16:56:08 GMT -4
I also read that Aldrin was called "Buzz" because his little sister called him "buzzer" instead of brother. Does anyone know if that is true? Yes, that is where Aldrin says he got his nickname. Explain why you think so.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 6, 2012 16:54:14 GMT -4
I image the radiation issue would be easy to sort out. There must be good data on this. Yes. In fact, entire conferences were held on the subject during the Apollo development. Radiation oncology is largely irrelevant. The field you're fishing for is health physics. Perhaps. I assume your plan is to manipulate the definitions of "comprehensive," "documents," and "focused" to make whatever is available seem insufficient. If you're setting up a test for authenticity, then you need to specify your standards unambiguously to start with, and justify objectively why those should be the standards.
|
|