|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 12, 2011 15:30:57 GMT -4
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. About 15 pages ago I realised it was going somewhere, albeit around in circles. I now have no idea if it will carry on in circles or head off along a tangent.  |
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jul 12, 2011 15:43:06 GMT -4
Yeah but the circle was nothing to do with the ability to land and take off, it was a circle on its own over there somewhere.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 12, 2011 15:54:51 GMT -4
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. I'm not going to play any games with you. Please state unequivocally that you now believe without reservation that the Apollo landings happened as history records them. Or, if that is not the case, please be honest enough to state that you still have doubts about the authenticity of the landings. Don't say today that you concede these points only to start all over again tomorrow trying to prove to us that it was all fake. |
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 12, 2011 16:04:10 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 (blinks and walks away) Having mostly withdrawn from the discussion but followed it, all I can say is I feel your frustration. However let me point out that it is exceedingly rare for a hoax believer to actually reverse a position on the hoax and make a retraction. Even if this is not a full acceptance, this should be applauded. But then again fattydash is a rarity among hoax believers for the scope of his research skills, at least in terms of knowing about the vast array of resources on Apollo. |
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jul 12, 2011 16:42:58 GMT -4
Of all the retractions that have occurred where I can see them, they all happened within a few tens of posts, or nearest equivalent in the appropriate medium; that is, generally when rational but ignorant people see a "documentary" like that execrable Fox production, they want the other half of the story, or at least to find out if there is another half, so they come to sites like this and are genuinely surprised by the breadth and depth of the expertise here having previously assumed that the witnesses and evidence presented was basically it. And so they rapidly realise they were being fed a line covered in juicy bait and were nearly reeled in.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 12, 2011 16:58:29 GMT -4
Of all the retractions that have occurred where I can see them, they all happened within a few tens of posts, or nearest equivalent in the appropriate medium; that is, generally when rational but ignorant people see a "documentary" like that execrable Fox production, they want the other half of the story, or at least to find out if there is another half, so they come to sites like this and are genuinely surprised by the breadth and depth of the expertise here having previously assumed that the witnesses and evidence presented was basically it. And so they rapidly realise they were being fed a line covered in juicy bait and were nearly reeled in. And this seems nothing like that, it is simply a tactic to try and get some of his other spurious points considered in isolation in the hopes that one of them will stand up long enough that fattydash can declare he has stumped the other posters, reverse the retraction, and declare victory. |
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 12, 2011 17:56:07 GMT -4
Sigh. Hoax believers are like mail on a Tuesday. You open the mailbox all bright and eager and the first package is new and interesting. But then you look deeper, and there's nothing else in the mailbox. Does it really take them that long to come up with something interesting enough to discuss?
21 pages, and he's still stuck in incomprehension that refining the actual surface location from the estimated coordinates generated by the LM was necessary to stick a pin on a topo map...but unnecessary to return to orbit. And, oh, that detecting a mere handful of photons from a mirror millions of miles away just might not work without flaw in the first couple of days of the experiment!
Plus he's still locked into some strange map/territory confusion, by which a specific relationship with identifiable lunar terrain features had jack-all to do with a specific geometric relationship to another spacecraft. Once again, there is no Greenwich on the Moon. The (several!) coordinate systems in use are more arbitrary than that. The Moon also is non-spherical, has a far from smooth gravitational field, wobbles in its orbit, and in all these ways picking the numbers to define a specific patch of dirt is not a straight-forward process.
(This is true on Earth as well...but anyhow!)
|
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 12, 2011 18:31:17 GMT -4
We know with certainty Lick observatory had all the information they needed on the night of 07/20/1969 to find the LRRR. Sigh. Once again, I wish to point out that you are laboring under a very serious misconception: that the accuracy to which the LM could initially determine its own position (indeed, the accuracy of every real-time method to locate the LM, i.e., while it was still landed) was sufficient for the far more demanding task of acquiring the LRRR. Thanks to the rendezvous radar, the task of rendezvous with the CSM could tolerate considerably more error in the landed position than the task of LRRR acquisition. That was especially true for error in the downtrack direction, which was most of the error in this case (Eagle landed about 7 km downtrack, i.e., west of the target spot). You have already said that the laser spot was about 2 mi wide on the moon. As you can see, Eagle landed more than 2 mi away from its intended landing point. Is it such a surprise that they had trouble with initial acquisition? Is it really so unusual for something that has never been done before, something requiring a great deal of precision, to fail on the first attempt and require several more tries for success? If you think that never happens, then you know absolutely nothing about real-world engineering and you have nothing worthwhile to say about the Apollo program. |
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 12, 2011 18:50:36 GMT -4
For Bob, at 302
most certainly no games, just NASA's facts and those as presented by astronaut Michael Collins
Please consult your copy of the Apollo 11 Voice Transcription Report at 04 08 20 28 before proceeding.
Also consult your copy of "Carrying the Fire", we are all aware of the relevant section of the book.
No Bob, the Apollo 11 landings as history recorded them and as Michael Collins documented in his famous book features the theme that the staff in Houston, Michael Collins and others were unaware of the Eagle's/Tranquility Base's lunar coordinates. This is what our history books say, this is what Michael Collins said. Please see above posts and I refer the reader to "Carrying the Fire" so one may confirm for himself or herself that Michael Collins, by his own account, did not know where his colleagues were upon the surface of the moon.
So this official story cannot be true as the Apollo 11 Voice Transcript itself contains the incriminating evidence that Houston and Collins knew with high precision the coordinates of Tranquility Base. Details provided below.
So I concede the lander landed. I concede they went to the moon. But I do not concede Bob that Michael Collins looked for his friends with a 28 power sextant from 60 miles up when he had the coordinates in his hot little hand. And I do not concede that Houston instructed USGS personal to search for the lander on moon maps based on descriptions of the moon as provided by Armstrong given Houston had the exact coordinates of Tranquility Base as documented below. And I do not concede that Donald Beattie and his colleagues painstakingly studied photos of the moon and flight data to find Tranquility Base days after the astronauts returned given NASA had the coordinates of Tranquility Base in the context of the exploration's REAL TIME.
So as these features of the the official Apollo story cannot be accepted, the features as regards Collins with his sextant, USGS, Donald Beattie's analysis, I will freely concede the landing and the coordinate determination, but no way do I concede the entirety of the official story. I do not concede these last 3 points, Collins circling with a sextant despite having the coordinates himself, USGS searching maps despite colleagues down the hall with the coordinates, Beattie and colleagues analyzing photos days after the astronauts returned despite their colleagues down the hall having the coordinates. No Bob, I do not concede all this because if I did I would not have half a brain.
The details if you will;
Here in the Apollo 11 transcript at 04 08 20 28 we find Houston through the CapCom communicating with Michael Collins in the CM. Houston is informing Collins of the Eagle's precise location. We know that precise location today as that of Tranquility Base at lunar Coordinates
00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E.
So in the dialog from the Apollo 11 voice transcript below, the CapCom does not articulate those coordinates in a direct manner, he does so with reference to the planned coordinates which were at site number 2;
00 43 56 N and 23 38 51 E.
The CapCom tells Collins here that the Eagle/Tranquility Base is 0.799 minutes of arc south of the originally planned site 2 and 11.730 minutes of arc west of the originally planned coordinates. So doing the simple math we have based on this information, the CapCom informing Collins that the Eagle/Tranquility Base/Armstrong and Aldrin are at;
00 43 08 N and 23 27 07 E
Note that 11.730 minutes of arc down range from the anticipated landing site translates to 3.7 miles down range, or roughly 4 miles. Consistant with the official story version..
So we may conclude that Michael Collins knew the coordinates of Tranquility Base at the very time it was being claimed no one knew them. The CapCom knows, Collins knows and Armstrong/Aldrin know.
The actual transcript if you will;
CapCom: Roger, Mike. We got an update on the LAT longi- tude for the LM, if you're ready to copy. Over.
Collins: Go ahead.
Collins: Go ahead.
CapCom: Roger. Columbia, it's plus 7 - correction, plus 0.799 for the LAT, plus 11.730 minutes of arc for the longitude over two. Over.
Collins: Thank you. The altitude remain unchanged?
CapCom: Say again. Over.
Collins: Does the altitude remain unchanged? ...
CapCom: That's affirmative.
|
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jul 12, 2011 18:58:50 GMT -4
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. Would you care to answer this question? |
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 12, 2011 19:15:58 GMT -4
For Bob, at 302 most certainly no games, just NASA's facts and those as presented by astronaut Michael Collins Please consult your copy of the Apollo 11 Voice Transcription Report at 04 08 20 28 before proceeding. Also consult your copy of "Carrying the Fire", we are all aware of the relevant section of the book. No Bob, the Apollo 11 landings as history recorded them and as Michael Collins documented in his famous book features the theme that the staff in Houston, Michael Collins and others were unaware of the Eagle's/Tranquility Base's lunar coordinates. This is what our history books say, this is what Michael Collins said. Please see above posts and I refer the reader to "Carrying the Fire" so one may confirm for himself or herself that Michael Collins, by his own account, did not know where his colleagues were upon the surface of the moon. So this official story cannot be true as the Apollo 11 Voice Transcript itself contains the incriminating evidence that Houston and Collins knew with high precision the coordinates of Tranquility Base. Details provided below. So I concede the lander landed. I concede they went to the moon. But I do not concede Bob that Michael Collins looked for his friends with a 28 power sextant from 60 miles up when he had the coordinates in his hot little hand. And I do not concede that Houston instructed USGS personal to search for the lander on moon maps based on descriptions of the moon as provided by Armstrong given Houston had the exact coordinates of Tranquility Base as documented below. And I do not concede that Donald Beattie and his colleagues painstakingly studied photos of the moon and flight data to find Tranquility Base days after the astronauts returned given NASA had the coordinates of Tranquility Base in the context of the exploration's REAL TIME. So as these features of the the official Apollo story cannot be accepted, the features as regards Collins with his sextant, USGS, Donald Beattie's analysis, I will freely concede the landing and the coordinate determination, but no way do I concede the entirety of the official story. I do not concede these last 3 points, Collins circling with a sextant despite having the coordinates himself, USGS searching maps despite colleagues down the hall with the coordinates, Beattie and colleagues analyzing photos days after the astronauts returned despite their colleagues down the hall having the coordinates. No Bob, I do not concede all this because if I did I would not have half a brain. The details if you will; Here in the Apollo 11 transcript at 04 08 20 28 we find Houston through the CapCom communicating with Michael Collins in the CM. Houston is informing Collins of the Eagle's precise location. We know that precise location today as that of Tranquility Base at lunar Coordinates 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E. So in the dialog from the Apollo 11 voice transcript below, the CapCom does not articulate those coordinates in a direct manner, he does so with reference to the planned coordinates which were at site number 2; 00 43 56 N and 23 38 51 E. The CapCom tells Collins here that the Eagle/Tranquility Base is 0.799 minutes of arc south of the originally planned site 2 and 11.730 minutes of arc west of the originally planned coordinates. So doing the simple math we have based on this information, the CapCom informing Collins that the Eagle/Tranquility Base/Armstrong and Aldrin are at; 00 43 08 N and 23 27 07 E Note that 11.730 minutes of arc down range from the anticipated landing site translates to 3.7 miles down range, or roughly 4 miles. Consistant with the official story version.. So we may conclude that Michael Collins knew the coordinates of Tranquility Base at the very time it was being claimed no one knew them. The CapCom knows, Collins knows and Armstrong/Aldrin know. The actual transcript if you will; CapCom: Roger, Mike. We got an update on the LAT longi- tude for the LM, if you're ready to copy. Over. Collins: Go ahead. Collins: Go ahead. CapCom: Roger. Columbia, it's plus 7 - correction, plus 0.799 for the LAT, plus 11.730 minutes of arc for the longitude over two. Over. Collins: Thank you. The altitude remain unchanged? CapCom: Say again. Over. Collins: Does the altitude remain unchanged? ... CapCom: That's affirmative. Phaugh. More magic number thinking. Being able to express something in numbers does not make it either trusted or accurate. How is it you can not understand that there is known error in the coordinates, and there is an ongoing process of refining them using various sources? You seem to get hung up on this idea that once someone said a number, everyone would immediately jump on it and use it in complete confidence -- including, using it to far, far beyond the known and expected error! |
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 12, 2011 19:34:18 GMT -4
So this official story cannot be true as the Apollo 11 Voice Transcript itself contains the incriminating evidence that Houston and Collins knew with high precision the coordinates of Tranquility Base. Details provided below. Incriminating suggest wrongdoing and conspiracy, how do you square that with this statement: If you are genuinely conceding that they landed there is no wrongdoing, no conspiracy, simply the inevitable small confusions that arise with events in the real world. On the other hand if as I suspect your concession of the landing is simply a debating tactic to be withdrawn dramatically at a moment of your choosing this is just further proof of the dishonesty that has been inherent in your approach both here and at BAUT, or are you still denying creating all those sock puppets? |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 12, 2011 19:45:44 GMT -4
Yeah, I'd really like an answer to the sock-puppet question.
|
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 12, 2011 20:05:54 GMT -4
I wanted to start this as a new thread, but LunarOrbit suggested that I had enough going on, and after pausing to think about it for a moment, I agree. So I will just paste the post here... Either you completely missed the point of me locking that thread, or you're trying to test the limits of my patience. You do not need to start any more lines of discussion, whether in a new thread or an existing one, until we can reach some form of conclusion to the topics you have already started. I don't think it was. In fact I don't think anything we say to you actually manages to sink into your brain. |
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 12, 2011 20:36:45 GMT -4
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 would like to hear the answer to that question as well. In fact I'm going to make answering it a condition of fattydash's continued participation in this forum. Fattydash: I want you to answer Jay's question that I quoted above. I want you to tell me why you believe deception is acceptable behaviour for someone who claims to be a doctor.If I don't get a suitable answer by the end of the day Friday I will ban you for six months. And if upon your return after the six months you still refuse to answer the question I will ban you permanently. Sock-puppetry is against the rules here and you've been caught in the act. I've been lenient enough to allow you to post despite this attempt to deceive us. |
|
