|
|
Post by zakalwe on Aug 31, 2011 11:54:38 GMT -4
When I'd call attention to the fact that they DO in fact move, and that it can easily be seen by moving the slider back and forth, the argument would shift to "motorized" artificial lighting. In the words of Winston Churchill "a fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" |
|
|
|
Post by zakalwe on Jul 11, 2011 16:39:35 GMT -4
Speaking of which, can Fattydash explain why, if it was faked, they didn't just announce that they'd found the LLLR first thing? With all the thousands of people who would have to be bribed/coerced, they couldn't have had someone stare at a screen and announce, "Oh, there they are!"? I'm pretty sure the reporters wouldn't have known any different. Why did they have to wait to announce that they'd located the array that had (in fattydash's version) been already placed by unmanned probe? Classic HB position? Take one tiny piece that they cannot explain (using their explanations), or that may have some discrepancies that they believe point to an error, and ignore the masses of other verified evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by zakalwe on Jul 11, 2011 16:16:06 GMT -4
I refer the reader back to those posts and would like to point out that I find it rather curious, remarkable really, that zakalwe claims to have discovered something I discussed in far greater depth than he did, and I did it some 68 posts back. Neither curious or remarkable. I think that I must have lost the will to live after you quoted Shakespeare ad naseum  So Zakalwe, direct question for you, How about you responding to some of the direct questions that you have yet to answer? So Zakalwe, direct question for you, how is it that according to NASA's official account, supported in all their relevant documents and also supported by the personal memoirs of the NASA scientists involved in the project on the Houston end such as Beattie, how is it possible that their official claim was/is that Tranquility Base was not discovered until 08/01/1969 owing to Lick's having been provided with helpful photo and flight data and yet in striking contrast, Remington Stone states the Lick people were given the numbers 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E on the evening of the moon landing, at the very time that Michael Collins was saying he did not know the coordinates of Tranquility Base, at the very same time NASA had the US geological Survey guys looking for the location of Armstrong and Aldrin by virtue of matching moon maps with descriptions, at the very same time the astronauts themselves claimed they did not know their coordinates? This is a direct question. I gave excellent references for all of these claims back in my post at #125 and #126. Go on then, I'll take the bait. The Eagle did a final correction to P57 at GET 123:18. CAPCOM confirms the detent position on the AOT and also advises the alignment stars to use. Eagle retorts that the Sun is obscuring detent 5, and partially detent 6. They can confirm location by picking up Venus on the edge of the FOV in detent 6. At GET 123:28 CAPCOM states that they have "a fairly high confidence that we know the position of the LM". At GET 124:48 CAPCOM relays to Columbia "we have the latest position of Tranquility Base", "...A step west of West Crater". The landing site was about 60 metres away from this crater. So, in contrast to your assertion, the LM position was known prior to 01/08/69. Sources: Apollo 11 TranscriptsApollo 11 TimelineApollo 11 Landing Site |
|
|
|
Post by zakalwe on Jul 11, 2011 14:54:48 GMT -4
That's not a search for truth; that's a search for belief. I think that fd (and the vast majority of HBs that I have met) display an outstanding example of confirmation bias. "Rather than searching through all the relevant evidence, they ask questions that are phrased so that an affirmative answer supports their hypothesis". "Confirmation biases can be used to explain why some beliefs remain when the initial evidence for them is removed" |
|
|
|
Post by zakalwe on Jul 11, 2011 14:08:37 GMT -4
Thank you. Without hijacking and drifting the thread, what genuinely amazes me is the stubborn self belief that most HBs that I have encountered demonstrated. fattydash has clearly spent some time investigating but only seems to see the information that supports his belief system. it took me (a true amateur) about 60 minutes (and that included fruitlessly searching through my humble Apollo library) to find the information about Aldrin's star charts, using nothing more than Google. Yet fd has not found any of this information. Or if he/she has, then he/she has ignored it. |
|
|
|
Post by zakalwe on Jul 11, 2011 13:32:45 GMT -4
Further to my post above, Remington Stone also confirms in his letter dated 1st May 2007 (linked to in my previous post) "The astronauts soon determined their precise location on the moon and radioed that information to Mission Control in Houston".
Funny isn't it, that fattydash's use of Remington Stone's name leads to a link where Mr. Stone confirms that the astronauts did locate their position. I'd call that ironic....
|
|
|
|
Post by zakalwe on Jul 11, 2011 13:25:04 GMT -4
1) flight data and photo analysis, which it should be emphasized was very much in and of itself not adequate. It was not until the laser at Lick successfully targeted the LRRR that Tranquility Base's coordinates were discovered. Given Houston's abilities were not real time, and given they were inadequate, necessitating the help of the Lick laser to find 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E, we can conclude that Houston's capabilities of locating the LM in real time with any reasonable degree of accuracy are quite literally nonexistent. Furthermore, as regards the identification of 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E, I would direct you to Remington Stone's account of the events at Lick observatory on the evening of 07/20/1969. He targeted the laser. I referenced the relevant source above. Mr. Stone clearly stated they had the coordinates 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E given to them on the evening of 07/20/1969 and this testimony of Mr. Stone is hardly in question. Given this fact, the photo analysis and flight data analysis NASA claimed to be helpful in finding Tranquility Base was never used. The scientists at Lick already had the coordinates. Given that additional fact, we can conclude Houston had absolutely no ability to provide meaningful information in determining Tranquility Base's location. They provided flight and photo analysis data over a week after the event in question, and the Lick staff had absolutely no use for this data. Houston's real time coordinate determining capabilities are zilch. Their contribution a week and a half after the alleged landing were irrelevant to the observatory's determination of the LRRR's position. The Lick obs did not get a fix on the LRR on the first evening. There was a communication breakdown (based on a Texas drawl!) which meant that they got the incorrect location on the first night. Details of Remington Stone's interview are here: LINKThe location of Eagle was determined by Aldrin and Armstrong using a star chart and observations made using the Alignment Optical Telescope. The star chart was sold at a Bonhams auction in 2009. In a letter written by Aldrin, he states "that Neil Armstrong and I used to determine our precise location just after we made history's first lunar landing on July 20, 1969" and later in the same letter "We used this star chart in conjunction with our Alignment Optical Telescope (AOT). Neil logged over 30 measurements in our LM Data Card Book that I provided while using the AOT. Those circular areas on the chart overlay showed the AOT's field of view when moved to one of the six positions known as detents. We did a series of dual star sightings using the AOT and this chart, then keyed in that information recorded in the LM Data Card Book while performing the P57 alignment procedures as define in our guidance dictionary" (Source: here Bonhams "The Space Sale" lot #167) <Edit> Corrected error in URL link |
|
|
|
Post by zakalwe on Jul 11, 2011 6:38:20 GMT -4
I'm currently reading Digital Apollo which is a cracking book. There's plenty of detail (from a LGC point of view) in there. |
|
|
|
Post by zakalwe on Jul 11, 2011 6:35:55 GMT -4
Howdy all. Zakalwe here, calling from the UK. I'm an Apollo enthusiast, would-be amateur deep sky imager (very much a noob at that, and with very modest equipment). One of my highlights of the last couple of years was visiting KSC, seeing the Saturn V stack and touring the abandoned launch sites (is there a sadder sight than the Apollo 1 launch pad?)
|
|
|
|
Post by zakalwe on Jul 11, 2011 6:27:20 GMT -4
Just thought, was there an option to blast off if they run out of fuel on the landing? Makes sense after 10. No chance to get a defo fix on location. IIRC, below acertain height, an abort using the ascent stage (Fire-In-The-Hole) was not possible (the so-called dead man's zone), as the craft would have impacted before they could separate and fire the ascent stage. Cernan mentions it here: link |
|
