|
Post by fattydash on Jul 12, 2011 4:32:05 GMT -4
Jason at 262
Take a look at Jay's question for me about the lander and my response just above to him. Should work for your own response as well.
Sorry I got frustrated with you yesterday. Should not have done that . I apologize. I was wrong. Sorry. Thanks for the posts and the great challenge, fattyd
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 12, 2011 4:18:05 GMT -4
For jay's #259
This point I have been trying to make all along Jay. How is all this possible? I stated way back in 125, the official Apollo narrative is inconsistent. If one follows nothing else but NASA's official story, one discovers that story, NASA's own story, nobody else's story, not mine, not yours, NASA's, if you follow their own facts, the interested person discovers that the story is internally incoherent and as such must be untrue.
We have done just that here Jay. We follow NASA's story, its own facts. The CapCom can read the DSKY per the transcript, and so must be able to read 00 41 15 N 23 26 00 E at the time of landing , if there was a landing at Tranquility . Armstrong and Aldrin know these numbers per the Flight International account(the article features opinions/views offered by Kranz, Kraft and Sam Phillips, others). Armstrong and Aldrin see the DSKY too. So how can this be Jay, McCandless and the astronauts see these numbers and at the same time there is this whole alternative world where people do not know where the astronauts are and claims are made that the astronauts themselves do not know how to find themselves, figure out their landing coordinates? And these facts are not facts made up by me. They are facts WITHIN the body of the official narrative, the very facts that constitute the narrative. The incoherence, that is all on NASA's side, their stuff.
How does the lander work perfectly well and at the same time how could that be the case if it lands and nobody can figure out where the lander is, including the personal aboard that lander?
In all honesty Jay. I do not know how this is possible except to assume people are lying. When there are internal inconsistencies in a story, when a story is internally incoherent, this is what it means for me. I am sorry in particular in this case because science in many forms is a big part of my life and this is hard for me to feel such disappointment and confusion around this issue.
I did not produce, manufacture these facts; the fact that NASA itself claims to this day regarding the Lick laser not finding Tranquility until 08/01/1969 and at the same time Remington Stone indicates he and his scientist supervisor were given the coordinates 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E on the evening of 07/20/1969. And furthermore, the reason NASA gives for why it took so long to get a sense as to where to target the laser is very much not the reason Lick gives. Lick says JPL software. NASA says they provided LICK with picture and flight data analysis and based on that LICK figured out where to shoot the laser 0n 08/01/1969. But how can that be true if Lick knew exactly where to target the laser the first night? Heard the guy wrong, OK, but only 35 seconds of arc, and by the 2nd night they had it right.
I am not making this up. I am simply reporting the facts as I learn of them and making the best sense of them as I can.
I respect you Jay and welcome your alternative opinion. I am inspired by your passion for this stuff.
What am I to say about your last question? I believe you asked it because you yourself experienced the confusion we all do when wandering through a story like this that is not internally coherent but are in some sense pressured to find consistency when that consistency is simply not there.
We will go 'round and 'round, and I do not mean to be evasive. I think you can tell by now I need not be. I have the facts and my interpretations. You may disagree, but I have no fear about laying them out there. You mean me no harm and I mean you no harm either. We differ here. That is fine. It helps us both become better in terms of understanding the issue.
This is what I think Jay. 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. But then there is this whole other side of the story which does not fit. Neither of us can change that. We cannot rewrite those books. That was my point in the post above. It was rhetorical. What are we to do? Tell Michael Collins that he was wrong? Tell Michael Collins that McCandless gamed him and actually had seen 00 41 15 N, 23 26 00 E as the DSKY readout data for the LM guidance system at the time of the landing? Matter of fact Mike, McCandless knew the whole time where your friends were. But don't feel too bad Mike, he did not tell the USGS guys either. Just throw it in to the next edition of "Carrying the Fire", one slight little modification, adjustment.
I resolve the incoherence by suggesting there was fraud, and this occurred probably for extremely complex reasons. It was an idiotically insane risk, you're bound to get caught. You will think me a nut, but I once wrote to Neil Armstrong about this. I guess it was a crazy thing to do, but I love space stuff and it was important that I say what I did. As I repeat here often, I admire him.
I do not believe the astronauts to be bad people. I think they have suffered. That is my take, especially in the case of Armstrong. I feel bad for him. That is honestly how I feel.
If I accept the lander is functional, then I cannot make sense of the story NASA tells which follows.
So to conclude, I believe there was no landing because Apollo is/was fraudulent. They could not pull it off, and in my mind, the incoherence of the NASA narrative is compatible with only that conclusion and I feel bad about it.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 12, 2011 3:13:06 GMT -4
For Scooter, most certainly not. I would think the guys writing the Science articles, the Lick people they are official narrative people scooter, definitely not hoax advocates.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 12, 2011 3:11:50 GMT -4
Your fourth point, I do not believe there was an ascent as I do not believe there was a landing. So in that regard, it was a crummy ascent.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 12, 2011 3:10:25 GMT -4
Your third point about the accuracy Jay. I make no claims that I know what would be required. I do assert the ONLY "accuracy" available is that inherent in the lander guidance. Whatever that may be. There are no other tools available.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 12, 2011 3:06:51 GMT -4
For Jay,
With regard to your second point above, I grant your point. The USGS are simply trying to find the lander. I would agree. Whatever information, clues they could come up with would not be useful for the most part in the ascent. though that is simply my sense. For what my opinion is worth here, I agree.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 12, 2011 3:04:37 GMT -4
Luke and Jay,
For Luke's question number 2 , I must be misunderstanding what it is that you are asking me. Please restate it. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 12, 2011 2:56:34 GMT -4
No Jay, I am simply informing you that if you care to look at the Apollo 11 transcript record we see McCandless sees what is on the DSKY. And Armstrong and Aldrin also of course see it and as it turns out the DSKY reads 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E just before the moment of touchdown. I think we can all agree there is documentation for that and that would provide at least some evidence for the lander's guidance system actually being able to measure coordinates.
Grant all of the above. No reason not to. My point is if we do then there must be something very very very wrong with Neil Armstrongs's brain, not to mention that of McCandless because Michael Collins is floating around up there 60 or 70 miles up, with his funky little sextant trying to find his brothers in space.
OK, the DSKY reads 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E and everybody knows it. Have it your way Jay and we shall have everyone rewrite the relevant chapters in their books, Collins, Beattie, Chaikin and so on, the whole lot. Have them tell the story anew. Fine with me.
The lander works. I grant your claim. It works perfectly well.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 12, 2011 2:38:13 GMT -4
For Jay
As regards point number one. I have incorporated it Jay. Please refer to my post above where I referenced per the Apollo 11 transcript the CAPCOM himself which I believe would have been McCandless at the time noting the DSKY R window readout at a time during the landing and likewise the Flight International Magazine indicating the reading on the DSKY at the moment before touchdown was 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E.
So if we assume as you do Jay, and as I myself referenced and emphasized in the posts above featuring the Apollo 11 CapCom quote and the Flight International quote, that indeed the lander's guidance system is able to make accurate coordinate measurements and Armstrong and Aldrin are reading them off the DSKY on the moon, then based on the performance of this navigational device, Armstrong, Aldrin and at least McCandless know the coordinates of Tranquility Base.
But then Collins does not know this and he never learns of these coordinates(well referenced previously), nor do the US Geological Survey people searching for the astronauts, nor do the geologists in Flagstaff likewise searching know that Armstrong and Aldrin were never lost, nor do essentially the entirety of the Houston staff working there that evening know what only Armstrong, Aldrin and McCandless know, 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E.
So yes Jay, I will grant you that the lander has a perfectly good coordinate finding mechanism, but then I must of course make the claim that in that event the pieces of technical equipment that the project is missing to successfully land men on the moon and return them safely to earth are 2 Astronauts with enough common sense to tell people where they are and a CapCom with enough common sense to tell people to stop looking at maps because he's got the coordinates in front of him, he sees them as the astronauts would see them in the R windows; 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E.
So I will grant you the lander works, the lander can find coordinates marvelously well, but then you must certainly acknowledge my claim that in that case, the technology lacking to achieve the landing is a pair of astronauts and a CapCom with a tenth of a brain between the three of them. Wouldn't you think they would tell anybody those numbers Jay, or should they keep it a secret? Seems especially silly to keep it a secret when the guys back at Lick Observatory are anxiously awaiting their opportunity to help Apollo in its demonstration of the miraculous.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 12, 2011 2:01:07 GMT -4
For nomuse.
The true reason as to why the LRRR was not found with the laser until 08/01/1969 is given by the principal investigators in one of their papers in Science Magazine. I referenced it above. I believe it was January 1970, but may be wrong. I gave the details in the #126 post.
JPL did the software and they coordinated the return site as one of the parking lots at the facility and not the observatory itself and so the timing was off.
This view is the view accepted by the people who ran the experiment and I would imagine more likely than not it was/is correct.
The staff at Lick Observatory were doing everything exactly right starting from 07/21/1969, except the timing to catch the return was off due to the JPL software error.
On 07/20/1969 the claim is they targeted 00 41 50 N instead of 00 41 15 N. So 35 seconds of arc off. The JPL problem was still there so it still would not have mattered if Wampler heard the north coordinate correctly to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 12, 2011 1:53:56 GMT -4
Sorry nomuse, could you rephrase the statement. I am missing something. I apologize. Please say it another way. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 12, 2011 1:36:26 GMT -4
For Jay
I believe the CAPCOM post of mine above is directly related to the concerns we have been debating. As a matter of fact, I have already used the Flight International Magazine quote way back in my long post #125/126 section.
The astronauts claim to not know where they are, and not only the astronauts themselves, but the CAPCOM's and apparently a lot of other people who care to look or venture a look at the relevant screen can see the very data the astronauts have lighting up on their guidance computer R windows.
The point about the "Lost Bird" is of course that it is a ruse. And my last post with the CAPCOM quote and a repeat of the Flight International quote, pushes the claims of NASA that the astronauts were lost to a ludicrous breaking point. BOTH THE ASTRONAUTS AND HOUSTON SEE EVERYTHING IN THE R WINDOWS INCLUDING APPARENTLY 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E. How can US Geological Survey personal , not to mention a similar group at Flagstaff, be looking for the astronauts on maps if the coordinates are staring everyone in the face?
The assertion on the part of NASA that the Eagle's position is not known, is not credible based on the simple fact that the computer data seen in the LM computer's windows is also seen by the people in Houston.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 12, 2011 1:24:34 GMT -4
For Luke
1) they did not have a lander capable of measuring coordinates, my reference, US Geological Survey personal looking for them.
2)according to NASA the lunar coordinates at Tranquility Base were determined on 08/01/1969 and this determination did not include data from the LM guidance system
3)Stanley Kubrick type lot based stuff
4) almost everyone involved in the project believes it to be legit. I gave that excellent example of Donald Beattie above. He was always under the impression that the Lick observatory people learned of Tranquility's position based to a significant degree on on information he and his colleagues provided to Lick. that turned out to not be the case at all. Remington Stone(technician) and Joseph Wampler(scientist) were provided with the coordinates by personal who said they were calling from Houston on 07/20/1969. So if Beattie could be fooled, and he was smart, apparently not hard at all. they are legitimately designing and building this stuff. Why would anyone have occasion to suspect fraud except for the monkeys at the top?
5) The astronauts know it was hoaxed, everyone else I suspect believes it was legit.
6) not sure about that luke, do you mean playing with my starry night software or actually trying to do it on the moon with my scope?
7) I do not know exactly what precise would be, but per reference above as regards Aldrin's comment about the azimuth measurement, the measurements are important, relevant, the better made, the better one would do.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 12, 2011 1:11:51 GMT -4
Question then for you Jay. If you do not accept my assertion that the guidance system's equipment would be the only method one could employ in obtaining coordinate measurements from the lunar surface, what would be the astronauts other option(s)? How does one determine one's lunar coordinates equipped with Neil and Buzz's stuff if the person is not allowed to use the lander's guidance equipment?
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 12, 2011 1:08:42 GMT -4
For Jay
Sorry about the delay. Have a night job and then sleep in the day. Off now for a while so anxious to engage in a bit of healthy debate.
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. For that specific claim, I site again my point, previously well referenced as regards the whole slew of US Geological Survey people hunting for the landing site on a map based on descriptions given by Aldrin and Armstrong.
So I claim no powered ascent as coordinates were never obtained to orient the astronauts from a specific point of departure. I claim a specific point of departure would need to be known to achieve lunar rendezvous.
As regards my specific claim about needing coordinates, Aldrin states in the post 11 press conference that as regards the post landing rendezvous;
"The surprising feature of this rendezvous, many of us were expecting a a fairly large out-of-planeness, due to perhaps some misalignment in azimuth on the surface."
I contend if he did not have coordinates, then he did not have ANY azimuth measurement. So as above, the rendezvous could not possibly have occurred so smoothly.
"as
|
|