reply to post by DJW001
You do not have your facts straight. Let me restate first NASAs claims and then my conclusion. For those new to the world of Apollo fakery, you
are about to read something entirely new here. No one has yet written about this, so enjoy and share with your friends if they are of a similar
These are NASAs's claims dealing with the landing concerns under consideration;
1) NASA claimed it remedied the shortcomings of the LM landing targeting system by allowing for targeting correction by comparing doppler data from
the LM in real time with doppler data anticipated for landing at any given site.
2) NASA claimed the LM PNGS computer program that auto-piloted the LM to the surface could be changed so that if the LM was off target, as recognized
by the real time vs anticipated doppler discrepancy, the LM would still be able to find its original target. In the case of Apollo 11 the PNGS
landing program was fixed and not alterable so if such a dopper real time vs anticipated discrepancy had been identified, nothing could have been done
about it anyway.
3) If a meaningful change in real time vs anticipated doppler data was identified, then the method for correcting the PNGS program so that the auto
pilot would now find the correct target primarily involved telling the computer that the target site had changed. (By way of example, if the real
time doppler data indicated the LM would land one mile west of planned, the new scheme called for simply telling the auto pilot by way of PNGS the
target site had moved one mile east. And so there would be compensation.)
4) NASA claimed when the LM landed at Tranquility base the ground crew in Houston assisted by geologists in Texas and in other parts of the country,
not to mention the astronauts themselves, did not know where the Eagle had landed in part because their ability to locate by way of map study was
5) Map study was not the only way to locate the astronauts and NASA personnel claimed that had there been consensus among their systems; PNGS, AGS,
AOT, earth based tracking, they could have found the Eagle on the moon's surface before the time of lift off. However, PNGS, AGS, AOT and earth
tracking systems did not agree on where the Apollo 11 LM was. In adequate map location ability and lack of agreement on the part of the PNGS, AGS,
AOT and earth tracking systems in sum translated to not being able to find the Eagle on the surface of the moon in real time. Neal Armstrong said
through his biographer that when the ship is not moving around much, it is hard to find. Its movement was what was supposed to help, at least some.
When landed the lack of movement translated into lack of locatability per Armstrong.
6) NASA claimed that in the wake of the Apollo 11 mission they felt personal embarrassment given their inability to locate the Eagle. In consequence,
Sam Phillips and other high level administrative types insisted that it be a priority that a focus of Apollo 12 be a pinpoint landing to prove to the
world they could simply pull one off. NASA historians endorse the idea that this is how the Surveyor Site ultimately came to be chosen as Apollo
12's target. If they parked it there, who could quibble in any sense that they had pulled off a pinpoint landing?
These are NASA's claims, not mine. This is the story they tell.
My claim is about how these claims of NASA's constitute a lie. My claim is not about navigation and guidance of the Apollo LM in any direct sense,
only incidentally. My focus is on the demonstration of a glaring problem with NASA's claim here. Simply put, it cannot be correct and as they are
therefore lying the whole thing is a big lie. No other reason to lie about this point than to cover up the fact they were not there to begin with.
I never said above they couldn't find the moon with their space ships. I suspect NASA, as incompetent and dull witted a crew as they are, did hit
the moon perhaps with Ranger unmanned craft and some others. No one is saying anything about the gross competence of their guidance and navigation
systems. They can and did hit the moon probably with some projectiles.
My claim is their story about fixing their system so that they could do pinpoint landings like they claimed they did when they pretended to plop the
Apollo 12 LM next to Surveyor 3 is illogical, it cannot be true.
Say you take Surveyor 3 away, say it is a prop and nothing more? How is Apollo 12 any different from the Apollo 11 mission with regard to being
positive you are landing on target. The identity of Surveyor 3 aside, they have done nothing to improve their capabilities with respect to the use of
maps in finding the LMs. PNGS, AGS, AOT, earth tracking still as likely to disagree.
Conclusion, the Surveyor 3 images in the Apollo 12 shots is a prop plain and simple.