|
|
Post by ka9q on Feb 11, 2012 11:51:13 GMT -4
That's the saddest thing about them -- either they're unable to learn, or they simply aren't interested in it. I have a hard time understanding both.
This applies even to whom I consider the most fascinating hoaxer, hunchbacked (we knew him here briefly as "inquisitivemind"). He claims to be an engineer and a follower of the scientific method, but he's obviously neither. But he certainly is an enigma.
|
|
|
|
Post by forthethrillofital on Feb 12, 2012 14:37:58 GMT -4
I do not read the OP's main point that way at all. Admittedly I am not as familiar with some of these details as you seem to be. Still I think his(her?) point is that the moon had been so well mapped that if precise coordinates had been provided they would not correspond to what was seen on television that evening. I also think the OP is trying to point out that the astronauts would be required to document the positions of the stars relative to the moon horizon and given the time this would precisely determine location. Any time you attempt to describe the OP's main point it is important to cite the epoch, due to the constantly changing nature of his arguments. That does not seem to be the case with this OP. He(she?) is not changing his(her?) fundamental story. It might be better to term it a "theme". At least I think so. I checked out all of the references in the OP's long posts on page 9. I checked out every single one and then found a half a dozen of my own that were strikingly similar. No one knew where the eagle was. All of the authors cited by the OP do in fact present the story of a "lost eagle" in their books and I found this to be the case with other authors not referenced by this OP. I then went on to look at NASA's own tracking data found in the Apollo mission report section 5. The tracking system found the landing site at 0.63 N and 23.47 E. The 1987 landing site coordinate determination by Davies et al found the site at 0.67...N and 23.47 E. I when I did a quick calculation for myself I found that the earth tracking system found the eagle to be about 0.8 miles from where Davies determined it to be. (I assumed 19 miles per degree as a rough approximation just to give me a genereal sense for how close the 2 sets of coordinates were.) That is not lost. So the OP is correct. There are two stories. One story with the eagle lost and one story with the eagle found. This is what one would expect with a hoax in which the main players desire the landing site location to remain unkown. If it is known then because no one is actually there the astronauts run a risk of exposure. The facts are there and the logic that follows is sound. I have concluded from running these and other numbers for myself that this OP is on to something. Granted he(she?) is scattered at times but the investigative work is fairly thorough and accurate as far as I can see. Can you show me the above coordinates were not reported as I have cited above? This OP gets my vote. There is validity to this "lost eagle" business and I am presuming at this time there is a connection from "lost eagle" to hoax. |
|
|
|
Post by twik on Feb 12, 2012 15:01:13 GMT -4
Why, with all the research that you have done, do you insist on calling the LM the "eagle", exactly like fattydash? For one person to insist on the name is an idiosyncrasy, for all his followers to do is ... odd.
And it's also odd that his followers cannot grasp the concept of "margin of error". If you make multiple measurements, by multiple methods, they will not all be the same. That is well-known. The location was specified quite enough that if the Russians had wanted to do a quick look-see, they could have. It wasn't like they were claiming that the LM could have been on the far side of the Moon.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Feb 12, 2012 16:35:43 GMT -4
There is validity to this "lost eagle" business and I am presuming at this time there is a connection from "lost eagle" to hoax. That is a connection you the OP was never able to make. Everyone admits the exact location of the LM was not know. So what? |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 12, 2012 17:22:32 GMT -4
He(she?) is not changing his(her?) fundamental story. Absolute rubbish. The OP, whether on this thread or on others, has veered wildly from LM that did work but did not land, that did not work well enough to land, that did not work at all, and one that would work as advertised. When the Op can't even keep something as fundamental as the capabilities of the LM consistent in their stories from post to post, there is something very shaky about their conclusions. Simple question for you requiring a simple answer: Do you understand the difference between not knowing exactly where something is and not knowing at all where something is? |
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Feb 12, 2012 18:13:29 GMT -4
Irrelevent..this isn't a democracy, where a "vote" somehow "counts" as something. If you are going to "side" with the OP, then be prepared to explain "away" every single image, every single returned sample...and explain just how all the scientists of the world were fooled. Are you up to that task?? |
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Feb 12, 2012 18:30:54 GMT -4
Do you understand the difference between not knowing exactly where something is and not knowing at all where something is? I was just thinking...why does it matter so much that the Eagle couldn't "instantly" be located?? The LRO sure knew where to "find" the A11 landing site, and we have the images to demonstrate that fact. |
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Feb 13, 2012 0:14:19 GMT -4
Any time you attempt to describe the OP's main point it is important to cite the epoch, due to the constantly changing nature of his arguments. That does not seem to be the case with this OP. He(she?) is not changing his(her?) fundamental story. It might be better to term it a "theme". At least I think so. One could indeed say that Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/etc. did not change the main theme that the Apollo 11 LM was "lost". He was simply wrong all along, ignorant, and unable to learn anything from people who actually understood the subject. Eagle was never "lost" in any important sense of the term; not only was it known to be within a few nautical miles of the target point, most importantly it was always able to rendezvous with the CM to bring the crew home - the only absolutely necessary criterion for whether one is truly "lost" or not. This was pointed out to P1k/fd/DT/etc. many times, but he was never able to grasp these concepts. So the OP is correct. There are two stories. One story with the eagle lost and one story with the eagle found. No. There is one story - of a vehicle whose exact position is not known, but whose position is known within a certain degree of accuracy, and the various methods by which this was known and later refined. The rest is simply his utter lack of understanding of spaceflight and of basic engineering concepts, his inability to perform actual research, his failure to understand historical principles, and a heaping helping of his childishness, dishonesty, and gigantic ego. This is what one would expect with a hoax in which the main players desire the landing site location to remain unkown. No. It was what one would expect from a real first mission. There is no evidence - at all - for any "hoax", but there is a mountain of evidence for the real thing happening. If it is known then because no one is actually there the astronauts run a risk of exposure. Such as by the Luna probe "sintering" "as it hovered about"? That was one of Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/etc.'s stories, and hillariously captured his utter ineptitude and the fairy-tale nature of his ridiculous claims. The facts are there and the logic that follows is sound. I have concluded from running these and other numbers for myself that this OP is on to something.You are repeating exactly the same errors, and manifesting exactly the same lack of understanding of the subject, as fattydash/Patrick1000/DoctorTea/etc. Granted he(she?) is scattered at timesHe is one of the worst writers I have ever seen; verbose, childish, disorganized, and dishonest. He routinely lies about himself and his arguments, and I and others have catalogued quite a few amusing examples of the times he has contradicted himself. He has demonstrated his ineptitude across a wide range of subjects. He also is a coward, hiding behind his keyboard while hurling puerile invective at people who have actually accomplished something of value, but running madly away when offered the opportunity to back up his boasts directly. but the investigative work is fairly thorough and accurate as far as I can see. Googling up various numbers and quotes confers neither context nor understanding, and does not constitute "investigation". ...This OP gets my vote. There is validity to this "lost eagle" business and I am presuming at this time there is a connection from "lost eagle" to hoax. As has been pointed out, in great detail, many times, Eagle was never "lost" in any significant sense of the word, and the OP has no qualifications to judge any of the data, no ability to understand it, no evidence for any of his claims, and no ability to explain any of the actual Apollo record. His entire sorry legacy, involving a host of sock-puppets banned here and at BAUT, and lying about his record from the get-go at JREF, is that of a childish incompetent posturing to get attention from some grown-ups on an Internet forum. I put the silly troll on ignore a long time ago. Certainly nobody in the real world cares, and his evasions and incoherent boasts continuing on JREF have no effect whatever on the legacy of Apollo. He's just another unknown loon ranting away behind the virtual 7-11, and even the small amount of attention he gets now will only last until the grown-ups stop paying attention to his tantrums. |
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Feb 13, 2012 1:00:36 GMT -4
That does not seem to be the case with this OP. He(she?) is not changing his(her?) fundamental story. It might be better to term it a "theme". At least I think so. Theme. I like that. I checked out all of the references in the OP's long posts on page 9. I checked out every single one and then found a half a dozen of my own that were strikingly similar. No one knew where the eagle was. All of the authors cited by the OP do in fact present the story of a "lost eagle" in their books and I found this to be the case with other authors not referenced by this OP. I sincerely doubt that. Every time I checked Doctor Sock's sources I found incomplete or broken links to them (requiring a fair amount of searching to pull up what he was talking about), and when found, his quotes were found to be incomplete to the point of changing the entire meaning of the work they were paraphrased from. Furthermore, his rambling style of writing makes it extremely difficult to link a specific claim or quote to a specific cited reference. He apparently never read the Times style manual (or any other academic instruction on proper use of citation). Therefore, I reject the idea that one could largely confirm his research. I then went on to look at NASA's own tracking data found in the Apollo mission report section 5. The tracking system found the landing site at 0.63 N and 23.47 E. The 1987 landing site coordinate determination by Davies et al found the site at 0.67...N and 23.47 E. I when I did a quick calculation for myself I found that the earth tracking system found the eagle to be about 0.8 miles from where Davies determined it to be. (I assumed 19 miles per degree as a rough approximation just to give me a genereal sense for how close the 2 sets of coordinates were.) That is not lost. So the OP is correct. There are two stories. One story with the eagle lost and one story with the eagle found. This is what one would expect with a hoax in which the main players desire the landing site location to remain unkown. If it is known then because no one is actually there the astronauts run a risk of exposure. The facts are there and the logic that follows is sound. I have concluded from running these and other numbers for myself that this OP is on to something. Granted he(she?) is scattered at times but the investigative work is fairly thorough and accurate as far as I can see. Can you show me the above coordinates were not reported as I have cited above? This OP gets my vote. There is validity to this "lost eagle" business and I am presuming at this time there is a connection from "lost eagle" to hoax. Thorough and accurate? So you agree that star sightings from the lunar surface are all that is necessary to determine position? So you agree that ordinary human eyes should have no trouble at all in detecting a nanosecond laser pulse, and the same humans with daylight film loaded in their cameras should be able to record it? That constellations are impossible to make out if the viewing conditions are too GOOD? That a laser with a beam diameter of 7 miles at the Moon could be used to locate a spacecraft to within under a mile of error? That a precise starting position in relation to local geography is necessary in order to make a rendezvous with a target you can see? That radians and degrees are identical? I could go on like this for pages. |
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Feb 13, 2012 2:53:54 GMT -4
Mrs/Ms/Miss F, no time for images in the other thread or purposeful avoidance?
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 13, 2012 14:14:09 GMT -4
That does not seem to be the case with this OP. He(she?) is not changing his(her?) fundamental story. Hogwash. In post #54 in this thread you told us no LM had ever been anywhere near the lunar surface. By the end of the thread you had acknowledged that the missions had been flown as claimed, but that there was only some irregularity in the documentation. Reversing one's claim constitutes a fundamental change in the story. You may think what you want. You've tried for months to sweep your flip-flops and backpedaling under the carpet by saying you were correct "in outline form." It would be charitable to say your belief has remained unchanged and you've simply deployed on contradictory argument after another to try to support it. That's what the typical conspiracy theorist does. But in fact you can't even remain true to your core belief. Do you believe the LM actually land on the Moon? Who can tell from what you write? Your apologetics here are like saying that even though you've mistaken the murder victim, changed the time and place of the alleged murder several times, and accused several different people of the crime, your story must still be somehow believable because it revolves around the central theme of murder. And if you weren't Patrick, that would mean something. You know something? Conspiracy theorists all think their claims are somehow universally appealing and somehow simply point out roughly self-evident truths. In fact, since there are practically an infinite number of ways to misunderstand something, the chances of two different people making exactly the same mistakes and exactly the same twisted interpretations and exactly the same misconceptions are remote in the extreme. No, you simply followed the same broken line of reasoning as the original poster. You are completely oblivious to the notion that different constraints, requirements, and tolerances apply variously. You want to apply the language of one to the constraints of the other. This was explained at length in this thread. You didn't acknowledge it as Fattydash which is why you're not acknowledging it now. Straw man. That is not where your mistake lies. |
|
|
|
Post by forthethrillofital on Feb 13, 2012 19:58:59 GMT -4
There is validity to this "lost eagle" business and I am presuming at this time there is a connection from "lost eagle" to hoax. That is a connection you the OP was never able to make. Everyone admits the exact location of the LM was not know. So what? I am not sure the OP would draw this inference and make this connection, but I shall. The landing site coordinates were known from the MSFN tracking data as 0.63 N and 23.47 E at the moment the eagle touched down. Those numbers were confirmed by the AGS and the eagle Apollo guidance computer syetems. The other two systems gave numbers very close to 0.63 and 23.47 so there was no confusion about where the eagle landed in this sense. The numbers were good. Michael Collins therefore should have been directed to look right there at 0.63, 23.47. He was not so directed. He was instructed to look elsewhere. How can you have such good data and not use it? Why would they instruct Collins to look elsewhere and not at 0.63 , 23.47? This povides strong evidencein favor of a hoax. Pretty hard to read it any other way I think. |
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Feb 13, 2012 21:54:52 GMT -4
The landing site coordinates were known from the MSFN tracking data as 0.63 N and 23.47 E at the moment the eagle touched down. Those numbers were confirmed by the AGS and the eagle Apollo guidance computer syetems. The other two systems gave numbers very close to 0.63 and 23.47 so there was no confusion about where the eagle landed in this sense. The numbers were good. Since the final position was determined to be 0.6875 N, 23.4333 E, then clearly the numbers reported above were not good -- they were only an estimate. A better determination was made by having the astronauts describe the terrain at the landing site. After obtaining these observations, the position was estimated to be 0.692 N, 23.426 E, which was very close to the final reported position. He was not directed to 0.63 N, 23.47 E because this was not the best estimated position. The coordinates 0.692 N, 23.426 E was the best estimate and this is where Collins was directed to look. They used the best data. Because 0.63 N, 23.47 E was not the best estimate. Even if you were right about the coordinates, something as simple as human error is about a million times more likely than a hoax. Reading hoax into all of this is about as crazy as I can imagine. edit: corrected grammar errors |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 13, 2012 22:29:58 GMT -4
Pretty hard to read it any other way I think. I dispute both clauses of that sentence. |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 14, 2012 2:30:25 GMT -4
Pretty hard to read it any other way I think. Patrick, knock it off. Begging the question is your particular argumentation idiom. |
|
