|
|
Post by sts60 on Feb 3, 2012 12:32:01 GMT -4
I think the following story is analogous to the situation with Eagle on the moon.... Surely all of us here would describe my predicament as being “lost”, but am I really? I know with certainty that I’m in downtown Columbus, and I know that I’m likely within a mile or so of my intended destination, I just don’t know exactly where I am within the downtown district.... Not a bad analogy, except all the time you see signs directing you back to the highway, so you can always get home. Also, you don't really need to meet a business associate; you simply need to take images and bring back some things from downtown Columbus. And you won't get a parking ticket for leaving your car there as you ride home on the motorcycle you brought with you.  |
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Feb 3, 2012 17:10:22 GMT -4
Not a bad analogy, except all the time you see signs directing you back to the highway, so you can always get home. Also, you don't really need to meet a business associate; you simply need to take images and bring back some things from downtown Columbus. And you won't get a parking ticket for leaving your car there as you ride home on the motorcycle you brought with you. I didn’t say it was a perfect analogy. The point that has been made over and over again in this thread is that there are varying degrees of being “lost”. One can be adrift and lost at sea within a search area of thousands of square miles. On the other hand, I can lose a coin by dropping it on the floor even though I can be pretty certain it’s somewhere inside the room where I’m standing. On a global scale I know the position of the coin to an extremely high degree of accuracy, but if I look around the room and can’t find it, I could describe it as being lost. Likewise, NASA could describe the LM as lost only because they didn’t know exactly were it was inside of an already small and well defined area. |
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Feb 3, 2012 17:12:07 GMT -4
That convinced me that he is really on to something meaningful. And what would that be? |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Feb 4, 2012 13:18:10 GMT -4
I still don't get why, if it was a hoax, there is any benefit to not knowing exactly where the LM is. To me that just makes no sense. Surely if you are only pretending to go to the moon, you wouldn't also pretend that you don't know the exact location.
|
|
|
|
Post by twik on Feb 4, 2012 19:14:13 GMT -4
Patrick seems to have two theories about why they would lie about where they were (since he assumes there was an umanned landing for Apollo 11).
1. They were going to use a laser beam to find the reflectors. He assumes that *of course* if the landing was real, they would snap a picture of the beam when it hit. By not having clear coordinates, the laser-finding wasn't completed until they left. I presume he believes the entire landing site would be lit up by the laser pulse.
2. The Russians would be looking for them if they released the precise coordinates, and would, if they could see them, realize it wasn't a manned exibition.
These aren't the most compelling arguments, but it's the best he's been able to come up with about why they would lie about having a slight margin of error on the landing location.
|
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Feb 4, 2012 21:48:15 GMT -4
I still don't get why, if it was a hoax, there is any benefit to not knowing exactly where the LM is. To me that just makes no sense. Surely if you are only pretending to go to the moon, you wouldn't also pretend that you don't know the exact location. True but no logic really matters here because fattydash-forthetrhillofital is not interested in logic. I think he is not even all that interested in the moon hoax. He really is interested in being a troll. Nothing more than whatever gratification he get from believing that people are dancing to his words. |
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Feb 5, 2012 14:53:11 GMT -4
One of the things I occasionally like to do is go into the city and just wander around randomly, to see what I can find.
At any given point on one of those trips, I may have no idea where I am with any kind of precision, since I don't pay attention to street names or most other references.
I seldom get "lost" however, since I know with confidence how I got there from where I started.
Apparently something about being on a space-ship with very limited manoeuvrability, a known target destination, and an autopilot makes this harder (impossible even!) somehow?
Not buying it, sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by twik on Feb 5, 2012 19:04:27 GMT -4
I don't think Patrick/fattdash/whosnext is a troll in one classic sense - that of someone who runs into a forum, tosses out something for the sake of controversy, and then sits back and laughs at the commotion.
I believe that *he* believes he's solving a great mystery. Note that he seems to have an obsession about being the best - he's the doctor who approves other doctors' hospita admissions. He's the writer called upon by the UN to make their communications less terse and more poetic (facepalm). His bicycle design is internationally recognized.
So, he gets two benefits from his stance. One, he is the World's Greatest Detective, in uncovering something that no one else could. And second, he takes away the achievements of other people, in areas where he knows he can't compete.
|
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Feb 5, 2012 20:44:07 GMT -4
Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/etc. is a troll - not in the classic sense of posting simply to goad people to respond without any emotional investment on the troll's part, but a troll nontheless.
In his case, he simply wants to feel clever and get people responding to him to stoke his bloated ego. As incompetent and all-around clueless as he is, even he cannot miss that not one single person (AFAIK) has agreed with him on any of the forums he's bombarded with his bloviations. Therefore, he knows he'll never get anywhere with the people who ridicule him and point out his foolishness.
But he is getting grownups to talk to him constantly, and for him that's as good as he can hope for. It doesn't matter that everyone knows he's a liar, an incompetent, a coward, and a semicoherent child - or even that they point it out to him. All that matters is people responding to him; that makes him a troll.
|
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 5, 2012 20:46:57 GMT -4
One, he is the World's Greatest Detective, in uncovering something that no one else could. He's Batman? |
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 5, 2012 21:52:06 GMT -4
One, he is the World's Greatest Detective, in uncovering something that no one else could. He's Batman? Probably |
|
|
|
Post by ineluki on Feb 6, 2012 11:48:13 GMT -4
I'm not sure about Batman, but Batdroppings do have some use... unlike PatDastFatty's verbal excrements |
|
|
|
Post by forthethrillofital on Feb 6, 2012 16:14:00 GMT -4
Patrick seems to have two theories about why they would lie about where they were (since he assumes there was an umanned landing for Apollo 11). 1. They were going to use a laser beam to find the reflectors. He assumes that *of course* if the landing was real, they would snap a picture of the beam when it hit. By not having clear coordinates, the laser-finding wasn't completed until they left. I presume he believes the entire landing site would be lit up by the laser pulse. 2. The Russians would be looking for them if they released the precise coordinates, and would, if they could see them, realize it wasn't a manned exibition. These aren't the most compelling arguments, but it's the best he's been able to come up with about why they would lie about having a slight margin of error on the landing location. I do not read the OP's main point that way at all. Admittedly I am not as familiar with some of these details as you seem to be. Still I think his(her?) point is that the moon had been so well mapped that if precise coordinates had been provided they would not correspond to what was seen on television that evening. I also think the OP is trying to point out that the astronauts would be required to document the positions of the stars relative to the moon horizon and given the time this would precisely determine location. The laser experiment is new to me and I imagine there may really be something to that. As far as I can tell it is the blue-green finder laser in Texas that the astronhauts would be expected to see and image. The surveyor probe never photographed a red laser. It did image a blue-green laser and so the OP's point may be that the astronauts would be expected to do as surveyor 7 did. |
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Feb 6, 2012 16:18:37 GMT -4
Would it have even been visible to the naked eye when it hit the moon, much less the cameras they carried with them?
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 6, 2012 16:20:42 GMT -4
I also think the OP is trying to point out that the astronauts would be required to document the positions of the stars relative to the moon horizon... No, sighting stars relative to the local lunar surface horizon doesn't give you useful data. What makes you think the astronauts would be able to see such a laser? |
|
