|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 12, 2011 13:32:07 GMT -4
Fattydash: Which of these statements do you agree with?
(1) There is an LRRR on the moon at the A11 site, but it was placed by unmanned probes.
(2) There is an LRRR on the moon at the A11 site, and it was placed by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin.
(3) There is no LRRR on the moon at the A11 site.
(1), (2) or (3)?
|
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 12, 2011 13:56:06 GMT -4
OK Jay, back to your first point above. I concede the Eagle landed at lunar coordinates 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E and Armstrong saw these coordinates on the DSKY as referenced above. Charlie Duke and the guidance people knew them as well via telemetry as we have established per the Apollo 11 transcript that NASA was aware via telemetry of the data appearing in the LM computer R windows. This is where the landing coordinates appear when running a P68 program. That is explicitly stated in the copy of the MIT manual I have page 9.
So it landed. We know they have the coordinates as above. I do not debate that point, you don't.
So then Armstrong the best test pilot they've got is now the biggest idiot in the world and so is Charlie Duke because now, utterly unnecessarily, Collins is sent on this wild goose chase looking for his friends, USGS is scrambling to find these guys? The most respected authors in Apollo literature, Chaikin himself, emphasize the Eagle is lost. Sure, OK, let's find it, then does any of this other stuff make sense, Armstrong's behavior, USGS, Flagstaff, Beattie?
I am happy to concede the point Jay, more than happy to concede the Eagle landed, Armstrong saw the coordinates in the DSKY, Aldrin saw those same coordinates when he ran the P68 program and the guidance people knew the coordinates via telemetry and others in Houston such as Duke , McCandless and so forth knew. Fine we agree.
That said, given what we have established above, I will not concede that Collins was not looking for his colleagues WITH A NEW SET OF COORDINATES AS A FOCUS EVERY TIME HE ORBITED THE MOON. I won't concede that Donald Beattie and the rest of the Apollo scientists spent days analyzing photos and flight data to help find 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E, coordinates Armstrong Aldrin, Duke, McCandless, Houston had all along, and THIS ANALYSIS BY BEATTIE AND HIS COLLEAGUES OF THE PHOTOS AND FLIGHT DATA OCCURRED AFTER THE ASTRONAUTS RETURNED FROM THE MOON. . I won't concede the USGS people and the Flagstaff geologists frantically hunted for Tranquility Base's location on the evening of 07/20/1969. I won't concede the USGS hunt was based on Armstrong's description of the landscape's appearance and not what he could have easily read off to the USGS guys, the numbers in the DSKY windows. I won't concede that when Michel Collins wrote his book, he said he did not know where his colleagues were. I will not concede that any of these facts are not true because they are the facts as told by NASA itself.
So let's assume all of this to be true and continue our debate with these as the ground rules, the established facts. They are NASA's own facts.
I concede every one. Let's see where it takes us. Shall we agree?
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 12, 2011 14:06:36 GMT -4
OK Jay, back to your first point above. You aren't addressing my points at all. You're simply making further handwaving references to you manufactured snit about eyewitness testimony. I am not interested. The equipment worked. You concede this. I want to know why it wasn't used then to land on the Moon. Please answer the questions I actually ask, not the ones you wish I had asked. |
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 12, 2011 14:08:27 GMT -4
All those facts are simply evidence that NASA was trying to pinpoint the exact landing site. The coordinates provided by the navigation system was known to contain error, although it was adequate for the purpose of ascent and rendezvous, and NASA was just trying to ascertain a more accurate set of coordinates. It's really just that simple with no mystery to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 12, 2011 14:10:47 GMT -4
Jay,
I do concede it. I just said that. I also emphasized however I will not concede that NASA's other facts are untrue. I concede every single point in my last post. Every single one. It is all true including the one that the Eagle landed. I want to continue the debate from there. Agreed?
|
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 12, 2011 14:14:49 GMT -4
Jay, I do concede it. I just said that. I also emphasized however I will not concede that NASA's other facts are untrue. I concede every single point in my last post. Every single one. It is all true including the one that the Eagle landed. I want to continue the debate from there. Agreed? The 'untrue' facts, as you call them, are true. It's just that you want to apply them out of context. Well, while I welcome your concession that the LM landed and that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the lunar surface, it was the least bit gracious. However... Welcome to the Apollo believers club!!! The shill rate is $5 per hour, although I hear Jay and others get paid more.  |
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 12, 2011 14:15:46 GMT -4
Bob, you are a day late and a post short. We have established they saw the landing coordinates
00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E in the DSKY R windows on landing. Moreover, we have established that Houston via telemetry knows what appears in these windows. That includes landing coordinates.
As Armstrong is landing no less 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 appears in the DSKY, see reference above. So you may tell the guys to stop pinpointing, has already been done. Let's move on from there. As above, let's follow the thread based on NASA's own account.
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 12, 2011 14:16:20 GMT -4
I do concede it. I just said that.Yes, but you're stubbornly ignoring the followup. If the equipment worked as planned, why was it not used as planned? What couldn't they "pull off?" Please answer this and only this question. I also emphasized however I will not concede that NASA's other facts are untrue.Irrelevant. That has absolutely no bearing upon my line of questioning. I want to continue the debate from there. Agreed?Not in the least. You are the proponent, and you do not get to limit how people may challenge your claims. If you concede that the lunar lander was capable of landing, ascending, and rendezvousing as claimed, please tell us why the mission nevertheless had to be faked. You say they couldn't "pull it off." I want to know exactly what you think they couldn't pull off and why they couldn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 12, 2011 14:19:03 GMT -4
Luke, absolutely not. Do not want to apply them out of context. I have got to run. Back hopefully later. I propose we look at the transcript itself. Utterly context based. My point is let's assume these facts as presented by NASA itself to all be true. No reason to doubt them? And we shall see where it goes. Nothing trick, nothing fake, nothing out of context. Thanks, gotta' run.
|
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 12, 2011 14:19:45 GMT -4
There is a big difference between having someone, in this case the Lick Observatory staff, legitimately determine the position of something you have placed on the moon... The purpose of the Laser Ranging Retroreflector experiment wasn't to identify the location of the of said reflector on the lunar surface, it was to <spoiler> measure the range of the moon from the earth. As the beam width at lunar distance was, as you say, only two miles, those operating the laser must have been given at least a general point to aim at in order to get a return from the reflector, would they not? So long as the reflector fell within the diameter of the beam, its location would be apparent, as the reflector would be far more likely to return photons to the source than the lunar surface would. |
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 12, 2011 14:26:04 GMT -4
Jay, have got to go so this must be my last post for a bit, work and stuff you know. Per your 292, I propose to continue the debate and assume/concede the lander was used as planned. I am not arguing the point Jay. It is on the moon, they are proceeding to use it as planned. I cannot spell this out any more. Landed and being used as planned conceded. All of NASA's other "facts" are in play though. Fair enough? Gotta' run. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jul 12, 2011 14:43:43 GMT -4
OK, we assume the lander is on the moon. Used as intended. Which intent was, to land people on the moon.
But let's not jump to the conclusion the moon landing was real.
(blinks and walks away)
|
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 12, 2011 14:45:27 GMT -4
Can I join you in that walk. I really don't see where this is going now. |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 12, 2011 14:52:05 GMT -4
Jay, have got to go so this must be my last post for a bit, work and stuff you know.I know. The rate at which you respond doesn't interest me as much as what you choose to respond to and how. Landed and being used as planned conceded.Do you agree then that Apollo 11 indeed succeeded at landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth as claimed? All of NASA's other "facts" are in play though. Fair enough?No. I have no desire to debate subjective feelings with people who seem eager simply to accuse NASA of something.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 12, 2011 15:19:14 GMT -4
Can I join you in that walk. I really don't see where this is going now. I hasn't been going anywhere for about 19 pages, fattydash can't even seem to offer a coherent account of his own views. He seems to think that if he concedes one mistake the rest of his equally faulty views should be given some greater consideration. |
|
