Lost Bird Proves Apollo Inauthenticity

[fattydash]

For Jay

I believe the CAPCOM post of mine above is directly related to the concerns we have been debating. As a matter of fact, I have already used the Flight International Magazine quote way back in my long post #125/126 section.

The astronauts claim to not know where they are, and not only the astronauts themselves, but the CAPCOM's and apparently a lot of other people who care to look or venture a look at the relevant screen can see the very data the astronauts have lighting up on their guidance computer R windows.

The point about the "Lost Bird" is of course that it is a ruse. And my last post with the CAPCOM quote and a repeat of the Flight International quote, pushes the claims of NASA that the astronauts were lost to a ludicrous breaking point. BOTH THE ASTRONAUTS AND HOUSTON SEE EVERYTHING IN THE R WINDOWS INCLUDING APPARENTLY 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E. How can US Geological Survey personal , not to mention a similar group at Flagstaff, be looking for the astronauts on maps if the coordinates are staring everyone in the face?

The assertion on the part of NASA that the Eagle's position is not known, is not credible based on the simple fact that the computer data seen in the LM computer's windows is also seen by the people in Houston.

[nomuse]

Fattydash, did you miss the discussion of why what the LM's systems THOUGHT was its position was not necessarily its position in regard to the Moon? The LM was essentially operating on dead reckoning, and not all of the assumptions behind the program were based on correct data. In any case, the system was only intended to return (as are ALL navigation systems) an answer to within a certain desired/achievable level of precision.

[nomuse]

I realize this might be giving the Gish horse his head, but I think it does lead back towards the original erroneous assumptions; that there was a way to measure from the ground a position to within an arbitrary level of precision, that the lack of a clean return from the LRRR was due not to sunlight contamination but due to incorrect errors of position, and that a ground-referenced position (again, to within some arbitrary and as yet to be defined level of precision) was necessary in order to achieve orbit rendezvous.

[fattydash]

Sorry nomuse, could you rephrase the statement. I am missing something. I apologize. Please say it another way. Thanks.

[fattydash]

For nomuse.

The true reason as to why the LRRR was not found with the laser until 08/01/1969 is given by the principal investigators in one of their papers in Science Magazine. I referenced it above. I believe it was January 1970, but may be wrong. I gave the details in the #126 post.

JPL did the software and they coordinated the return site as one of the parking lots at the facility and not the observatory itself and so the timing was off.

This view is the view accepted by the people who ran the experiment and I would imagine more likely than not it was/is correct.

The staff at Lick Observatory were doing everything exactly right starting from 07/21/1969, except the timing to catch the return was off due to the JPL software error.

On 07/20/1969 the claim is they targeted
00 41 50 N instead of 00 41 15 N. So 35 seconds of arc off. The JPL problem was still there so it still would not have mattered if Wampler heard the north coordinate correctly to begin with.

[JayUtah]

Jul 12, 2011 1:24:34 GMT -4 fattydash said:

...

1) they did not have a lander capable of measuring coordinates, my reference, US Geological Survey personal looking for them.

They had a lander capable of estimating coordinates to the degree required for ascent. This has been exhaustively explained to you, and you have not incorporated that explanation into your theory.

It has been further explained that the desire to locate the LM to a greater accuracy than that expressed by the dead-reckoning estimation of P68 had nothing to do with the ability to program the ascent. You have also failed to consider this.

The operation of the LM guidance system is well known. You simply haven't mastered it.

2)according to NASA the lunar coordinates at Tranquility Base were determined on 08/01/1969 and this determination did not include data from the LM guidance system.

You were asked for a quantitative estimation. This isn't one.

3)Stanley Kubrick type lot based stuff

Handwaving. Please give specifics.

4) almost everyone involved in the project believes it to be legit.

Agreed, and they would be in a position to know whether it was faked. These are not just monkeys, but are some of the brightest engineers of their day. The LM team, for example, went on to design the highly successful F-14 Tomcat. You cannot simply say they believed it to be legit and ignore that this is a very well informed expert belief.

Why would anyone have occasion to suspect fraud except for the monkeys at the top?

Because engineers know their jobs. This has also been explained to you, and you simply deny it without further explanation.

5) The astronauts know it was hoaxed, everyone else I suspect believes it was legit.

You have provided no proof that the astronauts know Apollo was hoaxed. You have not provided any credible scenario by which a small group such as the flight crew would be the only ones to know. You're simply restating your claims. We're asking you to prove them.

6) not sure about that luke, do you mean playing with my starry night software or actually trying to do it on the moon with my scope?

He means analyzing the problem of terminal guidance and identifying the causes of error and quantifying their effects. Engineers do this as a matter of course, so it's a surprise to me that you don't understand what's being asked.

7) I do not know exactly what precise would be...

Then you don't know whether the LM's ascent guidance was credible.

...the better made, the better one would do.

But that's not your claim. You claim the ascent guidance was intractable given the accuracy available. In order to make this claim, you would need to know the required accuracy for ascent guidance, and you would need to know the available accuracy from descent guidance. You don't know either, so you can't defensibly state it was impossible. You can't claim one number is less than another if you don't know what either number is.

Indeed the more accurate the initial conditions, the more accurate the model will behave. But you're claiming the model failed. You can't handwave about relative accuracy when your claim is of an absolute.

So based on your answers we can conclude that you have utterly failed to prove your case.

[JayUtah]

Jul 12, 2011 1:36:26 GMT -4 fattydash said:

...

The point about the "Lost Bird" is of course that it is a ruse.

No, the point is that you're trying to oversimplify a set of simultaneous operations with different goals. You confuse operations in one line of investigation with operations intended for something completely different.

[lukepemberton]

Jul 12, 2011 1:24:34 GMT -4 fattydash said:

1) they did not have a lander capable of measuring coordinates, my reference, US Geological Survey personal looking for them.

And there we have it folks. Back to square one. It seems fattydash has not read or digested anything that has been explained to him over the last few days.

Fattydash: It has been explained that you have a preconceived notion that the precise coordinates of the LM on the lunar surface were required to make LM/CM rendezvous. It has been explained to you that the LM was not lost because they could not find the LRRR immediately. The fact of the matter is that the location of the LM was known within a margin of error. This was enough for CM/LM rendezvous, and Jay, Bob, Jason, sts60, ka9q and others have explained this in great detail.

Let's explain the difference between accuracy and precision: If I am selling apples by the kilogram, I do not need a balance that weighs my apples to the nearest nanogramme. I need an accurate balance to comply with weights and measures legislation. My scales will therefore be accurate to +/- 25 grammes (say), but they will not be sufficiently precise to discriminate mass at the nanogramme levels. This is the difference between precision and accuracy. Sensitivity is another issue. For instance, if I am trying to measure graviational wave amplitude, then I will might need a device that measures amplitudes at the nanometre scale. I clearly cannot use a ruler to do this, since it is not sensitive enough.

I don't know if you have made measurements using a Wheatstone bridge and galvanometer. If you have, the you would understand the differences between accuracy, precision and sensitivity. These terms are rudimentary to engineers and scientists, and you display no knowledge of them. I fail to see how you can even begin to claim Apollo was fraudulent when you don't even appear to understand the basic tenets of measurement.

For the LM/CM rendezvous, accurate coordinates are required. To locate the LRRR, precise coordinates are required. There's a huge difference, and this has been explained to you. If you cannot make the effort to understand the difference between accuracy and precision, then I suggest you step away from the debate; since you are clearly out of you depth and denigrating an enormous accomplishment from a position of arrogance and ignorance.

So, the LM and the LRRR: They knew the LM's locations within some area, and that was enough for LM/CM rendezvous. Trying to find the LRRR within that area would have practically been impossible. If you understand LRRR ranging you would understand why. As ka9q explained, it was not until Apollo 11 returned and they were about to examine the films and photographs, that they could locate the LRRR. It was then that they had data that gave them the precision to locate the LRRR.

The precise location of the LRRR while Apollo 11 was still on the surface is a red herring that you have created based on your preconceptions. It has nothing to do with the CM/LM rendezvous. The accuracy to which the position of the LM was known was within tolerable limits for LM/CM rendezvouz.

Now, it is up to you to explain why the error of margin with the LM's position was not enough for LM/CM rendezvouz. I think you owe this forum some hard numbers and calculations.

[lukepemberton]

Jul 12, 2011 2:08:59 GMT -4 JayUtah said:

These are not just monkeys, but are some of the brightest engineers of their day. The LM team, for example, went on to design the highly successful F-14 Tomcat.

And this illustrates why many of the hoax crowd do not understand that it is not about Apollo, but the denigration of what was achieved. They turn the argument into a paranoid, economic, socio-politico argument, and wonder 'why?' others get frustrated when those engineers are labeled monkeys. It could have been a voyage to the bottom of the sea, the fact that it was a trip to the moon is irrelevant. They very thing they hate and despise provided them with many of the comforts that they take for granted. I find it quite shameful that much of the technology that they use today is a direct consequence of the Apollo programme, or simply the work of brilliant engineers and scientists. I despair when they use terms like 'monkeys' or 'gas bags' while it is clearly demonstrable that not one of them can hold a candle up to those that they criticise.

[JayUtah]

Jul 12, 2011 1:08:42 GMT -4 fattydash said:

...

My claim as to why the lander could not perform a guided ascent is we have no evidence that Aldrin was able to determine lander coordinates for the Eagle.

False. I have explained how the various programs of the LM guidance package interact. You have ignored that explanation completely.

...the whole slew of US Geological Survey people hunting for the landing site on a map based on descriptions given by Aldrin and Armstrong.

It has been explained at length to you that USGS people were trying to locate the LM for purposes that had nothing to do with ascent guidance. You are erroneously assuming that the USGS efforts were a substitute for what Aldrin should have done but couldn't.

You display a very simplistic understanding of what all was going on during the immediate post-landing period. This is causing you to create connections that aren't there.

I claim a specific point of departure would need to be known to achieve lunar rendezvous.

Known to what accuracy? How did you determine what accuracy was required?

I contend if he did not have coordinates, then he did not have ANY azimuth measurement.

Irrelevant. P20 manages out-of-plane conditions, regardless of how they might arise. It measures the out-of-planeness directly; it does not require the landing azimuth in order to derive the out-of-plane error.

P12 can handle azimuth errors if they are known at the time. But it is not required to do so.

I explained this already. P20 does not care how the spacecraft got into the initial orbit.

So as above, the rendezvous could not possibly have occurred so smoothly.

No. You're assuming the guidance system worked one way when it in fact worked a completely different way.

As I mentioned earlier, hoax proponents seem unaware that their notion of how something "must" work isn't usually how it actually works. You're trying to shoehorn the facts of the mission into your wrong understanding. When they don't fit, you cry fraud. But the problem is that your expectations are wrong.

[fattydash]

For Jay

As regards point number one. I have incorporated it Jay. Please refer to my post above where I referenced per the Apollo 11 transcript the CAPCOM himself which I believe would have been McCandless at the time noting the DSKY R window readout at a time during the landing and likewise the Flight International Magazine indicating the reading on the DSKY at the moment before touchdown was 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E.

So if we assume as you do Jay, and as I myself referenced and emphasized in the posts above featuring the Apollo 11 CapCom quote and the Flight International quote, that indeed the lander's guidance system is able to make accurate coordinate measurements and Armstrong and Aldrin are reading them off the DSKY on the moon, then based on the performance of this navigational device, Armstrong, Aldrin and at least McCandless know the coordinates of Tranquility Base.

But then Collins does not know this and he never learns of these coordinates(well referenced previously), nor do the US Geological Survey people searching for the astronauts, nor do the geologists in Flagstaff likewise searching know that Armstrong and Aldrin were never lost, nor do essentially the entirety of the Houston staff working there that evening know what only Armstrong, Aldrin and McCandless know, 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E.

So yes Jay, I will grant you that the lander has a perfectly good coordinate finding mechanism, but then I must of course make the claim that in that event the pieces of technical equipment that the project is missing to successfully land men on the moon and return them safely to earth are 2 Astronauts with enough common sense to tell people where they are and a CapCom with enough common sense to tell people to stop looking at maps because he's got the coordinates in front of him, he sees them as the astronauts would see them in the R windows; 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E.

So I will grant you the lander works, the lander can find coordinates marvelously well, but then you must certainly acknowledge my claim that in that case, the technology lacking to achieve the landing is a pair of astronauts and a CapCom with a tenth of a brain between the three of them. Wouldn't you think they would tell anybody those numbers Jay, or should they keep it a secret? Seems especially silly to keep it a secret when the guys back at Lick Observatory are anxiously awaiting their opportunity to help Apollo in its demonstration of the miraculous.

[JayUtah]

Jul 12, 2011 2:38:13 GMT -4 fattydash said:

...

Please refer to my post above where I referenced per the Apollo 11 transcript...

Irrelevant. You're trying to argue that something wasn't done because something else was done or not done instead. That assumes a mutual exclusion that simply does not apply.

So if we assume as you do Jay...

I'll be the authority on what I assume, not you.

...in the posts above featuring the Apollo 11 CapCom quote...

I'm not trying to explain that or any other quote. I'm discussing the capability of the LM guidance package and specifically your claim that it doesn't work.

So yes Jay, I will grant you that the lander has a perfectly good coordinate finding mechanism...

Do you concede then that there is nothing demonstrably wrong with the LM's ascent on Apollo 11?

...but then you must certainly acknowledge my claim that in that case, the technology lacking to achieve the landing is a pair of astronauts and a CapCom with a tenth of a brain between the three of them.

I acknowledge no such thing and I have no interest in following you on your wild goose chases.

Please confirm that you agree the LM ascent guidance is sufficient.

[fattydash]

No Jay, I am simply informing you that if you care to look at the Apollo 11 transcript record we see McCandless sees what is on the DSKY. And Armstrong and Aldrin also of course see it and as it turns out the DSKY reads 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E just before the moment of touchdown. I think we can all agree there is documentation for that and that would provide at least some evidence for the lander's guidance system actually being able to measure coordinates.

Grant all of the above. No reason not to. My point is if we do then there must be something very very very wrong with Neil Armstrongs's brain, not to mention that of McCandless because Michael Collins is floating around up there 60 or 70 miles up, with his funky little sextant trying to find his brothers in space.

OK, the DSKY reads 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E and everybody knows it. Have it your way Jay and we shall have everyone rewrite the relevant chapters in their books, Collins, Beattie, Chaikin and so on, the whole lot. Have them tell the story anew. Fine with me.

The lander works. I grant your claim. It works perfectly well.

[fattydash]

Luke and Jay,

For Luke's question number 2 , I must be misunderstanding what it is that you are asking me. Please restate it. Thanks.

[fattydash]

For Jay,

With regard to your second point above, I grant your point. The USGS are simply trying to find the lander. I would agree. Whatever information, clues they could come up with would not be useful for the most part in the ascent. though that is simply my sense. For what my opinion is worth here, I agree.