I'm not following his argument on the way he thinks the background was faked. I can follow his attempt to use simple geometry to compare the height of South Massif, but three problems occur to me immediately; that he doesn't know where the "base" is from the surface photographs, but only where it is cut off by local horizon; that the height in the contour map is not the height from the local ground level (most probably it is height to reference spheroid but I'm guessing here); and I see nothing in his analysis to account for spherical distortion in the camera lens.
Past that, I can't even swear he is calculating the field of view correctly, or the distance from the feature.
It's been good stuff for me, too. I think any of us in the technical professions are going to run into situations where they need to figure out what failed and how it failed. Learning even just a little bit about the tools and philosophy of forensic engineering would seem to be a win.
Yes...what the pictures do NOT show is equally important. Daylight (an obvious small, bright source) without skyglow of any kind. No atmosphere; not even a hint of it. Reduced gravity. Find one spot on Earth with those conditions, where you roam about as widely as they did!
Sigh. There was an unforseen advantage in keeping the Master of Socks here. The faux-naif voice he was putting on while last here didn't allow him to spout the same arrogant, insulting, walls of text. But now that he no longer has to pretend to be Mary, Queen of Socks, he is free to go back to his bad old ways.
Just in case you have forgotten this. You going to say anything about this?
Not sure what you mean. What I mean is that if I go to New York City I'll have my picture taken from the top of the Empire State Building or in front of The Blue Note or in front of Radio City Music Hall. These landmarks distinguish my being as in a uniquely Manhattan place. The photos of Buzz Aldrin on the surface of the moon do not show the astronaut being located uniquely upon the lunar surface at Tranquility Base. I do not know where the photos were taken but they were not taken on the moon. That is for sure. Aldrin was not there. The photos are proof of nothing. As a matter of fact I find them insulting now that I have looked at this situation carefully. They are proof of a hoax if anything.
Me, I save my stubs and receipts. The interesting ones, anyways. I visited Berlin a couple months ago and out of almost four gigs of pictures only ONE shows me....as a reflection in a mirror.
Not all tourists feel compelled to stand around grinning like chimpanzees from somewhere in the plaza on the wast face of Notre Dame, or pretending to prop up that little tower in Pisa.
And, heck, it isn't like just anyone can buy a ticket to the Moon. There was hardly a reason to flip up their visors and grin into the camera to show that these PARTICULAR two men had been there! What, do you think it was "Neil Armstrong, famous test pilot, posing at the site of his latest conquest?" How many people outside the community would have heard of either of them had they NOT been on the Moon?
So the Aunt-Mabel-Visits-Broadway is hardly an apt comparison.
A STUDY OF SPACE RADIATION SHIELDING PROBLEMS FOR MANNED VEHICLES (Wilson, Miller and Kloster, NASA CR-56005, 8 Jun 62)
Available from NTRS or can also send.
I image the radiation issue would be easy to sort out. There must be good data on this. There must have been plenty of radiation measurements taken from unmanned probes by entities other than NASA. Is that the case? Knowing the exact type of radiation and density or exposure medical types like radiation oncologists with the help of physicists should be able to sort this out easily. If the NASA missions to the moon were real there must be comprehensive scientific documents that look into all of this in a focused way.
You are half-right. There is plentiful information from multiple sources, enough to make a first-order approximation a trivial problem. As a first-order approximation, all of the radiological threats fall magnitudes below the level at which astronaut survival is impossible. *
Taking it any further is a first-year error; plugging in numbers to your variables at whatever arbitrary number of significant figures are available, and being mislead by that in thinking your final result has the same accuracy. In the real world, it is a complex enough modeling problem that it is paralleled by actual measurement (such as, the dosimeter badges worn by the astronauts.)
* (The caveat is that a massive solar flare "could" have happened, and been dangerous. But a meteor could have struck the spacecraft. Or alien space pirates could have boarded it in flight. Since none of these things happened, it is hardly worth worrying about the probabilities. The space weather record for the period is readily available.)
I checked out all of the references in the OP's long posts on page 9. I checked out every single one and then found a half a dozen of my own that were strikingly similar. No one knew where the eagle was. All of the authors cited by the OP do in fact present the story of a "lost eagle" in their books and I found this to be the case with other authors not referenced by this OP.
I sincerely doubt that. Every time I checked Doctor Sock's sources I found incomplete or broken links to them (requiring a fair amount of searching to pull up what he was talking about), and when found, his quotes were found to be incomplete to the point of changing the entire meaning of the work they were paraphrased from.
Furthermore, his rambling style of writing makes it extremely difficult to link a specific claim or quote to a specific cited reference. He apparently never read the Times style manual (or any other academic instruction on proper use of citation). Therefore, I reject the idea that one could largely confirm his research.
I then went on to look at NASA's own tracking data found in the Apollo mission report section 5. The tracking system found the landing site at 0.63 N and 23.47 E. The 1987 landing site coordinate determination by Davies et al found the site at 0.67...N and 23.47 E. I when I did a quick calculation for myself I found that the earth tracking system found the eagle to be about 0.8 miles from where Davies determined it to be. (I assumed 19 miles per degree as a rough approximation just to give me a genereal sense for how close the 2 sets of coordinates were.) That is not lost. So the OP is correct. There are two stories. One story with the eagle lost and one story with the eagle found. This is what one would expect with a hoax in which the main players desire the landing site location to remain unkown. If it is known then because no one is actually there the astronauts run a risk of exposure. The facts are there and the logic that follows is sound. I have concluded from running these and other numbers for myself that this OP is on to something. Granted he(she?) is scattered at times but the investigative work is fairly thorough and accurate as far as I can see. Can you show me the above coordinates were not reported as I have cited above? This OP gets my vote. There is validity to this "lost eagle" business and I am presuming at this time there is a connection from "lost eagle" to hoax.
Thorough and accurate?
So you agree that star sightings from the lunar surface are all that is necessary to determine position? So you agree that ordinary human eyes should have no trouble at all in detecting a nanosecond laser pulse, and the same humans with daylight film loaded in their cameras should be able to record it? That constellations are impossible to make out if the viewing conditions are too GOOD? That a laser with a beam diameter of 7 miles at the Moon could be used to locate a spacecraft to within under a mile of error? That a precise starting position in relation to local geography is necessary in order to make a rendezvous with a target you can see? That radians and degrees are identical? I could go on like this for pages.
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.
How many details do you need to identify a unique location? When I was doing compass training, two distinctive features was all I needed. Although it helped to have one more distinctive feature I could be standing on and thus confirm I'd taken a good azimuth.
There's a risk? What; you might stub your toe on a plaster model? You might cut a finger while preparing faked audio tapes?
Any risk, and whether it is a contradiction, depends on the scale and method of your hoax. Did they divert most of the money to secret military projects and throw an LM model together out of cardboard to film in some hanger in Utah (that's what Kaysing is basically claiming)?
Or are we hoaxing at an entirely different end of the scale; did those astronauts die in laser battles on the surface of the moon as aliens tried to swarm the sprawling base first established by Nazi UFO's?