|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 8, 2011 3:24:07 GMT -4
For drewld
You miss the point of the posts drewld. The Lick team is disappointed because they never aimed at lunar coordinates 00 41 15 N, 23 26 00 E until 08/01/1969. They did not target those coordinates on the evening of the first landing.
The Lick Observatory's laser experiment was not unsuccessful on the evening of 07/20/1969 because of the inherent difficulties in bouncing lasers off of reflectors at 240,000 miles, the experiment did not succeed because the Lick scientists had no idea where "Trinity Base" was and there was not a soul on the planet who could help them find it. Not even the alleged astronauts themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jul 8, 2011 3:33:31 GMT -4
They did have a clue where it was. They knew it was within or close to the planned landing elipse, but that covers several square miles of lunar surface.
Do you have any idea what an LRRR return signal actually looks like, and how many passes you need to do when searching for the site in order to be certain you have a reflected signal?
|
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 8, 2011 3:43:05 GMT -4
For ka9q at # 33 above
My direct question for ka9q is that if the Eagle was not lost on 07/20/1969, then who was it that knew "Tranquility Base" was located at lunar coordinates 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E on the evening of 07/20/1969? Additionally, if these coordinates were known by anyone as "the location of Eagle" on 07/20/1969, how was this in fact determined?
My argument is no one knew where Tranquility Base was, not Collins, not Armstrong, not Aldrin, not the Lick team, not the Houston team. No one knew where "Tranquility Base" was until it was identified as the place where the Lick scientists finally received a laser report from one of their efforts.
We can therefore reliably conclude, "Tranquility Base", or more sensibly stated, lunar coordinates
00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E was not the landing site of the American spaceship Eagle, but was and is rather a place on the lunar surface where lasers fired from the planet Earth are reflected back presumably by reflectors place in that location, lunar coordinates 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E by unmanned means.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jul 8, 2011 3:55:00 GMT -4
Who said anyone did?
OK then, where is the evidence for these unmanned means of deploying an LRRR on the lunar surface by NASA?
|
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 8, 2011 3:59:01 GMT -4
To Jason Thompson at # 66 above
Please read my previous post which was an answer to response #11.
NASA's claim as to why there was no laser report from the lunar surface on 07/20/1969 had nothing to do with the experiment's inherent technical difficulties. Nor did NASA claim that the failure of the Lick team to receive a laser report from the lunar surface had anything to do with not being able to target, to find, the retro-reflector. The Apollo 11 Mission report released on July 24 1969 clearly stated the Lick team's failure to receive a laser report on the evening of 07/20/1969 had to do with the fact that the moon's surface was light, lit by the sun, on those days for which the Lick team had so far tried to get a signal.; 07/20/1969, 07/21/1969, 07/22/1969, 07/23/1969, 07/24/1969.
NASA's claim in the Apollo 11 Mission Report of 07/24/1969 is that Lick laser was not bouncing back because it was not "night" yet on the moon.
|
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jul 8, 2011 3:59:14 GMT -4
Ah, Unmanned then eh? OK, so it was done in a studio then fattydash?
|
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 8, 2011 4:45:32 GMT -4
For tedward
We know there was no effort whatsoever made to target lunar coordinates 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E on the evening of 07/20/1969 with the Lick Observatory ruby red laser. We know this to be true as the only means available to identify Tranquility Base as the LRRR site for the Lick group was to have the Apollo astronauts themselves, Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin, self identify their position using their navigational equipment and report this directly or indirectly to the Lick group.
We have the Apollo 11 Mission transcripts, the Mission Report, the debriefing report, the post flight press conference transcript and other materials. In no place, at no time, do we find evidence for the Eagle crew to employ their instruments in making a determination of their location so as to pass this information along to the Lick group and in so doing, have the LRRR targeted and "Tranquility Base" found.
As such irrational behavior is utterly incompatible with any conceivable version of a real moon landing, we may all now conclude that the Apollo 11 landing was fraudulent. A real landing simply could not possibly feature a pair of astronauts, not to mention their principal handlers, utterly uncommitted to making a determination as to where exactly they had landed. As this line of behavior would make no sense in the case of authentic astronauts, we assume Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin are role playing, pretending to be men who actually have gone to the moon. What astronaut would go to the moon, land and wish to remain unidentifiable? What astronaut would go to the moon, land and not determine the lunar coordinates upon which their ship lie if for no other than fundamental safety concerns?
As mentioned previously in this thread, the astronauts would be able to identify their position within the error provided by the precision of their navigational equipment simply by sighting the sun, the earth, planets, stars. There would be several ways to go about this, but I would suggest the sun could be sighted first and its azimuth given the reference of zero degrees. All other measurements with the equipment would be made in relation to the sun, so referenced at an azimuth of zero. The sun's altitude above the horizon would be measured. This process would be repeated for the planet Earth and other suitably identifiable celestial bodies. In this way, a definite location for the imagined LM Eagle would have been made, if any of this were real, even remotely reasonable.
Coordinates so obtained would be relayed to the people at Lick. When the now well targeted laser found the retro-reflector 240,000 miles away and bounced home to Earth, those coordinates would be confirmed. One might imagine the Lick people being able to give all the more precision to the coordinates' determination. This of course would be the case if any of Apollo were real. It is not. Apollo is fraudulent. Very patently so in the context of this particular analysis.
Additionally, were Apollo 11 real, were it a genuine moon landing, Armstrong and Aldrin would have had to have made that determination of their location in order to begin the process of navigating off the moon and back to Michael Collins and then back home to Earth.
Were Apollo real, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin would have known lunar coordinates 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E to be the coordinates of their landing. They would have to know this in order to get back to the command module and then home to Earth. Yet, one can only stand in sort of a weird silence and face the fact that the official story denies they knew these numbers, denies they took these measurments, denies incredibly that they were even the slightest bit interested in finding out where they had landed, where they were on the moon. The official story says no one knew where "Tranquility Base" was until 08/01/1969 when the Lick Observatory group finally received a laser report from lunar coordinates 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E.
And so we conclude without any room for doubt, but plenty of room for stunned bewilderment, that Apollo is fraudulent.
Since 08/01/1969, laser beams fired from observatories come bouncing back from lunar coordinates 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E. I suggest an unmanned craft "placed" a reflector there. I imagine the craft itself featuring the reflective surface. Others are welcome to make suggestions with regard to what it is that the lasers have been bouncing off since 08/01/1969. Every guy and gal is entitled to their opinion. One thing we do know, know without doubt, know with complete certainty, we know that the reflector was not placed there at 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E on 07/20/1969. We know this with certainty because the official story spins a tale alleging that the alleged astronauts themselves did not know these very numbers, 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E until they were home for better than 10 days.
Such great explorers and they never knew where to they went. Not possible. How sad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jul 8, 2011 4:52:42 GMT -4
The Apollo 11 Mission report released on July 24 1969 clearly stated the Lick team's failure to receive a laser report on the evening of 07/20/1969 had to do with the fact that the moon's surface was light, lit by the sun, on those days for which the Lick team had so far tried to get a signal.; 07/20/1969, 07/21/1969, 07/22/1969, 07/23/1969, 07/24/1969. NASA's claim in the Apollo 11 Mission Report of 07/24/1969 is that Lick laser was not bouncing back because it was not "night" yet on the moon. Yes, that is the suggested explanation at that time. Why do you think that does not fit with the facts as they were at that time? Namely: 1: The landing site had not yet entered its night at the time of the report. 2: The LRRR was known not to be optimal for returns during lunar daylight. Not that it definitely would not work during lunar daylight, but that it would work better at lunar night. 3: Their efforts so far in a non-optimal set of conditions with a location not know precisely had failed to send a return. Why is that suspect? The fact that later they did get a return during a lunar daylight period in no way invalidates the original proposed reasons for their failure to get a signal. |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jul 8, 2011 5:01:17 GMT -4
As such irrational behavior is utterly incompatible with any conceivable version of a real moon landing, Wrong. It is inconceivable to you. Why is everyone obliged to share your expectations? They went there to study the Moon's surface and envirnoment. They knew they had landed within a large elipse which had been provided by the known margins of error of their navigational equipment. What was it that required them, with their very limited time and packed schedule, to devote precious time and resources to identifying their exact location? In other words, what was it that made the known marginof error in their position unacceptable for that mission? Very well then, why, if this is so inconceivable, did they simply not fake having them know exactly where they were? Your proposal rests on them deliberately scripting a scenario that is 'inconceivable' for a real mission into a fake scene that is supposedly trying to convince the world that they are doing a real mission. You don't find that contradictory? What fundamental safety concerns required them to pinpoint their exact location rather than simply knowing they were within a margin or error previously determined as acceptable? And what is the precision of their navigational equipment? Why? What is it about orbital mechanics and the LM's systems that required that level of precision? Every technical endeavour in history includes error margins. Do you really think those were not factored in to the entire mission? And your evidence for the existence of this craft is what? They did know where they went to within an acceptable margin. You keep spinning this tale of them aving no idea where on the Moon they were, but that is simply rubbish. They knew they were withjin a certain area, just not precisely where, and you have been utterly unable to explain exactly what it was that would require them to know this to the level of precision you insist they should, or indeed if they could even do that with the instruments at hand. |
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 8, 2011 5:06:05 GMT -4
Such great explorers and they never knew where to they went. Not possible. How sad. You need to read your history about other great explorers. By your own logic Australia and most of the Americas were never discovered. |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jul 8, 2011 5:23:12 GMT -4
Another question for fattydash:
Do you know how a set of co-ordinates in degrees, minutes and seconds or arc translates to the precision on the surface (in other words, what is the surface area in square metres of an area one arcsecond wide by one arcsecond high?).
Do you know how wide an area the laser used for the LRRR experiment covered on the lunar surface?
Do you know how many readings and adjustments would therefore need to be taken to locate precisely a reflector measuring about one metre sqaure?
|
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 8, 2011 5:27:47 GMT -4
Another question for fattydash: Do you know how a set of co-ordinates in degrees, minutes and seconds or arc translates to the precision on the surface (in other words, what is the surface area in square metres of an area one arcsecond wide by one arcsecond high?). Do you know how wide an area the laser used for the LRRR experiment covered on the lunar surface? Do you know how many readings and adjustments would therefore need to be taken to locate precisely a reflector measuring about one metre sqaure? With respect to you Jason, I think kaq9 has asked a similar question, except that you have asked specifics. Now fattydash answer these specific points that Jason and kaq9 have asked and start giving some numbers. If you can do this, you'd would realise that reflecting a laser off an LRRR that is 250,000 miles away is not like using a laser pointer when giving a presentation. |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jul 8, 2011 5:34:09 GMT -4
If that is the case then I apologise to ka9q. I'm at work, so I do tend to skim over the threads somewhat.
|
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 8, 2011 5:34:48 GMT -4
For Jason
One need not cite NASA's lie about dark/light concerns as regards their explanation for the failed LRRR experiment on 07/20/1969 to demonstrate that the entire LRRR issue as officially presented and the Apollo 11 Mission generally are fraudulent. At the time of the Apollo 11 landing, there would be only one way to acquire the landing coordinates and so appropriately direct the Lick laser group. The landing coordinates are of course the LRRR coordinates as well. The only way of self identifying one's position under such circumstances, any place, any time, anywhere, any way, features the utilization of one's own navigational equipment in order to find how one was/is physically related, positionally related, to those nearby celestial objects. Typically, such positional relation determinations are made in terms of relative angles between oneself and other objects, other objects in three dimensional space. In making such measurements, one's position upon the surface of a moon can be determined.
I need not belabor the point as regards the common sense practice of every so equipped explorer making azimuth and altitude measurements for celestial bodies under the circumstances under consideration.
Actually, there is one other way of course in the official story where the position of Armstrong and his Eagle could be determined outside the context of the method just alluded to, Michael Collins might have located the Eagle had the thing been scripted differently. It is important to note in passing, many would argue, including myself, that searching for Neil and Buzz in the Eagle from so high up, armed with an optic of 28 power magnification stretches credulity, even under the most generous of terms.
The dark/light issue is worth bringing up to emphasize yet another situation in which we are lied to, played for fools. Yet, this matter is by no means essential in our critical analysis of the official story, in our demonstration of the official story's being internally incoherent and therefore necessarily untrue.
|
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 8, 2011 5:37:53 GMT -4
One need not cite NASA's lie about dark/light concerns as regards their explanation for the failed LRRR experiment... Cough up the numbers and error analysis please, and confirm the accuracy with which the LRRR could be found using your 'method.' That is what has been asked of you. It's your proposed method, so please do the sums. |
|
