The Apollo Missions Are Prerecorded And The Quindar Tones Mark Where The CapComs Edit In

reply to post by DJW001


DJW001,

i presume this is from a later mission such as 15 on

assuming so i would ask what changed between apollo 14 and 15 that now they are saying that landmark there is such and such

i really do not know the answer to this yet and was trying to bait someone into discussing it with me

apollo 11 through 14 where they never found cone crater were missions where they never took pics of anything that was a definite like a cone crater would be

i assume the reason is that they were not capable technically of faking stuff that way during apollo 11-14

even with apollo 15 you hear dave scott say they were surprised how the features were not as sharp as they anticipated

the craters were much more soft featured and non descript than they imagined

of course because if they tried to make them clear cut gene shoemaker or another geologist would say that the crater there was not what they claimed it to be and was fake

so yes they do start to image things beginning with apollo 15 and say "look at that big mountain it is Hadley" or some such nonsense

reply to post by decisively

apollo 11 through 14 where they never found cone crater were missions where they never took pics of anything that was a definite like a cone crater would be

This looks pretty definite to me:





www.nasa.gov...

reply to post by DJW001


yes and no,

finding evidence of equipment on the moon is not proof that men put the equipment there by way of LM landings

many of us believe the apollo missions were covers for programs to place military equipment on the moon and elsewhere by unmanned means

those of us that share this view expect there to be images confirming the presence of military equipment at landing sites

we of course would like a closer look

we all see white specks and now what are those things really there ?

reply to post by decisively

many of us believe the apollo missions were covers for programs to place military equipment on the moon and elsewhere by unmanned means

Why would anyone want to place military equipment on the Moon?

reply to post by DJW001


by the way the featureless moon image there is what i was referring to if the fony surveyor was not there it could be kitty hawk north carolina for anyone knows

just kidding but you get the point

thanks to charlie by the way for keeping me company tonight and helping me with the grammar on the posts !

reply to post by DJW001



well for openers you can not take it out

the navy bounced transmissions off the moon before apollo was fully hatched

the LRRR gives the earth moon distance and so the earths gravitational field strength which is needed for ICBM targeting

you can use the moon as a relay base

if you put equipment in the libration points you can see the whole earth pretty much except for a little of the backside 24/7 good for surveillance and reconnaissance and can't take those satellites out

there are physical constants useful for weapons systems such as gravitational variations over the earth and so forth that can only be determined from space at least then

did you know even before we had equipment there we heard the russian ICBM telemetry as it bounced off the moon ?

reply to post by decisively

well for openers you can not take it out

Why not? A base on the Moon is exactly as vulnerable to attack from the Earth as a base on the Earth is vulnerable to an attack from the Moon.

the navy bounced transmissions off the moon before apollo was fully hatched

Irrelevant. Many people bounced radar off the Moon.

the LRRR gives the earth moon distance and so the earths gravitational field strength which is needed for ICBM targeting

It would take days for a warhead to reach Earth from the Moon, during which time the target will have moved.

you can use the moon as a relay base

To relay what, exactly?

if you put equipment in the libration points you can see the whole earth pretty much except for a little of the backside 24/7 good for surveillance and reconnaissance and can't take those satellites out

The Earth is only 2 degrees wide from the Moon. It would be impossible to see anything smaller than a few kilometers across. Low Earth Orbit satellites are better for surveillance, and can be replaced more rapidly if they are taken out.

there are physical constants useful for weapons systems such as gravitational variations over the earth and so forth that can only be determined from space at least then

ICBMs work just fine. Regional variations in the Earth's gravity field are minor, and can be ignored in calculating a missile's trajectory.

did you know even before we had equipment there we heard the russian ICBM telemetry as it bounced off the moon ?

I think you may be misunderstanding something there.

reply to post by decisively


the plan was to get location based off of what neil saw out the window, when that failed they went to ground data. im not sure if the ground data included MSFN. when they failed they gave up and used the rendezvous radar, which gave accurate results. their final result was good and accurate, im not 100% sure if it involved the MSFN but they did use the rendezvous radar.

the reason why the lick observatory could not find the LM was because they (the observatory of all things) was apparently not where they were expected to be.

Every detail of the experiment was examined carefully. It took weeks to finally locate the source of the error within the computer program JPL had used to generate the expected timing for the return signal. They quite reasonably had assumed that Lick Observatory (LO) was where the American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac (predecessor of the Astronomical Almanac) said it was, which in turn and equally reasonably listed the observatory location as given by the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (USCGS). USCGS thought LO was where their Lick Observatory benchmark was placed. Their benchmark was in the parking lot west of the Main Building, 1700 feet from the 3m telescope.

www.ucolick.org...

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by decisively

 

they never go to an identifiable place on the moon so they do not have to image it or even be imaged in a reverse sense by a laser from McDonald Observatory

Explain this:

www.nasa.gov...

Picture on the left was created by JAXA software CGI in 2008.
Picture on the right is a front screen projection from 1971.

It's like comparing digital apples to organic oranges.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Picture on the left was created by JAXA software CGI in 2008.
Picture on the right is a front screen projection from 1971.

I'll give you 25 out of 100. The image on the left is a digital visualization. We have discussed why the image on the right cannot be front projection elsewhere.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Picture on the left was created by JAXA software CGI in 2008.
Picture on the right is a front screen projection from 1971.

I'll give you 25 out of 100. The image on the left is a digital visualization. We have discussed why the image on the right cannot be front projection elsewhere.

The image on the right, it might be CGI, too. Like the Stealth LRV from Apollo 17.

reply to post by choos


You are missing the point choos.

The reverse radar solution was alleged to be 200 meters or so from Tranquility Base actual. In essence, on top of it.

But H. David Reed himself says that the reverse radar solution(and Tranquility Base essentially) was AT LEAST 25.000 feet/4.7 miles from the MSFN solution. Here is the Reed quote again;

"We were actually over 25,000 feet from the nearest of the other five choices we had!"

Recall MSFN was/is one of those 5 choices.

So Reed says on the morning of 07/21/1969 his own trajectory people, the big cheese puff Emil Schiesser the Shyster and the rest of the cons on the inside, TOLD HIM THE MSFN SOLUTION WAS 4.7 MILES FROM WHERE THEY REPORTED IT TO BE IN THEIR PAPER WORK.

And the $125,000,000,000 question is why would they lie to Reed and tell him that the MSFN solution was 4.7 miles from where they reported/published it to be ? And the answer is that none of this is real and they lied to David Reed because the Eagle is actually NOWHERE, nowhere on the moon anyhoo, not with men anyway.

Get it?

reply to post by decisively


nope i read the the radar rendezvous method was 200m off the actual location:

121:08:05 Evans: And when the LM does his P22 on your transponder, well then, that'll be our last shot at the LM's position.

121:08:14 Collins: Rog. Understand. (Pause)

[The LM crew will track the Command Module as it passes over the landing site for the last time prior to launch and, with the Command Module orbit well known, in principle the tracking data will help pin down the landing site. At 123:55:23, about a half hour before liftoff, Ron gives Mike a final LM location of J.5/7.7, which is only about 200 meters from the actual landing site at J.65/7.54. Mike will be too busy during that pass over the landing site to look for the LM.]

www.hq.nasa.gov...

you must be confusing something:

The Doppler residual was computed by comparing the
velocity measured along the earth-moon line-of-sight by ground tracking
with the same velocity component computed by the primary system. As the
lunar module approached powered descent initiation, the Doppler residual
began to increase in magnitude to about 13 ft/sec. Since the earth-moon
line-of-sight vector was almost normal to the velocity vector at this
point, the residual indicated that the primary system estimate of its
state vector was approximately 21 000 feet uprange of the actual state
vector. This same error was also reflected in the real-time comparisons
made using the powered flight processor previously mentioned.

www.hq.nasa.gov...
pg 5-3

that was the initial MSFN solution provided i believe.



p.s. even if the LM was not lost and every one could pinpoint the exact location of the LM including the lick observatory. They still would NOT have gotten a hit because they were not in the position that they were assumed to be.


p.p.s. verbal abuse and slander of people will get you no where but a ban.

reply to post by choos


Let's take it step by step...

Step one, an outline of the circumstance, H. David Reed comes into work on the morning of 07/21/1969 and it is his responsibility to formulate the launch solution for the Eagle. The first thing he would like to know from his SELECT officer, and the first thing he asks about is, "what are the specifics as regards the landing site coordinate solutions available to us". And as per his own personal account in his chapter of the book FROM THE TRENCH OF MISSION CONTROL TO THE CRATERS OF THE MOON, Reed is provided with five landing site solutions from the MSFN, AGS, PNGS, geolosists/maps/images and targeted landing site.

Step two, we can solve our apparent misunderstanding by your answering two very simple questions.


1) On the morning of 07/21/1969, what was the MSFN landing site solution for the Eagle given to H. David Reed? Cite your source, reference.

2) What was the MSFN landing site solution for the Eagle published in the Apollo 11 Mission Report ?

It is clear that we are answering these questions in different ways. Perhaps it is because we have different sources. I believe I have been clear as regards how I answered them, why my answers are what they are. Now you must do the same. What was Reed told and by whom? When he came to work, he was given MSFN derived numbers, what were they ? AND , What were the MSFN numbers published in the Apollo 11 Mission Report and as known to NASA at the time Reed came on duty the morning of 07/21/1969.

reply to post by decisively


first things first.

how does the MSFN obtain a solution of the LM when it is stationary??

i am not sure how the MSFN works exactly so i need to know this first.

from what i understand it gets range and range rate, which requires motion. so i am not sure at all how it can obtain a solution on a stationary LM

reply to post by choos


Mechanism aside. I am simply asking for the numbers. Look up the MSFN Eagle landing site solution in the Apollo 11 Mission Report. It is in table 5-IV. What are those numbers ?

reply to post by choos


Not to ignore your point, Neil Armstrong addressed it himself and it is reported in his authorized biography FIRST MAN, lack of movement, in Armstrong's view, affected MSFN' ability to track the Eagle. that said, it was tracked with some degree of accuracy. so again, what were the numbers ? The idea is to see if the tracking was not good, well how bad then was it. So, the numbers ? Table 5-IV ? What are they for MSFN ? Are they bad ?

Reply to post by decisively

i study apollo a lot mostly because i learned it was sony when i read parts about how the astronauts said they sighted stars i am a sailor but mostly a navigator and have won many awards with my sextant even when i was a little boy and this is how i learned apollo was fony comparing the astronauts stores with how i do things and know about sighting stars

Can someone please explain how this thread has gone on for so many pages when you have something like this in the op?

Trying to reason with someone who has this publicly displayed mental ability is just plain sad.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by gameisupman


Well, that was a message intended not for you. Best to call it a subtext and leave it at that, espionage type stuff you know, just like Apollo.

Back to the thread's themes, so what say you as regards the quindar tone idea ? Do you buy in ?

reply to post by decisively


I use a walkie talkie on my boat every day and I know what PTT push to talk means and if you don't use it (the walkie talkie) right you cut off what you're saying and that is like the quindar tone that sometimes cuts off what the astronauts say because it is like a walkie talkie PTT and if it were because the what the astronauts were saying is pre-recorded and mission control was edited in then that wouldn't happen because it was edited in and anyway if what the astronauts said was pre-recorded what would happen if for example airforce one crashed and president Nixon died and it came to the part where the president telephoned the astronauts on the Moon but everyone kept saying president Nixon but it was president Agnew then everything would be messed up and they couldn't take that chance? I'm sorry if this is difficult to read but my sister is looking for my sextant and cannot help me write.