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

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 29 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


Which coordinate system were each of these expressed in? Were they all the same? You yourself seem to be aware that a transformation needs to be applied to the RAND coordinates, yet you do not explain why. Which ones are in the currently accepted planetocentric system, which in the Mean Earth/Polar Access system and which in the Principal Axis system? If you don't know, you're comparing apples to oranges. In any event, it doesn't matter. The LM and CSM had direct ranging capability, that's all they need.

Edit to add: By the way, the length of a degree of longitude varies with latitude. A navigator would know that.
edit on 29-5-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 29 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Have a go yourself young man, it is a fascinating subject no, this aspect of the fraud ? My favorite, the LOST BIRD stuff.

It was a turning point in the course of things for my colleagues and myself. Theretofore, we had been only doing medical stuff. I read Reed's book chapter and immediately identified the contradiction as did two of my other friends. They too had purchased the book as I had, for the express purpose of reading Reed's story. We contacted Lick Observatory and were informed that they were told(the Lick Observatory astronomers) the coordinates provided(by Houston on the evening of 07/20/1969) were accurate to within TENS OF FEET.

We realized that from a practical standpoint, studying Apollo is all about studying contradictions.

The best way to bust a PERP'S chops is not by way of examining rocks, but to catch one in an intractable LIE, and so with regard to the world renown EMIL SCHIESSER, mathematician and trajectory specialist (SO NOT !!!!), we have done that, and so now his name is added to the Apollo WALL OF SHAME, and indeed the list grows, does it ever. We have nailed several dozen PERPS already.
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: caps
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: added "(the Lick Observatory astronomers)" and "(by Houston on the evening of 07/20/1969)"
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: caps
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: to> by way of



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



Have a go yourself young man, it is a fascinating subject no, this aspect of the fraud ? My favorite, the LOST BIRD stuff.


With pleasure, but first I need to know which coordinate system each is in. You do know don't you? Doing the math is pointless unless you know what transformations you need to make. So... which of the three principle systems is each of your three different coordinates in?



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 

Coordinates are given by NASA in both Decimal Degrees and Degrees Minutes Seconds



The Apollo 11 Mission Report Table 5-IV lists the coordinates in Decimal Degrees (en.wikipedia.org...). For the most part, that is straight forward.

There is one exception, there are two entries for photography. Keep in mind this is not a real time solution. These figures were derived AFTER THE ALLEGED RETURN TO EARTH. And as a matter of fact, these numbers, the photography figures were considered THE CORRECT FIGURES as you'll see.

The first set of photography figures are given in the table in decimal degrees as 0.647 north and 23.505 east. If we do the correction and add 0.04 to the north coordinate one finds 0.687 north. For the east, one subtracts 0.07 and finds 23.435 east. These Decimal Degree figures do not appear in the table, but the table does feature these numbers converted to their Degrees/Minutes/Seconds form(www.cpearson.com... transition.fcc.gov...). They list in table 5-IV for the photography based solution; 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east. I find 00 41' 13 and change and 23 26' 06" doing the conversion from Decimal Degrees to Degrees/Minutes/Seconds myself, but no big there.

So the table features mostly Decimal Degrees with the one Degrees/Minutes/Seconds exception for the non real-time photography solution as above, the non real-time photography solution corrected for the trajectory to map consideration.

This is as clear as I can be given the information available to me. I have made some effort to locate Davies' original paper unsuccessfully.

Regardless, I believe the Reed comments speak for themselves. As do the comments of the Lick Observatory astronomers which are consistent with the "story" as I present it. My version is one in which NASA more or less has FOREKNOWLEDGE of the landing site coordinates. They gave the numbers to astronomer Joseph Wampler on the evening of 07/20/1969 and then turned around and claimed they did not have those same numbers until 08/01/1969. They did this because were the number actually known in real time, the fraud might have been exposed right then and there with no astronauts to confirm a McDonald blue green laser firing and what not. So Reed is given bogus numbers, he solves by way of a reverse radar solution which works, BUT IMPORTANTLY UNDER THAT SCENARIO, THE ACCURACY OF REED'S LANDING SITE FIGURES CAN REMAIN SAFELY AMBIGUOUS FOR AT LEAST SOME TIME UNTIL AFTER THE ASTRONAUTS RETURN AND PHOTOS AND FLIGHT DATA ARE CAREFULLY STUDIED. No one knew how good/accurate Reed's numbers were until the official landing site coordinates were announced 08/01/1969.

Note, the astronomers expect the correct numbers so NASA must cough those up, give them to the Lick Observatory staff, but the bogus JPL program prevents the astronomers from confirming the Eagle's landing site as in fact at 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00 " east on the night of 07/20/1969-07/21/1969(am). See; www.abovetopsecret.com...

Not a bad scam, may have held up pretty well were it not for Reed's book. But with Reed's testimony we now have the man most relevant/important to the Eagle launch telling us very directly, very explicitly, that the Apollo 11 Mission Report is bogus, is full on fraudulent. Note in the Reed telling how were he to have had the coordinates, the solution would have been a piece of cake. Again, from the book FROM THE TRENCH OF MISSION CONTROL TO THE CRATERS OF THE MOON;


" 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. "

Carefully note this comment of Reed's as well;


"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!"

Reed stated that the problem was a relative one, one in which what they desired was to know/understand the dynamic relationship between the LM and CM. The latitude and longitude per se were not required. To be sure , but if one knows the dynamic relationship between the CM and LM, then as we know the details regarding CM dynamics, we then have the landing site in latitude and longitude as well. So it turns out that it is two ways of saying the same thing in a sense, and indeed working the rendezvous radar solution did provide landing site coordinates as I so just suggested. The rendezvous radar solution coordinates are listed in the Apollo 11 Mission Report table 5-IV in their uncorrected form as 0.636 north and 23.50 east. Correcting we have, 0.676 north and 23.43 east, few hundred meters from the LM at most at 0.6875 and 23.433 east.

So that's the best I can do DJW001. If you are looking for something else , it is information i do not have. Perhaps you can enlighten us. I am sure H. David would appreciate your clarifications.

edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: period, caps, comma, added "Decimal Degree", added "for the photography based solutioin", "doing the conversion from Decimal Degrees to Degrees minutes Seconds myself"
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: fixing link
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: fixing link
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: fixing link
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: gave up, try a different link
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: added slashes//////, caps
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: slash added /
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: apostrophe, caps, comma, added "No on e knew how good/accurate Reed's numbers were until the official landing site coordinates were announced 08/01/1969".
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: does > do
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: added LOST BIRD THREAD LINK AND " Note, the astronomers expect the correct numbers so NASA must cough those up, but the bogus JPL program prevents the astronomers from confirming the Eagle's landing siote as in fact at 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00 " east."
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: spelling
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: added "on the night of 07/20/1969-07/21/1969(am)"
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: period
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: added "had" and comma
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: period, removed "and that", "as well", period , removed "and", they> rendezvous radar sollution coordinates, added "table 5-IV"



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


Sheesh!

Your entire post is an example of furious back-pedaling in an hysterical frenzy!

Your are wrong at the outset in saying that Latitude/Longitude to merely the roughness of only a single minute of each is "precise". It is not.

All of the rest of your lathering, and the reference to 1987 (??) just clouds the issue, and further indicates the desperation to make it overly complicated......in order to obscure the failure of the initial premise.

But, please continue.....it's quite amusing to watch.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by PluPerfect
 

Please enlighten us as to the need for the rendezvous radar solution



You my friend are not aware of the basic facts as regards the Apollo 11 narrative now are you ?

Would you be so kind as to EXPLICITLY and DIRECTLY favor us with your own interpretation of H. David Reed's dilemma/problem.

He came to work on the morning of 07/21/1969 expecting to easily determine a launch solution for the Eagle, based on accurate landing site coordinates he had anticipated as a matter of course would simply be forthcoming. Yet, HE HAD TO PERFORM A REVERSE RENDEZVOUS RADAR CALCULATION TO DETERMINE THE EAGLE/CM RELATIONSHIP. They never drilled for that in the context of this Apollo 11 Mission, explored that as an anticipated problem in a simulation for this mission, viewed it as a contingency for this mission.

So pray tell PluPerfect, why did Reed have to run a rendezvous radar solution, a solution that he never had anticipated having to run in this context, for this mission, something Reed NEVER drilled for in this particular context, launch of the Eagle from the surface of the moon ? What happened ? Please enlighten us.......
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: added "11"
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: removed "explicit"
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: comma
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: added "?"



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by benrl
 

Multiple Apollo Fraud threads are appropriate and useful



I like to work with multiple threads. Say this topic, "well after the fact transparently and ever so contrived covering", is something that I do not post on for a while, and I have been active on another thread, say the "PERP LIST". And furthermore, say I come across something new and exciting as regards the topic of astronaut "well after the fact transparently and ever so contrived covering". I don't want in that case to start posting in the PERP LIST thread about the subject of astronaut well after the fact transparently and ever so contrived covering, so instead I post in the thread of that very same subject and so forth and so on.

Apollo is WAY TOO BROAD to work in a single thread. That really makes no sense.

Tonight I was posting some on the "Bart Sibrel is a PERP" thread . That doesn't belong here on the "well after the fact transparently and ever so contrived covering" thread, only unless I might want to use it as a bit of evidence to suggest/show/demonstrate some aspect of Apollo fraud generically.
edit on 27-5-2012 by decisively because: spelling
edit on 27-5-2012 by decisively because: added quotes


WTF did you just say?



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by NightGypsy
 


I said just that. Have an interest in the recent Revelation as regards Bart Sibrel being discovered to be an Apollo Fraud Perpetrator ?????



Well if you do, you can have a look here and your curiosity won't interfere with the flow of this thread......

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Makes fabulous sense, really does.

And if you would like to post your own Bart Sibrel video response, you can do it there.
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: added "??????", spacing
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: comma



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


On the contrary:


You my friend are not aware of the basic facts as regards the Apollo 11 narrative now are you ?


I daresay I know a great deal more than you, based on what I've seen in posts so far.

You seem to have an inflated idea about the method of launch from the Lunar surface in order to achieve the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous.....the "exact" location of the LM, down to the tiniest millimeter, was not required. Not in the slightest, for a "solution" to be calculated.

BTW....did you know that Aldrin was obsessed with orbital rendezvous dynamics? It was well-known within the Astronaut ranks....he was what some might call a "geek" about it...a "math geek", sort of.

The stories have been written, in memoirs from the past....Aldrin would go on and on and on about it, excitedly describing the process, until he bored his listeners.

Speaking of boredom.....why not post something of value, here? Instead of pedantic nonsense?

Here, also possibly in the realm of boredom...this video (in two parts, because of YouTube restrictions). It describes in excruciating detail the actual processes used for both the powered descent to land on the Moon, and the subsequent launch from the surface, and rendezvous in orbit. IN fact, I presume it to have been one of the films that all Apollo astronauts were shown, in order to educate them on the procedures (or perhaps it was designed for the press (??):

(Part 1 of 2)


( Check out the cool bongos, man!!
So "1960s".....That's craaaazy, man!! )

(Part 2 of 2)


Please, pay VERY close attention....to Jules Bergman (he's the narrator). Yeah, I know that short attention spans are common in today's youth, but "buck up" and stay with it! Take some notes.......

(edit)...watched it again ... TAKE NOTE in Part 1, at time 11:00.....when the narrator says, quite clearly, "...regardless of accumulated errors....."

Do you see, yet?

The only "location" information needed for the LM, on the surface, was its approximate position. ALL the rest of the rendezvous 'solutions' could then be calculated, "on the fly" as it were....in orbit.

The video makes it quite clear as to the procedures involved....IF one pays attention.....






edit on 29-5-2012 by PluPerfect because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by PluPerfect
 

You did not answer my very simple question



You did not answer my simple question. Explain what happened to H. David Reed. He NEVER EXPECTED TO HAVE TO CALCULATE A REVERSE RADAR SOLUTION.

You are not actually engaging me directly. You are off topic to be precise. Your points have NOTHING to do with the specific contradiction I am emphasizing here.

These postings of mine are about a very specific contradiction between comments made by FIDO H. David Reed and alleged real-time Apollo 11 Mission data as NASA published in its Apollo 11 Mission Report. My challenge to you is SPECIFIC AND EXPLICIT.

Reed says one thing and the Mission Report authors published another. Please read the relevant references provided above. I care not for your tangential distracting comments which are utterly irrelevant to my points regarding this fatal contradiction of NASA's. Both Reed and NASA cannot be correct, and I say Reed is the one NOT LYING because he has no reason to. Do you disagree with me ? Is Reed the one mistaken or LYING here ?

Perhaps he is the one who is mistaken ? Perhaps he has not his facts straight ?
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: added "Your points have NOTHING to do with the specific contradiction I am emphasizing here.
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: added " between comments made by FIDO H. David Reed's and alleged real-time Apollo 11 Mission data as NASA published in its Apollo 11 Mission Report."
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: added "NASA's" and made> pointed out
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: removed "the"
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: spacing
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: added "authors" publish> published
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: removed
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: period
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: added "the" "who is"



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



You did not answer my very simple question


You did not answer my simple question. Explain what happened to H. David Reed. He NEVER EXPECTED TO HAVE TO CALCULATE A REVERSE RADAR SOLUTION.


You wrote and posted this only eight minutes after my post, just above.

You did not watch the two videos.

Tsk. Tsk.

Your "questions" are answered, there.

(edit)...PLEASE note also, in Part 2 of the video, above:

In the event of a landing abort (which never occurred during Apollo, but was planned for as a contingency), the "timing" of the Ascent stage of the LM, and its "exact" location certainly would not be known.....POINT is, the dynamics of orbital rendezvous solutions allow for flexibility.

Just watch the videos!! It is clearly illustrated, there.
edit on 29-5-2012 by PluPerfect because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   

The two videos were reviewed and neither address my specific questions

reply to post by PluPerfect
 



By the way, I have viewed these on several occasions previously, with a microscope no less, as many might imagine, given my group's intense interest in this, a very favorite subject of ours.

But please, let's get on with it, to the FACTS....

First of all, neither video explains why Reed was not provided with fairly accurate landing site coordinates when he arrived on duty the morning of 07/21/1969. Reed expected such coordinates. He initially hoped to employ them in his "piece of cake" launch solution. (See my posts just above where Reed is quoted using this term "piece of cake" in the context of how easy a solution would be were reasonably accurate coordinates to be so provided.)

Secondly, the videos do not explain why the 5 solutions that were provided to Reed; MSFN, PNGS, AGS, geology/maps, targeted site, were at least 4-5 miles distant from one another and 4-5 miles distant from the ultimately confirmed site at 0.6875 north and 23.433 east. Reed expected the coordinates for these 5 solution to be roughly similar, at least the MSFN, AGS and PNGS solutions.

Thirdly, the videos do not explain my explicit and direct question as to WHY any of this occurred at all. Why was there any need for a reverse rendezvous radar calculation ? This should not have been the case, or it would have been drilled for regularly and intensively by Reed and colleagues prior to the Apollo 11 Saturn V launch on 07/16/1969. Reed never anticipated having to solve for the CM/LM dynamic relationship in such a way when he awoke that morning.

Finally, AND MOST SIGNIFICANTLY, IMPORTANTLY, AND FOR NASA, DAMNINGLY, Reed says the MSFN, AGS, and PNGS solutions given to him on the morning of 07/21/1969 were all AT LEAST 4-5 MILES DISTANT FROM ONE ANOTHER. If we look at the Apollo 11 Mission Report, we find the MSFN, AGS and PNGS solutions much much closer to one another, and all very close to Tranquility Base as the base's coordinates ultimately came to be selenographically defined on 08/01/1969 at 0.6875 north and 23.433 east.

I invite all forum members to review PluPerfect's videos to confirm this to be true. The videos in no way answer these questions, not even in a remotely indirect way.

I would suggest that you withdraw your ridiculous claim as to the value of these videos.


edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: comma
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: comma
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: aqdded "to be"
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: added semicolon
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: added "thirdly", "this" and "or it would have been drilled for regularly and intensivley by Reed and colleageues prior to the Apollo 11 Saturn V launch on 07/16/1969"
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: comma
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: added "to one another", "and all", they> the base's", were> came to be
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: spelling
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: comma
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: comma, added "the"
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: ,>.
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: comma



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


THIS is irrelevant:


First of all, neither video explains why Reed was not provided with fairly accurate landing site coordinates when he arrived on duty the morning of 07/21/1969.


Did you look up the definition of "pedantic" yet?

pedantic


pe·dan·tic (p-dntk)
adj.

Characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules: a pedantic attention to details.


(sound familiar?)


(edit): BTW....what say you about the NASA video (in two parts, because of YouTube restraints)?

Care to address the mechanics of orbital rendezvous procedures, as outlined in the video(s)??

Shall I prepare a "test" and a "quiz" to ascertain whether the information "sank in"?
edit on 29-5-2012 by PluPerfect because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by PluPerfect
 

Apollo is fraudulent, of this we can all be sure.



My points stand, and they are not only excellent, but outright DAMNING FOR NASA AND ITS MORE THAN PATHETICALLY BOGUS TALE ABOUT FRAUDULENT APOLLO AND THE COWARDLY PERPS THAT RIPPED US OFF BLIND AND TRY AND FEED US RANCID BULL ON A DAILY BASIS.

Call me what you like PluPerfect, my colleagues/my physician friends and I , not to mention ATS's own talented SayonaraJupiter, we have indeed settled this issue, whether you care to admit it or not.

I see when pushed you had no response to my claims as regards the Reed/Apollo Mission Report FATAL INTERNAL INCOHERENCY.

Apollo is fraudulent, of this we can all be sure.
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: spelling
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: comma



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



Coordinates are given by NASA in both Decimal Degrees and Degrees Minutes Seconds


That's not what I asked. I asked which coordinate system each set of coordinates were given in. The fact that you do not even understand the question speaks volumes. In keeping with my policy of keeping my own responses to you under 500 charcters, I will simply cut and paste:


6.0 LUNAR FIXED REFERENCE FRAME
Two slightly different reference systems are commonly used to orient the lunar body-fixed coordinate system. One is the Mean Earth/Polar Axis (ME) system that will be used at all times for PDS archival products. The other is the axis of figure system, also called the Principal Axis (PA) system, which may be used internally to the SOCs and LRO instrument teams for specific applications. These reference systems are described below.

6.1 MEAN EARTH / POLAR AXIS LUNAR REFERENCE SYSTEM
The Mean Earth/Polar Axis (ME) system defines the z-axis as the mean rotational pole. The Prime Meridian (0˚ Longitude) is defined by the mean Earth direction. The intersection of the lunar Equator and Prime Meridian occurs at what can be called the Moon’s “mean sub-Earth point”. The concept of a lunar “sub-Earth point” derives from the fact that the Moon’s rotation is tidally locked to the Earth. The actual sub-Earth point on the Moon varies slightly due to orbital eccentricity, inclination, and other factors. So a “mean sub-Earth point” is used to define
the point on the lunar surface where Longitude equals 0˚. This point does not coincide with any prominent crater or other lunar surface feature. LRO instrument teams shall deliver data to the PDS with planetocentric coordinates in the ME system only. This is consistent with heritage PDS datasets like those from Clementine. Using coordinates in the ME system is consistent with the recommendations of the IAU/IAG Working Group
on Cartographic Coordinates and Rotational Elements of the Planets and Satellites. The ME system with planetocentric coordinates shall also be adopted by the LRO Project and instrument teams for the purposes of operations planning, observational targeting, geographic identification of lunar landforms, and inter-mission communications.



Planetocentric Longitude is measured from the Prime Meridian (0˚ Longitude) toward the East (to the right), in the direction of rotation for a prograde body, with the Longitude values increasing from 0˚ toward 360˚. Conversion to lunar map and image products that use the planetocentric ME system with the +180˚ East / -180˚ West convention is easily performed with the appropriate arithmetic.

Planetocentric Latitude is the angle between the equatorial plane and a vector from the center of mass to the point on the surface. Planetocentric Latitude is measured from 0˚ at the Equator to 90˚ at either pole, and is defined as positive in the northern hemisphere and negative in the southern hemisphere. Planetocentric North is in the hemisphere of the north pole of the Ecliptic.

6.2 PRINCIPAL AXIS LUNAR REFERENCE SYSTEM
The Principal Axis (PA) system is a lunar body-fixed rotating coordinate system whose axes are defined by the principal axes of the Moon. Due to the fact that the Moon is not truly a synchronously rotating triaxial ellipsoid, the PA and ME rotation axes do not coincide. The axes of the two systems differ by about 1 km at the lunar surface. The PA coordinate system is especially useful for dynamical studies in areas such as gravity field determination and lunar laser ranging (LLR). LRO instrument teams may use either the ME or PA reference systems internally. However, data will be delivered to the PDS with coordinates in the ME system only.

Data for any epoch can be oriented into the PA system by using the current Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) ephemeris, referred to as a Developmental Ephemeris (DE). DE421 is the ephemeris selected by the LRO Data Working Group (LDWG) for the LRO mission at the time of this writing, but the LDWG could adopt a successor DE for the LRO mission in the future. Data can be oriented into the ME system by applying the rotational difference to that system appropriate to the given ephemeris. Data can also be oriented to these systems by directly tying the data to previously established reference frames in the given system (e.g., LLR or image-based reference frames in either system).


pds-imaging.jpl.nasa.gov...

So again, I ask you, which coordinate system is each result in?



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


More "blustering" and tomfoolery?:


I see when pushed you had no response to my claims as regards the Reed/Apollo Mission Report FATAL INTERNAL INCOHERENCY.


Do, please....re-iterate this "Reed/Apollo Mission Report" again....I want to see it, in its entirety.

(PS.....have you not yet WATCHED the NASA videos that I posted, above??? Because, I am preparing a short quiz, for you....based on the videos.....).



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   

I am hardly pedantic in any sense

reply to post by PluPerfect
 


My best skills bar none are my swimming strokes, butterfly in particular. I prefer a swimming pool to this, studying Apollo, to be sure. But duty calls as I said. It is a matter of self respect and simple all American pride, patriotism.

This will not stand......

Sorry Neil, as I am fond of saying, "Don't urinate on my back and tell me that it is raining".....

edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: removed comma, period, added cooma
edit on 29-5-2012 by decisively because: caps



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


YOUR "QUIZ":

(Part One)

1) Define the acronym "TLI"

2) Explain why the Apollo spacecraft decelerated as it approached the Moon....use common layperson explanations, no higher math is necessary

3) Describe these basics terms, and the concepts behind them:

  • Phase Angle

  • Height Differential

    (THAT should be enough, for you to "chew on", for now....)....

    I am excitedly anticipating your answers to this first part of the "quiz".....

    edit on 29-5-2012 by PluPerfect because: (no reason given)



  • posted on May, 29 2012 @ 03:04 PM
    link   
    reply to post by MrXYZ
     


    Don't even bother trying to argue with this lunatic. Read his other threads. His same old arguments have been explained away repeatedly, and yet he continues to make new threads repeating the same thing again and again.

    At one point he even claimed to be a "physician" to attempt to give credence to his uneducated opinions regarding the health conditions of certain astronauts. After this claim, and a few google searches, it was found out by myself and a couple other people that the OP enjoys going to many different forums posting the same BS, his age is actually 18, and he gets banned and met with the same responses every place he posts. I have a feeling ATS will be no different, and he will be struck down with the ban hammer sooner or later. For now, it is best to just ignore this delusional fool. He believes he has "uncovered the greatest hoax in American history," yet does nothing but post on forums and make dumb youtube videos. Never once has he supplied proof of anything, or shown knowledge of basic science. It seems common sense is not so common.
    edit on 5-29-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)



    posted on May, 29 2012 @ 03:07 PM
    link   
    reply to post by decisively
     


    That is actually a "Judge Judy" knock-off so-called "quote":


    Sorry Neil, as I am fond of saying, "Don't urinate on my back and tell me that it is raining".....


    It's "Don't Pee on My Leg, and Tell Me It's Raining".

    Look, here:

    www.amazon.com...

    TRY again.......





    top topics
     
    7
    << 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

    log in

    join