This point I have been trying to make all along Jay. How is all this possible?That's not my question. You assert that it's
impossible, or at least that it was not actually done. I'm asking for your evidence, for a coherent line of reasoning if you can manage one. You concede the equipment worked. Why didn't they just use it?
I stated way back in 125, the official Apollo narrative is inconsistent.I didn't ask about the narrative. I asked about the equipment. Please stop changing the subject.
...the interested person discovers that the story is internally incoherent and as such must be untrue.Which "interested person" would that be? Throughout this discussion you refer to abstract groups of people who hypothetically agree with you. These are
your claims,
your beliefs, and
you are on the hook to prove them. Trying to dissociate from that responsibility by suggesting that "people say" something, or "anyone can see that" your belief is true, or "professionals agree" on some point is simply begging the question.
(Same tired old DSKY story repeated.)
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?Asked and answered. The lander works well enough for its own purposes, which was your original (now conceded) question. Whether it also serves other purposes depends on the circumstances of each purpose. You conflate several different purposes unnecessarily, which is why you're confused.
In all honesty Jay. I do not know how this is possible except to assume people are lying.Your inability to flesh out your hypothesis set is your problem. Perhaps your lack of imagination is why you reach a different conclusion than the rest of the world.
I note that you
assume people are lying. Whether or not someone is lying is a matter of proof, not assumption. Later we'll find out that you assert fraud merely as a default condition. Either way, you provide no proof and hence don't get to hold your conclusion up as the best fit.
When there are internal inconsistencies in a story, when a story is internally incoherent, this is what it means for me.The hidden premise in your line of reasoning is the belief that all the individual accounts of a true event must be entirely consistent. I don't share that belief, so I don't find your argument convincing. Forensic engineering includes the study of eyewitness testimony, so I respond to your premise with informed disagreement.
If you propose a standard by which the evidence is to be judged, you bear the burden to prove that it's a reasonable standard.
...this is hard for me to feel such disappointment and confusion around this issue.The only confusion is that which you've stubbornly manufactured. You clearly feel no disappointment because you revel in your personal ability, according to several professional disciplines, to uncover the "fraud."
Every conspiracy theorist claims he has been reluctantly dragged by the ponderous weight of evidence toward the conclusion that Apollo was faked. If that were the case, conspiracist would welcome the corrections and clarifications that show that conclusion to be naive. Instead the conspiracists always "digs in" and supports his belief at all costs, indicating that it's his desired belief.
Further, we note above that your conclusion of fraud is an assumption, and below that it is a default. None of them is a proposition to which you've attached any sort of objective proof. It's all just your subjective judgment.
I did not produce, manufacture these facts...You did not manufacture the accounts to which you refer, but you did manufacture the interpretation of them, and you're responsible for that interpretation. You don't get to evade the responsibility for your interpretation by suggesting that it is somehow independent from you.
(Same old Lick / Stone story repeated.)
I respect you Jay and welcome your alternative opinion.It is not the "alternative" opinion. It is the interpretation of the facts held by all but a few noisy and misinformed people. The opinion that the LM was in all respects capable of performing its mission is the concerted opinion of the world's aerospace community, and it has stood for decades without significant challenge. The lunar module is one of the most studied vehicles in all of the field. When you dispute that, you're the one proposing the "alternative" claim. And a very heavy burden of proof rests on you.
So kindly do not patronize me and the other experts here. We're not the ones out on a limb here.
I am inspired by your passion for this stuff.Dispassion is my hallmark, so kindly do not try to undermine my claims on that basis.
I simply have the facts on my side regarding the engineering of the lunar module. That's why your technical argument fails. No passion required nor desired. You simply fail to understand how it works, and in the midst of that confusion you've created, you cry fraud rather than to plead ignorance.
I'm frankly disgusted by the passion with which you attack a well-understood, well-documented episode in human history. I'm also disgusted by the methods you use. You claim to love science, but you're a complete disgrace to its methods.
I believe you asked it because you yourself experienced the confusion we all do when wandering through a story like this...No. You seem fond of incorporating me into your fiction by assuming things about me and putting words in my mouth. Kindly allow me to speak for myself without your embellishment.
In case you haven't noticed, I routinely disregard your attempts to obfuscate the technical portions of your argument with your handwaving attempts to trump up "inconsistency" among eyewitness accounts, and have done so again in this response.
I am not confused at all about how the Apollo equipment worked. You originally said it didn't work, and that's why Apollo must have been faked. Now you concede that it does work, and I'm asking you why it wasn't used as planned.
Please don't try to rewrite my question as if I undertook some personal journey through your fantasy world. My question was intended to expose the absurdity of your argument. Address it head-on, if you please.
We will go 'round and 'round, and I do not mean to be evasive.Of course you mean to be evasive. It took pages and pages to pin you down on your original arguments, which were about the technical capability of the lunar module, without the intrusion of your nit-picking of eyewitnesses. Even while you were conceding the technical points, you still tried to get me to comment on your irrelevant eyewitness accounts.
And of course we'll go round and round, because you've insistently, laboriously, and irrelevantly rewritten all your arguments to become stories about what people should have done, according to you. Those are "soft" issues subject to legitimate differences of interpretation and based on suppositions and inferences of other people's motives. That approach provides endless opportunity for meaningless debate, but has practically no value in determining truth.
Further you obviously mean to be deceptive. You still have not answered why sock puppets are a standard tool for you. Please tell us why an honest approach to debate requires you to pretend to be several different people.
I have the facts and my interpretations.And nearly all the rest of the world, including the authors you cite as authorities, disagree with you on the interpretation. What do you say to that? Is the rest of the world all wrong?
You may disagree, but I have no fear about laying them out there.You should. Even honest scholars approach a review of their findings with trepidation. Did I miss something? Have I erred in fact? Is my logic sound? Is my judgment biased? These are questions that nag at the conscientious scholar.
You, on the other hand, seem entirely unconcerned over the inherent problems of scholarship. This is because what you're doing bears no relationship to scholarship. You simply don't care what your critics say. You've made up in your mind that you're right, and nothing will deter you from that belief.
You mean me no harm and I mean you no harm either.I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. You're calling my profession collectively liars. We all claim Apollo worked as advertised. You say it's all a fraud. How does that not constitute an attempt to harm people's reputation?
I on the other hand am your critic and adversary. While I mean you
personally no harm, your beliefs are quite clearly in the crosshairs here. We are not "buddies" you and I. Don't try to defuse my criticism by sucking up to me.
I am not trying to play games.Playing games is all you do. You pretend to be a doctor. You pretend to be an engineer. You pretend to be several different people. You dance, bob, and weave, and generally do anything
except face your critics squarely. You were banned at BAUT precisely for playing games. It's very revealing that you quickly adopted exactly the same posture here. It suggests this is a practiced pattern for you, that isn't likely to change until you've collected your "Banned from Apollohoax" badge too.
I grant the lander works, fine. But then there is this whole other side of the story which does not fit.Fit what?
Neither of us can change that.Of course you can change your conclusions. You just don't want to. You seem to be saying that your mind is made up and there's nothing anyone can do about it. If so, then nothing about this debate is honest.
(Same old Collins story repeated.)
I resolve the incoherence by suggesting there was fraud...That's not a resolution. That's a theory. You now have the task to prove that theory. To refer to your description elsewhere of differential diagnosis, you now have a set of potential diagnoses in hand, and you need to do the lab work to start generating evidence to rule in or out specific scenarios. You want to stop before you've done the rigor.
"Fraud" is not just a generic condition that holds when some other proposition fails. Fraud describes
specific actions for which there will be
specific evidence.
To continue in the differential diagnosis analogy, it's like saying every ailment that you fail to diagnose as something else will be considered pancreatitis. So if a patient presents with some set of symptoms, and you cannot conclusively diagnose it as influenza, you can't rationally turn around and say, "I resolve these inconsistent symptoms as pancreatitis." Why can't you? Because pancreatitis is a specific illness with specific indications. If those indications aren't present in the patient, and you don't examine for them, the diagnosis has no basis. You don't get to say it's pancreatitis just because you suspect it's not influenza.
Similarly if you argue for fraud, you have to
test for fraud. You can't just say, "It doesn't fit this other set of expectations, so it 'must' be fraud." What
specific fraud? How did you conclude that your fraud scenario is the best fit of all the possible explanations?
Earlier you said you assumed the flight crew was lying. You present no direct proof of that. It's simply what you concoct in order to satisfy your misinterpreted, misinformed, simplistically-reasoned interpretation. It's the predetermined conclusion, so naturally everything you say is designed to favor it.
And now you allude to fraud as a default condition. Nothing in your line of reasoning in either case exposes your beliefs to any kind of scrutiny to see whether they might be true. That's not very rational.
I do not believe the astronauts to be bad people. I think they have suffered.You were asked previously to provide evidence of this suffering. You have not complied.
You were asked previously how many of the Apollo astronauts you have met and conversed with. You have not complied.
That same rail-split has been tried many times before. You don't want to bear the responsibility for calling the Apollo crews liars, because that's unpatriotic. So you invent a scenario in which they're innocent victims who deserve our sympathy.
That would almost work except that just a few pages ago you argued that the flight crews were the only ones who knew the missions were fake and everyone
else was the innocent victim. That's when you were trying to avoid the stigma of accusing thousands of engineers of dishonesty. You need to get used to the idea that you cannot cry fraud without calling
someone a fraudster. If you can't own the consequences of that accusation, you don't have the courage to make it.
For someone who purports to value consistency so highly, you seem unable to achieve it in your own arguments. If you claim that consistency must accompany truth, how can your inconsistent claims be true? Aren't you following a double standard?
If I accept the lander is functional, then I cannot make sense of the story NASA tells which follows.Your tap dance through cherry-picked and laboriously misinterpreted eyewitness accounts has absolutely nothing to do with the capabilities of the spacecraft in question.
You began this thread telling us that the LM ascent was not credible because they didn't have the appropriate guidance parameters. You tried to tell us that only you had a sufficient technical understanding of the guidance problem to determine this. Now that you've had your behind handed to you on that point, you're trying to backpedal and say that the question is all about the "inconsistent" accounts that were
originally only offered in support of the premise that the Apollo 11 crew were lost.
They've now taken center stage as you try to repair the tatters of your argument. Every time someone tries to pin you down on your original technical points, you throw the same few eyewitness stories out like a fleeing burglar flinging lawn chairs in the path of his pursuer. You're stuck trying to argue a non-sequitur because you egregiously changed horses in the middle of the debate.
So to conclude, I believe there was no landing because Apollo is/was fraudulent.Patently circular.
They could not pull it off...And after this latest rant from you, in which you simply repeat all your old handwaving claims, we're back to the question I asked last night: if the equipment worked, why didn't they use it for its intended purpose? What
exactly couldn't they pull off and why?
...and in my mind, the incoherence of the NASA narrative is compatible with only that conclusion and I feel bad about it.No, in your mind you've concluded for whatever personal reason that Apollo was faked, and your scrambling to find
any line of reasoning that conveys an illusion that your belief was arrived at rationally.
