Post by sts60 on Jul 11, 2011 13:53:46 GMT -4
<snip blather>
As internally incoherent, the official story cannot be true.
I've stated why the standard by which you have claimed smoking-gun contradictions to be invalid. As a practicing space engineer, I find the Apollo record to be coherent, well-supported, and consistent with the way things work in the real engineering world. If you wish me to give greater weight to your opinion, kindly cite your credentials relevant to spaceflight; I've already given a sketch of mine.
In addition to answering all questions so far posed and demonstrating the simple truth of Apollo's being more theater than high tech science, this author proposes here one fairly detailed counter story.
You haven't answered all the challenges in any satisfactory manner, but the more important point is that your counter story contains no more details than "it couldn't have worked", appeals to clearly unfeasible notions like hiding the Apollo stack in earth orbit, makes the ridiculous claim that only a handful of engineers might have noticed, and provides no evidence whatsoever for your claims of faked hardware. You haven't got a story; you've got a series of vague ad hoc claims based on nothing more than your layman's opinion. And you are a layman in this subject, it is clear; you can't bluff your way past real engineers.
<snip more blather>
The difficulty of course that is inherent in dealing with Apollo as mystery, as opposed to buying in to the view of Apollo as historic fact, is that once entering the realm of Apollo with a skeptical eye, it is quite difficult to keep one's facts straight.
Which explains your handwaving about the LM, among other things.
<snip more blather>
... Somewhere well before Surveyor VII landed, the principals most responsible for our moon landing efforts, came to the conclusion that it was not feasible for multiple technical reasons to land men on the moon.
Why, exactly, was it "not feasible"? No handwaving.
An alternative project to fake a moon landing was concocted.
What, exactly, is your evidence for this plan? No handwaving.
If executed well enough, however short sighted this view was, it would nevertheless provide just as much favorable impact wise as a bona fide landing would....
Which would inevitably be exposed as science and space technology advanced over the years. Yet you maintain that there is a great conspiracy still active to conceal this, indicating that maintaining the conspiracy over an indefinitely long term was considered vital, even though the conspiracy would necessarily be unmasked by someone eventually. Your conspiracy story is itself incoherent and unconvincing.
With a plan to fake a moon landing fully in swing, an unmanned spacecraft flies to the Sea of Tranquility sometime well before Neil Armstrong's famous moon walk on 07/20/1969. The craft carries a LRRR. It has landed at lunar coordinates 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E. This unmanned LRRR packing craft now sits at the site we all will one day call "Tranquility Base".
First, what unmanned spacecraft? When and by whom was it built and launched? Who controlled it? No handwaving. Provide evidence for this claim.
Second, why exactly could this unmanned spacecraft, as well as the Surveyors, make autonomous landings, but an LM with the huge advantage of the world's best pilots be not be able to?
On 13 July 1969, the unmanned Soviet spacecraft Luna 15 is launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome. The craft enters lunar orbit on 17 July 1969. There, it "awaits" the phantom Apollo 11. The Russian ship threatens not to physically harm an imagined Eagle or Columbia, but rather to photograph the Eagle's landing site, photograph Tranquility Base...
Exactly what evidence do you have that the vehicle was intended to image the A11 site? Or that it was capable of doing so from orbit? It crashed a significant portion of the Moon away from the A11 site. In other words, your claim is nothing more than fantasy.
Back in the United States, a team of scientists, engineers and support staff make ready to turn one of the most powerful lasers the world had ever seen right smack dab on lunar coordinates 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E. They do not know those exact coordinates yet. Prior to Apollo 11's take off on 07/16/1969, the Lick staff had a rough idea where Eagle was supposed to settle down. On 07/20/1969 they stood ready by the phone waiting to be informed of the Eagle's precise coordinates. As soon as Armstrong/Aldrin set the LRRR down, the coordinates were to be relayed from Houston to Lick, and the return of the observatory's ruby red light would be for sure's sake absolute and undeniable proof positive that Armstrong and Aldrin were up there shuffling 'round in the lunar powder. Journalists gathered there at Lick that night, mad for the great scoop, the light that would prove we made it to the moon.
The point of the Lick experiment was to demonstrate precision ranging techniques and associated scientific and technical investigations. It had nothing to do with "proving" that Apollo went to the Moon:
Laser ranging beams from earth will be reflected back to their point of origin for precise measurement of earth-moon distances, center of moon's mass motion, lunar radius, earth geophysical information, and development of space communication technology. (Apollo 11 Mission Operations Report)
Indeed, as explicitly stated by NASA, the whole point of Apollo 11 was to simply or not so simply as the case may be, show that sure as shoot, the thing could be done, pulled off. Send 'em up and bring 'em down...
No. As explicitly stated by NASA, "The primary purpose of the Apollo 11 Mission is to perform a manned lunar landing and return." Furthermore, among the detailed test objectives for A11 is LM location via LM, CSM, and MSFN techniques - to which I have previously alluded - and to deploy the LRRR, but they did not include locating the vehicle with ground-based lasers. That was a scientific investigation, not part of the lunar stay activities.
...During the days of the alleged exploration, Armstrong/Aldrin/Collins remain in low earth orbit,
Ridiculous. The vehicle would have been a very conspicuous naked-eye object.
on the earth,
Ridiculous. They were observed to enter the Command Module, and did not debark, which would have been visible to not only a host of pad technicians, but also to the press and general public observing the launch site directly. Unlike you, I have actually been to and worked at LC-39 A and B, albeit in the Shuttle configuration, and you cannot simply make up patently absurd claims and expect to be taken seriously.
or perhaps both.
Mutually exclusive options. And yet, amusingly, you call the actual record "incoherent".
One thing we can be absolutely certain of, they do not travel across the void of cislunar space to the moon.
Again, I am a practicing space engineer, and I see nothing in your claims that even raise doubt, let alone get within hallooing distance of "certainty" - except in the negative sense, that your claims certainly fail the laugh test.
That technology did not exist then as it obviously does not exist now.
What technology, and why, exactly? No handwaving.
the lost-bird theme
Your claim does not get any less wrong with repetition.
As has been repeatedly and patiently explained to you by competent engineers, the Apollo11 LM was never "lost". The location was known, by multiple independent methods, to within a precision sufficient to support lunar-orbit rendezvous with the CSM. If you wish to claim it was not, then you can back up your claim by providing your own analysis taking into account landing precision, CSM orbit knowledge, combined delta-V capabilities of the two craft, and tracking of the vehicles both by the MSFN and by each other, including the rendezvous radar/transpoder system.
Otherwise your claim is rightly dismissed as the unsupported ramblings of a layman - a badly- and selectively- self-informed layman.
Your obsessive misrepresentations of items like the LRRR investigation, utter failure to provide evidence for your claims and to explain claims of impossibilities, and stubborn failure to learn from explanations given to you by people who actually understand the program, indicate that you have made your mind up and will exercise considerable energy in finding bits that can be glued into a narrative that supports your worldview, rather than actually learning how things really worked. Why is that? Is it a religious thing, or are you angry that it was done by Americans, or what?
As internally incoherent, the official story cannot be true.
I've stated why the standard by which you have claimed smoking-gun contradictions to be invalid. As a practicing space engineer, I find the Apollo record to be coherent, well-supported, and consistent with the way things work in the real engineering world. If you wish me to give greater weight to your opinion, kindly cite your credentials relevant to spaceflight; I've already given a sketch of mine.
In addition to answering all questions so far posed and demonstrating the simple truth of Apollo's being more theater than high tech science, this author proposes here one fairly detailed counter story.
You haven't answered all the challenges in any satisfactory manner, but the more important point is that your counter story contains no more details than "it couldn't have worked", appeals to clearly unfeasible notions like hiding the Apollo stack in earth orbit, makes the ridiculous claim that only a handful of engineers might have noticed, and provides no evidence whatsoever for your claims of faked hardware. You haven't got a story; you've got a series of vague ad hoc claims based on nothing more than your layman's opinion. And you are a layman in this subject, it is clear; you can't bluff your way past real engineers.
<snip more blather>
The difficulty of course that is inherent in dealing with Apollo as mystery, as opposed to buying in to the view of Apollo as historic fact, is that once entering the realm of Apollo with a skeptical eye, it is quite difficult to keep one's facts straight.
Which explains your handwaving about the LM, among other things.
<snip more blather>
... Somewhere well before Surveyor VII landed, the principals most responsible for our moon landing efforts, came to the conclusion that it was not feasible for multiple technical reasons to land men on the moon.
Why, exactly, was it "not feasible"? No handwaving.
An alternative project to fake a moon landing was concocted.
What, exactly, is your evidence for this plan? No handwaving.
If executed well enough, however short sighted this view was, it would nevertheless provide just as much favorable impact wise as a bona fide landing would....
Which would inevitably be exposed as science and space technology advanced over the years. Yet you maintain that there is a great conspiracy still active to conceal this, indicating that maintaining the conspiracy over an indefinitely long term was considered vital, even though the conspiracy would necessarily be unmasked by someone eventually. Your conspiracy story is itself incoherent and unconvincing.
With a plan to fake a moon landing fully in swing, an unmanned spacecraft flies to the Sea of Tranquility sometime well before Neil Armstrong's famous moon walk on 07/20/1969. The craft carries a LRRR. It has landed at lunar coordinates 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E. This unmanned LRRR packing craft now sits at the site we all will one day call "Tranquility Base".
First, what unmanned spacecraft? When and by whom was it built and launched? Who controlled it? No handwaving. Provide evidence for this claim.
Second, why exactly could this unmanned spacecraft, as well as the Surveyors, make autonomous landings, but an LM with the huge advantage of the world's best pilots be not be able to?
On 13 July 1969, the unmanned Soviet spacecraft Luna 15 is launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome. The craft enters lunar orbit on 17 July 1969. There, it "awaits" the phantom Apollo 11. The Russian ship threatens not to physically harm an imagined Eagle or Columbia, but rather to photograph the Eagle's landing site, photograph Tranquility Base...
Exactly what evidence do you have that the vehicle was intended to image the A11 site? Or that it was capable of doing so from orbit? It crashed a significant portion of the Moon away from the A11 site. In other words, your claim is nothing more than fantasy.
Back in the United States, a team of scientists, engineers and support staff make ready to turn one of the most powerful lasers the world had ever seen right smack dab on lunar coordinates 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E. They do not know those exact coordinates yet. Prior to Apollo 11's take off on 07/16/1969, the Lick staff had a rough idea where Eagle was supposed to settle down. On 07/20/1969 they stood ready by the phone waiting to be informed of the Eagle's precise coordinates. As soon as Armstrong/Aldrin set the LRRR down, the coordinates were to be relayed from Houston to Lick, and the return of the observatory's ruby red light would be for sure's sake absolute and undeniable proof positive that Armstrong and Aldrin were up there shuffling 'round in the lunar powder. Journalists gathered there at Lick that night, mad for the great scoop, the light that would prove we made it to the moon.
The point of the Lick experiment was to demonstrate precision ranging techniques and associated scientific and technical investigations. It had nothing to do with "proving" that Apollo went to the Moon:
Laser ranging beams from earth will be reflected back to their point of origin for precise measurement of earth-moon distances, center of moon's mass motion, lunar radius, earth geophysical information, and development of space communication technology. (Apollo 11 Mission Operations Report)
Indeed, as explicitly stated by NASA, the whole point of Apollo 11 was to simply or not so simply as the case may be, show that sure as shoot, the thing could be done, pulled off. Send 'em up and bring 'em down...
No. As explicitly stated by NASA, "The primary purpose of the Apollo 11 Mission is to perform a manned lunar landing and return." Furthermore, among the detailed test objectives for A11 is LM location via LM, CSM, and MSFN techniques - to which I have previously alluded - and to deploy the LRRR, but they did not include locating the vehicle with ground-based lasers. That was a scientific investigation, not part of the lunar stay activities.
...During the days of the alleged exploration, Armstrong/Aldrin/Collins remain in low earth orbit,
Ridiculous. The vehicle would have been a very conspicuous naked-eye object.
on the earth,
Ridiculous. They were observed to enter the Command Module, and did not debark, which would have been visible to not only a host of pad technicians, but also to the press and general public observing the launch site directly. Unlike you, I have actually been to and worked at LC-39 A and B, albeit in the Shuttle configuration, and you cannot simply make up patently absurd claims and expect to be taken seriously.
or perhaps both.
Mutually exclusive options. And yet, amusingly, you call the actual record "incoherent".
One thing we can be absolutely certain of, they do not travel across the void of cislunar space to the moon.
Again, I am a practicing space engineer, and I see nothing in your claims that even raise doubt, let alone get within hallooing distance of "certainty" - except in the negative sense, that your claims certainly fail the laugh test.
That technology did not exist then as it obviously does not exist now.
What technology, and why, exactly? No handwaving.
the lost-bird theme
Your claim does not get any less wrong with repetition.
As has been repeatedly and patiently explained to you by competent engineers, the Apollo11 LM was never "lost". The location was known, by multiple independent methods, to within a precision sufficient to support lunar-orbit rendezvous with the CSM. If you wish to claim it was not, then you can back up your claim by providing your own analysis taking into account landing precision, CSM orbit knowledge, combined delta-V capabilities of the two craft, and tracking of the vehicles both by the MSFN and by each other, including the rendezvous radar/transpoder system.
Otherwise your claim is rightly dismissed as the unsupported ramblings of a layman - a badly- and selectively- self-informed layman.
Your obsessive misrepresentations of items like the LRRR investigation, utter failure to provide evidence for your claims and to explain claims of impossibilities, and stubborn failure to learn from explanations given to you by people who actually understand the program, indicate that you have made your mind up and will exercise considerable energy in finding bits that can be glued into a narrative that supports your worldview, rather than actually learning how things really worked. Why is that? Is it a religious thing, or are you angry that it was done by Americans, or what?
