Lost Bird Proves Apollo Inauthenticity

[lukepemberton]

Jul 8, 2011 5:34:09 GMT -4 Jason Thompson said:

If that is the case then I apologise to ka9q. I'm at work, so I do tend to skim over the threads somewhat.

No apology required. I was highlighting for your infomation that you and ka9q have made exactly the same point, and quite independently of each other it seems. The fact that you missed ka9q's post shows that you both think the same way, and fattydash is failing to stump up the goods.

There was no criticism of your post intended. Apologies if you saw my post that way.

[tedward]

Jul 8, 2011 4:45:32 GMT -4 fattydash said:

For tedward

And so we conclude without any room for doubt, but plenty of room for stunned bewilderment, that Apollo is fraudulent.

Snip to keep the page sizes down.

I see a method and process that is acceptable to the described events. You conclude not we, get that straight.

Now, back to how they defrauded us. Please do explain, how did they do it.

[Jason Thompson]

Jul 8, 2011 5:34:48 GMT -4 fattydash said:

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.

No, do not sidestep the issue. You brought that report in and used it in your argument. You don't get to discard it when the questions get too hard to answer.

The landing coordinates are of course the LRRR coordinates as well.

See my questions about the translation of degrees, minutes and seconds to surface area, and where the LRRR was in relation to the LM. Are you so sure that the co-ordinates are that wide-ranging?

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 so doing, one's position upon the surface of a moon can be determined.

I do not need to be told how one would do that. I asked what level of precision one could obtain with the equipment to hand.

I need not belabor the point as regards the common sense practice of every so equipped explorer to make azimuth and altitude measurements for celestial bodies under appropriate circumstances.

But you have yet to explain why it was necessary or appropriate for them to identify their location to within greater precision than the predetermined margins for error already known. They went to land on the Moon. They succeeded. Precision landing was a goal of the next mission.

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.

It is important for you to argue WHY exactly the script of a faked mission included something apparently so utterly inconceivable for a real mission.

[Jason Thompson]

Jul 8, 2011 5:42:35 GMT -4 lukepemberton said:

There was no criticism of your post intended. Apologies if you saw my post that way.

No, not at all. It was a valid point, and I just wanted to make sure ka9q didn't think his lengthy and informative posts were being ignored.

Well, they kind of were, but only for time issues rather than lack of interest.

[fattydash]

For luke, I have been wondering about those numbers all day. Will get back to all the curious with my take on it when I get the next opportunity to peruse my own library. It seems important enough that one would want to check multiple sources.

Accuracy concerns aside, the point merits emphasis again and again and again and again, regardless of the accuracy, whatever that accuracy may be, taking measurements as so discussed would be outside of a flukey pick up on the part of Collins with his optics, the ONLY way, Armstrong and Aldrin could have "found" their alleged moonwalking selves on the lunar surface 07/20/1969.

Remember, there was a throng of journalists at the Lick Observatory that evening, waiting for the laser to find its way to the reflector at "Tranquility Base" and then back to them. Yet when we examine all of those materials previous referenced, NASA's own materials, do we find any evidence anywhere of appropriate procedures having taken place to locate the astronauts, just out of simple safety concerns? NO. Do they make an imaginary effort to locate themselves so the Lick group can make the journalists happy? NO. And that is saying a lot. Since when would NASA give up on a major PR score like that? Never, unless of course the thing were not real, and so we must conclude that it is not.

[tedward]

Do you know how long they had on the surface?

[Jason Thompson]

Jul 8, 2011 5:57:29 GMT -4 fattydash said:

Accuracy concerns aside, the point merits emphasis again and again and again and again, regardless of the accuracy, whatever that accuracy may be, taking measurements as so discussed would be outside of a flukey pick up on the part of Collins with his optics, the ONLY way, Armstrong and Aldrin could have "found" their alleged moonwalking selves on the lunar surface 07/20/1969.

The accuracy and precision (use the correct terminolgy) are absolutely critical to your whole argument, so you don't get to brush it aside for yet more handwaving arguments. They knew where they were to within a certain level of precision. Could they have improved on that from where they were on the surface? If so, by how much? And if so, was it a worthwhile use of their time and limited resources when they had a fresh lunar surface to explore and sample and experimental packages to delpoy?

just out of simple safety concerns?

Something else you keep mentioning but refuse to back up. What safety concerns required them to know their position with any more precisoon than they already knew it?

Do they make an imaginary effort to locate themselves so the Lick group can make the journalists happy? NO. And that is saying a lot. Since when would NASA give up on a major PR score like that? Never, unless of course the thing were not real, and so we must conclude that it is not.

That doesn't even make any sense. If they are faking it then the whole thing is a PR stunt anyway, so why fake something that loses them any PR?

If it was fake, why did it include something supposedly so inconceivable for a real mission?

[fattydash]

For Jason,

I have trouble understanding your point. The issue is not "hard" for me. NASA made the claim about the failure of the experiment as a consequence of the dark/light concerns so discussed. If NASA submitted to the world a subsequent explanation that was different as to why the retro-reflector was not "found" until 08/01/1969, I would be more than happy to consider NASA's post 07/24/1969, pre 08/01/1969 explanation and comment on its merits. Until I am given such an alternative report, until I read a revised report by NASA, then as all would agree, their explanation must stand as they gave it on 07/24/1969.

My point in the previous post was simply to indicate no one knew where to target a laser on the evening of 07/20/1969. It would not have mattered if it was light or dark or black or blue or brown or red that day. No one knew where the retro-reflector was. No one had come up with the numbers 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E. Those numbers would not come until 08/01/1969 when the Lick group received the first laser reports suggesting a bounce back.

So no one had the magic numbers and there was absolutely no effort made to acquire them. The journalists were up on that mountain being gamed, all of them. There would be no correct coordinates given. We know the laser shot in some direction(s) that evening as soon as the alleged moonwalker set down the imagined LRRR. Back at Lick, the scientists too were being gamed.

Again, a point worth emphasizing over and over, most people involved were gamed, and some like the Lick people, big big big time.

[ka9q]

Jul 8, 2011 1:15:50 GMT -4 fattydash said:

The Laser Ranging Retro-Reflector(LRRR) experiment is optimally designed for lunar night operation

Do you know the meaning of the word 'optimal'?

I assume you have a mobile phone. If you're like most people, it works pretty well most of the time but occasionally a call will drop. From time to time you're unable even to get a signal and make a call.

In fact, you couldn't use it at all for the first few days after you got it because in your haste to use it you hadn't bothered to read the instruction manual, so you didn't enter a special code that enables the phone for use. This was your first mobile phone so you didn't know that such a code was even required. Eventually, though, you figured it out and you made your first call.

Using your logic, I can reasonably conclude that the mobile phone network doesn't actually exist at all. It is strictly a figment of the phone company's imagination, a clever ploy to get millions of people to send in a check every month for something that doesn't exist.

I have to confess to having had a somewhat amusing daydream at your expense in the day since you appeared on this blog. In my daydream I visualize you on trial for medical malpractice. The details are unimportant, as is the fact that you're innocent of what you're accused of. The important thing is that you're up against a lawyer who is willing to do anything to win. The truth is completely unimportant to him. In fact, he sees it as a serious obstacle to winning his case. But he knows his "profession", and he proves quite good at using your own medical notes against you. It doesn't matter what you think you meant when you wrote them because he has found some medical 'experts' adept at interpreting their true meaning for the court and second-guessing your professional judgment.

And he succeeds in portraying you to the jury as someone who simply cannot be trusted. When you say "A", that proves you're incompetent and careless, and when you say "not A", that also proves you're incompetent and careless.

Does this ring a bell?

[lukepemberton]

For luke, I have been wondering about those numbers all day.

So you haven't worked them out. Your entire argument is based on summising. Science does not work like that.

Accuracy concerns aside...

Sidestepping.

Remember, there was a throng of journalists at the Lick Observatory that evening waiting for the laser to find its way to the reflector at "Tranquility Base" and then back to them.

Nothing more than a peachy story, and a non sequitur.

The point about determining the accurate position of the LRRR at 250 000 miles based on measured coordinates is still valid. I think if you did the sums, you'd realise that it's not like shooting wamp rats. Also, Jason and ka9q have explained that reflecting a laser from the LRRR is not a trivial task. Even with modern Q-switching techniques, the return signal is a fraction of the outward signal.

The point being made is that the combination of error and the inherent nature of LRRR experiments makes locating the LRRR by your method very difficult. It would be like looking for a needle in a haystack. You can embellish the story all you like with sidestepping and peachy stories, the fact remains you have not shown any figures for the error of locating the LRRR, nor have you shown you have any practical understanding of the LRRR experiment.

Why can you not provide what has been asked? You want for 'us' to all 'get on.' That means playing by the rules of mainstream science, the rules that many people at this forum have played by to gain recognition by their peers. Can you see why the engineers, mathematicians and natural scientists that write here get so offended when faced with feeble bare assertions that trivialise a great achievement? I for one gave up much of my life to study physics and mathematics to a high level, and you can't or won't produce basic calculations when asked to prove your theory. I find your excuses, gish gallop, sidestepping and flowery embellishments of your argument as nauseating and offensive as I do your presence.

So stump up the requested error analysis please. I'd also like to hear in your own words why you think that reflecting the laser of the LRRR is a trivial matter, and I'd like to see some science and numbers in your explanation.

[Jason Thompson]

Jul 8, 2011 6:15:31 GMT -4 fattydash said:

NASA made the claim about the failure of the experiment as a consequence of the dark/light concerns so discussed.

Yes, NASA made the claim as a proposed explanation for the failure at the time to obtain a return. It was known that they had a system that was not optimal for daylight operation, and it was also not known precisely where the LRRR was. It is therefore reasonable to report those as explanation for the failure to obtain a return signal up to the time of the publication of that report. The report does NOT say that the LRRR will not work in daylight. That would be suspect, since it would prompt one to ask why they were trying it before the sun set at the landing site anway.

If NASA submitted to the world a subsequent explanation that was different as to why the retro-reflector was not "found" until 08/01/1969, I would be more than happy to consider NASA's post 07/24/1969, pre 08/01/1969 explanation and comment on its merits.

Why do they need to? The report is perfectly valid, and is not at all undermined by the subsequent location of the LRRR. They found what they were looking for despite the sub-optinal conditions on that date.

So no one had the magic numbers and there was absolutely no effort made to acquire them.

Apart from repeatedly firing a laser at the known approximate region where the LRRR was.

[fattydash]

I am not sure what my abilities as a clinician have to do with pointing out that on the evening of 07/20/1969 the only individuals capable of determining the coordinates of the Eagle's alleged landing site, 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E, were Armstrong and Aldrin, and that taking the appropriate measurements to find themselves, to determine their own location, primarily for their own safety, but additionally, in order to provide the Lick scientists with an appropriate target for their laser, this was never done.

What does one have to do with the other? Why is this sort of thing discussed here? My ability as a doctor? I am actually confused a bit.

Since you did write as you did ka9q, it is hard for me to imagine a situation in which my confidence as a clinician could ever really be shaken. I am quite skilled and confident at work. Since you mentioned this.

[Jason Thompson]

Jul 8, 2011 6:29:34 GMT -4 fattydash said:

the only individuals capable of determining the coordinates of the Eagle's alleged landing site, 0041 15 N and 23 26 00 E, were Armstrong and Aldrin

You have yet to show that they could in fact achieve this, or that it would be a worthwhile use of their limited time and resources.

and that taking the appropriate measurements to find themselves, to determine their own location, primarily for their own safety,

I will ask again, and I will keep asking until you answer: what safety concerns required them to know their location to any more precision than they already did?

but additionally, in order to provide the Lick scientists with an appropriate target for their laser

The Lick scientists know approximately where to aim. Precise locations would have been nice, but were not absolutely necessary. The Lick team were quite competent enopugh to search and locate the LRRR with the information they already had.

this was never done.

If it was faked, why did they include something so apparently inconceivable for a real mission?

[ka9q]

Jul 8, 2011 3:18:11 GMT -4 Jason Thompson said:

They were not that lost. They knew where they were to within a few square miles, but the LM was only 9 metres across at its widest. That's a small pinprick to find in a wide area.

True, but the main thing is that they did know quite accurately where they were with respect to the Command Module thanks to their rendezvous radar. I'm pretty sure it was used to track the CSM from the lunar surface at least once before ascent.

I really don't know how to explain any more clearly to our medical friend the distinction between relative and absolute accuracy. Perhaps I can devise an analogy.

Let's say he's sitting in seat 25E on an airplane flying over the Atlantic Ocean when a call for a doctor comes over the PA system. He pushes his call button and is told that the passenger in seat 15F may be having a heart attack. Will our intrepid doctor insist on first speaking with the captain and being told the absolute latitude and longitude of their plane to say, 1 foot accuracy before he can find the passenger in seat 15F?

[ka9q]

Jul 8, 2011 6:33:47 GMT -4 Jason Thompson said:

The Lick scientists know approximately where to aim. Precise locations would have been nice, but were not absolutely necessary.

Correct. But more importantly, the LRRR almost didn't fly on Apollo 11. There was a very strong push from certain quarters that the very first lunar landing should be as simple and as quick as humanly possible, with no unnecessary risks. That meant no scientific experiments as they were not essential to the stated goal of "landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth". NASA had more Saturn V rockets and Apollo spacecraft on hand. The scientists could wait for future missions.

The end result was a compromise: Apollo 11 flew with a short list of only three surface experiments that were a high priority to the scientists and fairly quick and easy to set up: the laser reflector, an active seismometer, and a solar wind experiment. Starting with Apollo 12, each mission carried many more instruments, including two more laser reflectors that flew on Apollos 14 and 15.