Neil Armstrong, Talk About Transparent, PooPoos Apollo Fraud , Then Proceeds to Go All Ballistic

Originally posted by decisively

No, incorrect

reply to post by MrXYZ

 

You are not aware of the Apollo 11 narrative details. The Lick Observatory Astronomers were told by "Houston" on the evening of 07/20/1969 that the Eagle was at 00 41' 15 " north and 23 26' 00" east. Indeed, as it turned out, these were the EXACT OFFICIAL landing site coordinates ( until Merton Davies' "revision" in 1987). Neil Armstrong was not aware of these numbers until 11 days after the landing, 08/01/1969.

Question ; Why would you land Neil Armstrong on the moon and not tell him where he was , and yet, tell the Lick Observatory Astronomers where the Eagle landed ? Ditto for Michael Collins, why was he not told where the Eagle was ? Why was he searching all over the imagined moon of the Apollo 11 voyage with his sextant ? The Lick astronomers knew Neil was at 00 41' 15 " north and 23 26' 00" east , why not tell Collins ? What if there was a problem ? Is it not important that these guys know where the bird perched ?

Answer; the landing was/is fraudulent.

Neil and CapCom McCandless even referred to the landing site coordinate numbers as "the $64,000 question" during the cislunar ride "back from the moon".

edit on 27-5-2012 by decisively because: comma, apostrophe

Because they were only told to land at Tranquility and not a specific spot. Do you even know how large that area is? And Houston only knew because of Collins' calculation. Armstrong and Buzz didn't need to know as it wouldn't have made a difference, they only could go up either way. They were busy conducting the ground mission, and only Collins had to know to make sure the rendezvous would work.

Basic logic, you know?

reply to post by decisively

Try this;

Why did the Lick Observatory Astronomers know where the Eagle had landed on 07/20/1969, exactly where it landed, and Neil Armstrong did not ?

If you don't know where your space ship landed, you certainly were not on the moon, especially when some geeky astronomers in San Jose knew EXACTLY where NASA pretended to park the thing.

Try this: stop "flooding!"

www.abovetopsecret.com...

No incorrect

reply to post by MrXYZ


Give this a read. It will get you up to speed as regards the landing event details, especially as regards the site's selenographic coordinate determination.

What you choose to make of the facts is of course up to you.



www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by decisively

No incorrect

reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Give this a read. It will get you up to speed as regards the landing event details, especially as regards the site's selenographic coordinate determination.

What you choose to make of the facts is of course up to you.



www.abovetopsecret.com...

The software issues explains all that perfectly, and NASA clearly knew the location thanks to Collins' calculation. Of course a laser link won't work if the photon bounceback wasn't correctly calculated

reply to post by decisively



i believe it was the geologists who found neil, given neils description of the events.

apollohoax.proboards.com...

a different site, but gives a good logical explaination of who and how they found the EXACT location of tranquility base.

reply to post by MrXYZ


Whatever, one can lead a horse to water as they say.

What do you think about the thread's main theme, point, that Armstrong stepped away from the video window as were he to collect the contingency sample there in front of the tv camera, in front of the world, the rocks so collected would be expected to show traces, or more than traces even, of exposure to the LM's imagined rocket fuel ?

You miss the point

reply to post by choos


Mt. Hamilton/San Jose California based astronomer Joseph Wampler knew the Eagle's landing site coordinates 07/20/1969. Those coordinates were/are 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east.

Neil Armstrong did not know these numbers on the night of 07/20/1969. Michael Collins did not have these numbers 07/20/1969. Buzz Aldrin did not have these numbers 07/20/1969. Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin were not given these numbers, those of the Eagle's landing site until 08/01/1969.

These are simple facts which are not in dispute by anyone including Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins. As such, we may conclude with absolute confidence that the Apollo 11 Mission was/is fraudulent.

reply to post by choos


How about the rocket fuel/exhaust choos ? Shouldn't that be on those moon rocks, chemical evidence of the LM rocket exhaust ?

I think that is why Neil snuck away there 'cuz he knew I was fixing to bust his chops on it 40 years later.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

...The "backpacks didn't fit through the hatch" thing is not based on reality btw

Rpb37n may be getting confused with the fact that in one of the early mock-up designs of the LEM, the suited-up astronauts who were testing those early mock-up designs could not fit through the hatch, so Grumman (the company building the LEM) made the hatch larger on the production models.

...as described in this video at the 12:10 mark:

reply to post by decisively


These are not even precise, they were rough estimates....but, close enough for the laser reflecting experiment, and range finding:

Those coordinates were/are 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east.

It seems astonishing that (especially in today's technological prevalence of handy GPS devices, and the coordinates that they provide) people still cannot fathom the point that a Latitude/Longitude reading only to the standard of a minute, with no further refinement (either in decimal, or 60-base seconds nomenclature) is not "precise" at all.

In fact, it would encompass quite easily a large diameter of terrain, well within the planned landing location.

By the way......the vehicle (Lunar Module) was tracked, and provided telemetry, all the way during the descent to touchdown. THAT also provided information to Mission Control, back on Earth. This showed that it was within tolerances for the targeted landing site --- therefore the resolution to the gross location, in degrees and minutes, is not difficult to understand.......for those who understand the science.

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Whatever, one can lead a horse to water as they say.

What do you think about the thread's main theme, point, that Armstrong stepped away from the video window as were he to collect the contingency sample there in front of the tv camera, in front of the world, the rocks so collected would be expected to show traces, or more than traces even, of exposure to the LM's imagined rocket fuel ?

Clearly you haven't "lead the horse to water" as your claim makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER

Oh, and only the rocks directly underneath the LM would show traces as there's no wind to disperse the fuel far enough.

Like I said, the points you made in this thread (and the other 10) make no sense whatsoever

reply to post by PluPerfect


It's pretty clear after all those threads that decisively doesn't understand the science behind it

reply to post by decisively


why would NASA want to analyse knowingly contaminated lunar rocks?? what would the purpose be to fill the LM with dead weight of contaminated lunar rock?

wouldnt rocks that is not contaminated be much more valuable specimens??

mccandless was only reminding neil to obtain contingency samples only because it wasnt on the checklist, and was worried he would forget. there was NO plan to get the rocks from directly underneath the LM.

Mt. Hamilton/San Jose California based astronomer Joseph Wampler knew the Eagle's landing site coordinates 07/20/1969. Those coordinates were/are 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east.

Neil Armstrong did not know these numbers on the night of 07/20/1969. Michael Collins did not have these numbers 07/20/1969. Buzz Aldrin did not have these numbers 07/20/1969. Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin were not given these numbers, those of the Eagle's landing site until 08/01/1969.

These are simple facts which are not in dispute by anyone including Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins. As such, we may conclude with absolute confidence that the Apollo 11 Mission was/is fraudulent.

you are basing all of that on an email written on a plane in 2007 with references and the best of ones knowledge. how do you know those were the exact coordinates given to wampler on the night? how do you know it wasnt something else like the projected flight plan coordinates which were 42' 50" north latitude, and 23 42' 28".. and than in the morning when they called than they got coordinates that were about 200m away??

hey look at that the latitude is 42'50" didnt wampler confuse the heavy texan accent as saying 50" instead of 15"?? in any case you do not know what the first coordinates were you are only assuming because you are reading a 37 year old memory with hind-sight knowledge. ever wondered why the coordinates in his account is in a different font?

I want to analyze "knowingly contaminated lunar rocks"

reply to post by choos


Say I am a geochemist and have an Apollo 11 contingency sample specimen that I am given the august responsibility of studying. I have to take into account that the specimen was contaminated by the rocket exhaust REGARDLESS. Armstrong did not walk away so far that this would not be a consideration. Now had he been in view of that camera, I would really have been keyed into that consideration, AND HE WAS SUPPOSED TO STAY IN VIEW OF THE CAMERA, collect the specimen right there. so he snuck away for this very reason. That Neil.... such a kidder ........

reply to post by decisively

I want to analyze "knowingly contaminated lunar rocks"

What would you expect to find? (Hint, I told you on one of your threads.) Have you reviewed the reports to confirm or falsify the presence of these products?

Originally posted by decisively
Say I am a geochemist and have an Apollo 11 contingency sample specimen that I am given the august responsibility of studying. I have to take into account that the specimen was contaminated by the rocket exhaust REGARDLESS. Armstrong did not walk away so far that this would not be a consideration. Now had he been in view of that camera, I would really have been keyed into that consideration, AND HE WAS SUPPOSED TO STAY IN VIEW OF THE CAMERA, collect the specimen right there. so he snuck away for this very reason. That Neil.... such a kidder ........

How far would someone need to walk in order to get a rock uncontaminated by propellant exhaust? I would think that unless the lunar lander was directly over an area upon approach and landing, that area should be free of propellant-contamination.

Therefore, just walk a few meters in the direction opposite the LEM's approach vector (or even perpendicular to the approach vector), and there should be plenty of uncontaminated rock.

reply to post by decisively


you are kidding right?? you know there are lots of photos of neil taking samples right??

there are even before and after photos..

and you know there was more than one camera right?? you have an issue of jumping to conclusions you know.



he was NOT "supposed" to stay in view, how come you believe you should know what they should or should not do? do you have the script? what authority do you have over the missions? you assume too much. there was never any plan to collect samples from directly under the LM, they would provide barely any value nor benefit.

I have to agree the suggestion that you would take back contaminated rocks instead of uncontaminated rocks is ridiculous. The only reason to do that is to prove to Decisively 60 years in the future that they were actually there. With weight and space being as precious as it was there is no way you would even consider doing this.

Now we all know what you are doing if you are really suggesting this. You can continue but you will do so with no face. It seems a lot of your arguments rely on illogical and irrational assumptions and suppositions.

In fact I believe your arguments rely on NASA being so irrational and illogical that if that was really the case there is no way in hell they would be proficient enough to do what you are claiming either. Therefore proofing yourself wrong even if you prove yourself right. Watch out back hole forming!

No, incorrect, PART 1

reply to post by PluPerfect



00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east were very accurate. These can also be written of course 0.6875 north and 23.4333 east. In 1987, using a more "modern" approach, Merton Davies and colleagues at RAND came up with these numbers; 0.67408 north and 23.47297. The LM and LRRR coordinates being of course slightly different. Davies coordinates written out in degrees, minutes, seconds are 00 40' 27" north and 23 28' 22".

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

The Davies' north coordinate and the "traditional" north coordinate differ by 0.6875-0.67408=0.01342 degrees.

The circumference of the moon at the equator is 6,784 miles and so each degree covers 18.84 miles. Davies' and the "traditional" north coordinate differ therefore by 0.253 miles or 1,335 feet. Davies' figure a bit more south.

Davies' east coordinate and the traditional east coordinate differ by 23.47297-23.4333=.0397 degrees, or 0.747 miles, Davies figure being further east.

The two points; 0.6875 north, 23.4333 east(traditional Apollo era coordinates) and 0.67408 north and 23.47297 east(Davies modern coordinates) are square root of;

((0.253X0.253) + (0.747X0.747))= square root of 0.064 + 0.558 = square root of 0.622 = 0.789 miles or 4166 feet distant from one another.

Davies' coordinates locates the LM, and for the purposes of this discussion the LRRR, roughly eight tenths of a mile to the south/east of the original coordinates(mostly east).

The best map of the day was this one, the USGS Post-Flight Geology Map Composite by Maurice Grolier from 1970;

www.hq.nasa.gov...

This is a composite map, its components as described here;

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Note in the carefully detailed Grolier Map referenced above how the landing site is surrounded by DISTINCTIVE identifying landmarks. So when Merton Davies of RAND came out in 1987 and said the landing site is at 0.67408 north and 23.47297 east he's not moving the landing site away from those landmarks and saying it is now roughly eight tenths of a mile to the east and a bit south of the landing point on Grolier's famous map. He is saying that the selenographic perspective has changed and now that point on the moon, TRANQUILITY BASE is called 0.67408 north and 43,47297 east. The landmarks and their relationship to the base have always been the same.

This is an easy exercise for anyone to do in terms of proving to oneself Apollo's Inauthenticity. Find the Apollo 11 Mission Report ;

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Go to page 5-15 and you will find the landing site coordinate table. This is Table 5-IV. Included in this table are all of the real time landing site coordinates for the Eagle's touch down, that is, the landing site coordinates given to the Apollo trajectory/guidance/navigation/flight specialists as determined in real time, that is at the time of touchdown by the powered flight processor which is the same as the MSFN, Primary Guidance Onboard Vector which is the same as PNGS, and the Abort Guidance Onboard Vector, same as the AGS landing site solution.

These three sets of figures, were the Eagle's real-time landing site solutions. Were any of this real, they would have been available to Armstrong/Aldrin/Collins and of course Houston, in real time. Those numbers as you see are;



NORTH/EAST


MSFN; 0.631, 23.47

PNGS; 0.649, 23.46

AGS; 0.639, 23.44


If you go down to footnote (a) one finds that these figures must be modified a bit to find the equivalent point on a map. To do this, one adds 2' 25" to the north coordinate which is the same as adding 0.04 degrees to the north coordinate. For the east, as one can read in the footnote, we subtract 4' 17" or equivalently, 0.071 degrees. So I'll do the chart over with the corrections;



NORTH/EAST


MSFN; 0.671, 23.40


PNGS; 0.689, 23.39



AGS; 0.679, 23.37

And at that time Tranquility Base was found on Grolier's beautiful map at 0.6875 North and 23.433 East. I will leave it to those motivated to find out how far away each of the above tabled real-time solutions were/are from the "Eagle's Landing Site" , very very close as you shall find. Use the Pythagorean method I employed above. Go through them one by one and you shall be in for a surprise.

No, incorrect , PART 2

Recall H. David Reed's fascinating account of all this. Reed of course was the launch FIDO, the man responsible for formulating a "launch solution", a way for the Eagle to find Michael Collins in the CMP's Columbia. Note how Reed's description of the MSFN, AGS, PNGS solutions available to him that morning were at odds with the above referenced numbers published in November 1969 in the Apollo 11 Mission Report. Reed's not lying and so NASA must be. Here's Reed from his chapter in the book FROM THE TRENCH OF MISSION CONTROL TO THE CRATERS OF THE MOON;


"After Apollo XI landed, as the World celebrated and sipped champagne, I slept in preparation for my shift prior to lunar launch. I would work with SELECT and DYNAMICS to get all the relative geometry down and work out the correct ignition time for return to the CSM.Piece of cake really. All we needed were landing site coordinates and a solid ephemeris on the CSM. I sat down at the console for that prelaunch shift and was debriefed by the previous team to complete hand-off. I probably had my second cup of coffee by then and got on the loop to SELECT to get the best landing site. I remember asking SELECT what he had for landing site coordinates. I’ll never forget his answer when he said, “take your pick.

FIDO!” I also remember not reacting too positively to his offer. He explained that we had five different sites. He said “we have MSFN(tracking radars), PNGS (primary LM guidance computer), AGS(backup LM guidance computer), the targeted landing site and, oh yes, the geologist have determined yet another site based upon the crew’s description of the landscape and correlating that with orbiter photos”. No two of these were even close to each other. It was the DYNAMICS computer controller, Pete Williams who catalyzed the solution. He said that if we only had rendezvous radar

tracking data from the LM on the CSM we could work the problem backward. After all, we knew where the CSM was and the problem was a relative one between the CSM and the LM, not actually requiring latitude and longitude. To do this we would need to have the rendezvous radar (RR) turned on in the LM one revolution earlier than planned. Only two more passes of the CSM remained before Ascent ignition, before we had to have a solution to this problem! I remember taking my headset off and walking up to the Flight Director, Milt Windler to explain the situation. We only used that kind of face to face communication when we had a serious problem such as this. I detailed the problem as best we knew it and the process that we’d have to follow to get the data we needed, and why we had to start a rev early to finish the calculations and then find the critical lift-off time for lunar launch. I recall the CapCom instructing Buzz Aldrin that we needed him to perform the RR check early but I don’t believe that CapCom explained why, just another check was all. Shaft & trunnion angles were passed up to aid acquisition. Right on time as the CSM cleared the horizon we began seeing data. We counted the agonizing minutes as the telemetry came flowing in until the CSM was receding. Now we had the data we needed to run the problem (a rendezvous problem in reverse) and get the correct liftoff time*. And that’s what we used. Later we would find out just where were we on the surface. We were actually over 25,000 feet from the nearest of the other five choices we had! At 5,000-fps orbital velocity of the CSM that could have been up to a ten second error in liftoff. That would have meant we’d need a LOT of RCS (reaction control system fuel) to play catch up or slow down in a rather abnormal (I don’t recall train- ing for this one) rendezvous situation."

So according to H. David Reed, the person to whom the numbers in the above tables would have been most important, the figures NASA published in their November 1969 Apollo 11 Mission Report were 4 to 5 miles at least from the numbers he was provided that morning FOR THE VERY SAME MSFN, PNGS, AGS EAGLE LANDING SITE SOLUTIONS.

As such, we conclude with absolute confidence that the Apollo 11 Mission was fraudulent as indeed all of Apollo is, and that the man responsible for the keeping of these numbers, mathematician and trajectory specialist EMIL SCHIESSER IS A PERP.

One last comment PluPerfect as regards your own comment, one cannot say that one knows the distance to the moon within several meters without knowing EXACTLY where it is the photons are returning from. The moon's surface is curved of course and the DISTANCE OF THE PHOTON'S FLIGHT WILL DEPEND ON THE LRRR TARGETED SITE.