|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 12, 2011 3:10:25 GMT -4
Your third point about the accuracy Jay. I make no claims that I know what would be required. I do assert the ONLY "accuracy" available is that inherent in the lander guidance. Whatever that may be. There are no other tools available.
|
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 12, 2011 3:10:53 GMT -4
fatty
Does Science magazine admit the landings are fake? Lick Observatory? Any of the sources you so ignorantly cherrypick from?
You haven't understood a single (carefully crafted) post here, your agenda has you completely blinded to actually understanding anything you're reading.
Never seen such a thing in my life...right up there with moonman...
|
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 12, 2011 3:11:50 GMT -4
Your fourth point, I do not believe there was an ascent as I do not believe there was a landing. So in that regard, it was a crummy ascent.
|
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 12, 2011 3:13:06 GMT -4
For Scooter, most certainly not. I would think the guys writing the Science articles, the Lick people they are official narrative people scooter, definitely not hoax advocates.
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 12, 2011 3:13:51 GMT -4
Your fourth point, I do not believe there was an ascent as I do not believe there was a landing. So in that regard, it was a crummy ascent. You concede the lander worked perfectly well. Why then was there no landing? |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 12, 2011 3:21:07 GMT -4
For Scooter, most certainly not. I would think the guys writing the Science articles, the Lick people they are official narrative people scooter, definitely not hoax advocates. Please give a straight answer. You seem to be hedging, saying they're good party men who wouldn't stray outside the official line. In fact your use of their material establishes that you consider them experts in the field of Apollo history. You quote them as authorities and you tell us we must accept them as eminent witnesses. Yet you seem prepared to concede that they have in fact reached the opposite conclusion from you regarding Apollo's authenticity. Do you have any explanation for why your eminent "supporting" authorities seem to disagree with your findings? |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 12, 2011 3:26:59 GMT -4
I make no claims that I know what would be required.Then do you agree that you consciously drew a conclusion that you knew you didn't have the data to support? There are no other tools available.Available to whom?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jul 12, 2011 3:32:18 GMT -4
I make no claims that I know what would be required. Absolute rubbish. You have repeatedly said that the exact coordinates would be required for the ascent, for the successful rendezvous and so on. Now, when finally worn down by people asking you what level of precision would be required, you claim you never claimed to know. Why then have you consistently argued with people telling you that the approximate location known for the LM was adequate for everything that happened subsequently? You have also changed horses again with regard to the functionality of the LM. Now I see you say it worked fine once more. Are you incapable of maintaining a coherent argument, or is your desire to maintain your belief that Apollo was faked blinding you to the absurdity of your own lines of reasoning (such as they are)? And you have not responded to my post regarding the level of precision in the given coordinates either. |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 12, 2011 3:37:20 GMT -4
For Luke's question number 2 , I must be misunderstanding what it is that you are asking me.Clearly, and that misunderstanding itself speaks volumes about your professed expertise. We're asking for a straightforward error analysis. You took us to task for presuming you had no engineering background. Yet you need to be spoonfed the concept of an error analysis? Where any mathematical model is set up to reflect and predict the behavior of a real-world system or phenomenon, the sources of possible error in that model must be analyzed. Then for each source, an estimate of how much that error affects the final result must be determined. For example, in guidance systems IMU drift is a potential cause of error. The engineer must know at what nominal rate the IMU will drift from its last alignment. And he must further determine what degree of error in the final guidance result (e.g., a course correction command) the expected error in input will produce. As a further example, electromagnetic transients affect IMU operation. But these cannot be easily observed, and they do not occur predictably. The engineer must estimate their effect. He may be wrong; but he can show his work and let other engineers comment on the propriety of his method. Error analysis is the heart and soul of process modeling and control logic. The claims you're making about the LM's effectiveness speak directly to error analysis. In the real world, such an analysis would be necessary to determine whether a given control law would be expected to adequately govern a system. Since you have claimed the control laws are inadequate, we want to see the error analysis that proves it. If you want to be thought of as an engineer, you need to show that you understand customary engineering tools. Clearly in this case you do not.
|
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 12, 2011 4:18:05 GMT -4
For jay's #259
This point I have been trying to make all along Jay. How is all this possible? I stated way back in 125, the official Apollo narrative is inconsistent. If one follows nothing else but NASA's official story, one discovers that story, NASA's own story, nobody else's story, not mine, not yours, NASA's, if you follow their own facts, the interested person discovers that the story is internally incoherent and as such must be untrue.
We have done just that here Jay. We follow NASA's story, its own facts. The CapCom can read the DSKY per the transcript, and so must be able to read 00 41 15 N 23 26 00 E at the time of landing , if there was a landing at Tranquility . Armstrong and Aldrin know these numbers per the Flight International account(the article features opinions/views offered by Kranz, Kraft and Sam Phillips, others). Armstrong and Aldrin see the DSKY too. So how can this be Jay, McCandless and the astronauts see these numbers and at the same time there is this whole alternative world where people do not know where the astronauts are and claims are made that the astronauts themselves do not know how to find themselves, figure out their landing coordinates? And these facts are not facts made up by me. They are facts WITHIN the body of the official narrative, the very facts that constitute the narrative. The incoherence, that is all on NASA's side, their stuff.
How does the lander work perfectly well and at the same time how could that be the case if it lands and nobody can figure out where the lander is, including the personal aboard that lander?
In all honesty Jay. I do not know how this is possible except to assume people are lying. When there are internal inconsistencies in a story, when a story is internally incoherent, this is what it means for me. I am sorry in particular in this case because science in many forms is a big part of my life and this is hard for me to feel such disappointment and confusion around this issue.
I did not produce, manufacture these facts; the fact that NASA itself claims to this day regarding the Lick laser not finding Tranquility until 08/01/1969 and at the same time Remington Stone indicates he and his scientist supervisor were given the coordinates 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E on the evening of 07/20/1969. And furthermore, the reason NASA gives for why it took so long to get a sense as to where to target the laser is very much not the reason Lick gives. Lick says JPL software. NASA says they provided LICK with picture and flight data analysis and based on that LICK figured out where to shoot the laser 0n 08/01/1969. But how can that be true if Lick knew exactly where to target the laser the first night? Heard the guy wrong, OK, but only 35 seconds of arc, and by the 2nd night they had it right.
I am not making this up. I am simply reporting the facts as I learn of them and making the best sense of them as I can.
I respect you Jay and welcome your alternative opinion. I am inspired by your passion for this stuff.
What am I to say about your last question? I believe you asked it because you yourself experienced the confusion we all do when wandering through a story like this that is not internally coherent but are in some sense pressured to find consistency when that consistency is simply not there.
We will go 'round and 'round, and I do not mean to be evasive. I think you can tell by now I need not be. I have the facts and my interpretations. You may disagree, but I have no fear about laying them out there. You mean me no harm and I mean you no harm either. We differ here. That is fine. It helps us both become better in terms of understanding the issue.
This is what I think Jay. If one looks at the facts and concedes the lander works, and I do imagine the builders constructed the thing well. I am not trying to play games. I grant the lander works, fine. But then there is this whole other side of the story which does not fit. Neither of us can change that. We cannot rewrite those books. That was my point in the post above. It was rhetorical. What are we to do? Tell Michael Collins that he was wrong? Tell Michael Collins that McCandless gamed him and actually had seen 00 41 15 N, 23 26 00 E as the DSKY readout data for the LM guidance system at the time of the landing? Matter of fact Mike, McCandless knew the whole time where your friends were. But don't feel too bad Mike, he did not tell the USGS guys either. Just throw it in to the next edition of "Carrying the Fire", one slight little modification, adjustment.
I resolve the incoherence by suggesting there was fraud, and this occurred probably for extremely complex reasons. It was an idiotically insane risk, you're bound to get caught. You will think me a nut, but I once wrote to Neil Armstrong about this. I guess it was a crazy thing to do, but I love space stuff and it was important that I say what I did. As I repeat here often, I admire him.
I do not believe the astronauts to be bad people. I think they have suffered. That is my take, especially in the case of Armstrong. I feel bad for him. That is honestly how I feel.
If I accept the lander is functional, then I cannot make sense of the story NASA tells which follows.
So to conclude, I believe there was no landing because Apollo is/was fraudulent. They could not pull it off, and in my mind, the incoherence of the NASA narrative is compatible with only that conclusion and I feel bad about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 12, 2011 4:32:05 GMT -4
Jason at 262
Take a look at Jay's question for me about the lander and my response just above to him. Should work for your own response as well.
Sorry I got frustrated with you yesterday. Should not have done that . I apologize. I was wrong. Sorry.
Thanks for the posts and the great challenge, fattyd
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jul 12, 2011 4:54:17 GMT -4
Take a look at Jay's question for me about the lander and my response just above to him. Should work for your own response as well. No, it does no such thing. It does not address in the least the main point: what precision in coordinates would be required to effect a successful ascent and rendezvous? You have maintained that the exact coordinates were needed but have failed utterly to substantiate that. Apology accepted. |
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 12, 2011 4:58:42 GMT -4
No Problem. Thanks, good night.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jul 12, 2011 5:05:29 GMT -4
The CapCom can read the DSKY per the transcript, On the basis of one excerpt ripped from its context in which the CAPCOM tells them they reported something wrong, you end up with the belief that he knows the cooridinates? Please explain how those coordinates could be displayed on the DSKY. That's a serious question, since the display on the DSKY does not appear to me to have enough figures to show those coordinates as you present them. Explain why an article in a magazine written by a third party takes precedence in your analysis over the first-hand data from the mission itself. The Flight International account appears to make the same confusing point you do: how could the DSKY display those coordinates? What is the context of this quote by Remington Stone? Was it a diary written at the time? A log? Or was it a xxx-year-old memory that he dredged up? Internal incosistencies in personal testimonies made after the event are not only normal but expected. What matters is what the data produced at the time says. It is your sense-making that is in question. Explain your change of tune on that issue please. You were insistent (you used the word 'certain' in fact) that the lander did NOT work a few pages ago. Your entire story stops fitting when you concede that the LM worked. If it worked, why was there any need at all to fake it? Once again, have you actually met any of the astronauts? Then perhaps you should consider actually paying attnetion to the many many sound and detailed explanations for your own flawed understanding that have been presented here. That's not even circular logic, it's so illogical! You conclude that Apollo was fake because it was fake! That doesn't seem absurd to you? |
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jul 12, 2011 5:50:40 GMT -4
So to conclude, I believe there was no landing because Apollo is/was fraudulent. They could not pull it off, and in my mind, the incoherence of the NASA narrative is compatible with only that conclusion and I feel bad about it. Then provide the alternative starting with the method to simulate the lunar surface, or maybe the independent tracking? Heck, any of it. Asked again and again and I expect you will side step again? LEO maybe? Studio on Mars? You deny it (deny is the right word here), then what was it? Your questions got me looking into things I had not considered, the answers you have been spoon fed are more obvious than the nose on my face. It all makes sense and I can see the logic in it. Indeed it adds to the method overall in my understanding. And on the back of all this you bang on about an experiment that conceivably could never have seen the light of lunar day if they could not stay after landing. How would this have helped them? Also worth a mention it took them many years to find the Russian probe that had a mirror on. From start to finish and looking at 9 and 10 testing, the whole system, that is the bits the men the software etc was capable and up to the job. Your intransigence is not a reason for it to not be so. I am reading comments and information from people far more qualified than me and I am able to follow it. |
|
