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

Here you go PluPerfect, knock yourself out

reply to post by decisively



An Intro to "LOST BIRD" for you PluPerfect, not a full reiteration, but a small, glad start.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by PluPerfect


Excellent find, PluPerect! Talk about a blast from the past! You really should watch it, decisively, the music is way out, Daddy-o! Oh yes, and Plu is correct. The maneuvers were designed so that the exact launch location was unnecessary. So long as they launched at the correct phase angle, they could adjust on the fly.

reply to post by decisively


How wonderful, you took all that TIME and EFFORT to link those posts....are they all YOUR posts (I admit, I didn't link to them all)...

....YET, you could not spend less than ONE-HALF HOUR watching the videos that I posted, up above??

Well.....that certainly 'speaks' volumes.

Oh, still waiting for the answers to the "QUIZ" (Part 1)....I DO expect to see the results on my desk in the next, oh......I'll be generous and give you 24 hours to respond.

reply to post by decisively

An Intro to "LOST BIRD" for you PluPerfect, not a full reiteration, but a small, glad start.

I repeat: what coordinate system was each result plotted on?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you can't answer, all of that difficult arithmetic you do is irrelevant. In fact, your entire argument falls apart.

reply to post by decisively


QUIZ (Part 2)

1) Please describe and explain the Ground-Based computer support system that was in place for all Apollo missions.

2) Please explain what the term "Phase Angle" means... (in your own words). This is related to Orbital Rendezvous Procedures, and the mathematics and computations that it entails.

3) Please explain the term "Height Differential", as it again applies to the above-mentioned Orbital-Rendezvous procedures, and "solutions"...


I "anxiously" await your responses to my queries......

How come instead of trying to answer and address the earlier questions and concerns asked, we are instead just skipping to new proofs Decisive? Where is the answer to the moon rock contamination question? You were certain that was the missing clue, but then you just drop it for some coordinates once we point out how illogical that argument was?

Also how do you do that annoying thing where you make the first few words in each post super big? I tried to do it too and the biggest font is only 6. It doesn't lend your information any extra validity by the way, it seems like it is intended to give your post more credibility or something but I think does the opposite.

reply to post by sputniksteve

Where is the answer to the moon rock contamination question? You were certain that was the missing clue, but then you just drop it for some coordinates once we point out how illogical that argument was?

Excellent point, and 'kudos' for 'zeroing in' on the core issue.

So, howzit, ATS member "decisively"?

PLEASE, by all means....'defend' your 'position'.

There are, I must advise, MANY, MANY on the opposite, who are "well-prepared" to counter each and every "point" that is raised, in ignorance........

reply to post by sputniksteve

Where is the answer to the moon rock contamination question?

I would settle for him telling us what, exactly, that contamination would consist of. I already gave him the answer.

For those lurking, who might be considering giving 'decisively' the benefit of their attention...

Given the topic of this thread is 'going ballistic' (plus decisively clearly wants you to see his .. er ..previous work), I would ALSO draw your attention to this post of mine which quotes some of decisively's best work at ATS...

Also, decisively, would you just clarify that you have completely chickened oubacked down from a proper debate?

This??

Originally posted by sputniksteveAlso how do you do that annoying thing where you make the first few words in each post super big? I tried to do it too and the biggest font is only 6. It doesn't lend your information any extra validity by the way, it seems like it is intended to give your post more credibility or something but I think does the opposite.

Hi, steve - if you truly want to try it, just use the [headline]This a headline[/headline] function.

'decisively' (AKA fattydash/Patrick1000/dastardly/ etc, etc) has said that he uses these wherever he goes. Because it is just him posting, he needs to keep track of all his threads - so apparently he records the 'subject' info so he can remember where he put stuff. (Perhaps so he can re-read his own cleverness..)

I can just imagine him now, feverishly typing, copy-pasting into an Excel spreadsheet, praising himself for another successful tropost... It's a rather sad picture.

Also, as should be clear, he needs not only multiple threads but multiple changes of topic, so as each one is busted (or HE is busted) he can swap horses and deflect attention elsewhere - if you check his history, you'll see he abandons threads quickly when it becomes obvious he hasn't a clue, or his posting history is pointed out. To an extent, it works for a little while, but, as has been the case at all the other forums where he is now banned (BAUT, JREF, ApolloHoax, etc), I think the clock is now ticking..

reply to post by CHRLZ


Ah!! Ha, Ha, Ha!!.....:

Hi, steve - if you truly want to try it, just use the

This a headline

function.

'decisively' (AKA fattydash/Patrick1000/dastardly/ etc, etc) has said that he uses these wherever he goes.

Well, THAT ( ^ ^ ^ ) explains the silly posturing in the above-mentioned "ATS" member's posts.


reply to post by decisively


AND why the same above mentioned "ATS member" will not partake in my simple "QUIZ".....must I (edit) to refresh?

I suppose it is necessary.....

Quiz, Part 1

Quiz, Part 2


PLEASE RESPOND to the 'challenges' above......they are valid, and I expect a response....or else, you may "cave in".....it is YOUR choice.

reply to post by PluPerfect

Your videos are unrelated to Reed's problems and the contradiction(s) I have been emphasizing

I have studied those before PluPerfect. They have NOTHING to do with Reed's "dilemma" and the contradiction I emphasized. Who cares about the specific mechanics/logistics of LOR, or rendezvous in general ? My point was that Reed said one thing and the Apollo 11 Mission Report authors wrote altogether another with regard to the landing site solutions available to Reed on the morning of 07/21/1969.

What do your videos have to do with Reed's claim that the AGS, PNGS and MSFN Eagle landing site solutions as they were presented to him on the morning of 07/21/1969 were more than 4-5 miles from the ultimately determined landing site figures as determined and officially announced 08/01/1969; 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east ?????

I won't be responding to this particular point of yours further, the relevance of your videos to my claims, unless you specifically address the connection. How is it that your videos "explain" Reed's comment as referenced above and quoted again here just below, FROM THE TRENCH OF MISSION CONTROL TO THE CRATERS OF THE MOON, H. David Reed;


"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."

reply to post by sputniksteve

Great Point sputnicksteve, THANX !

Great point, I got distracted. Let's get back to my original post. After all, that is why I like to work in more than one thread

My apologies sputniksteve, you could not be more on target. Thanks !!!!

reply to post by decisively

What do your videos have to do with Reed's claim that the AGS, PNGS and MSFN Eagle landing site solutions as they were presented to him on the morning of 07/21/1969 were more than 4-5 miles from the ultimately determined landing site figures as determined and officially announced 08/01/1969; 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east ?????

You still haven't viewed the video, have you? If you did, you would know that the important thing was the phase angle, not the coordinates. That reminds me, you still haven't said what coordinate system each of those coordinates you did your hand waving was in.

That reminds me; now that we know you understand how the BB code here works, you really need to start formatting properly, or I will alert the Mods for each offense. When you post quotations from off-site, including books, they must be formatted like this:

[In a 2010 book, From the Trench of Mission Control to the Craters of the Moon, H. David Reed, who was Flight Dynamics Officer (FIDO) for the Apollo 11 LM liftoff, details the story behind this unscheduled request for a P22 one orbit before liftoff. Briefly, he and his support team needed an accurate LM position so they could pick a liftoff time that would minimize propellant usage. The various estimates available at that time were scattered over a considerable area. They needed something better. After extensive discussions within the team, Reed choose a method suggested by Pete Williams, the COMPUTER DYNAMICS officer: they would track the CSM with the LM's rendezvous radar and, then, using a separate, accurate determination of the CSM's orbital track over the landing site (as discussed at 121:07:37), work backwards to find the LM.]

[In a June 2011 e-mail, Reed adds: "For Apollo 12 (and subsequent), as you know, we wanted to do a 'pin point' landing, which we had discovered would be impossible without a real fix in LM position before landing. This was accomplished by implementing a post DOI (Descent Orbit Insertion), doppler-tracking scheme devised by Emil Scheisser of MPAD (Mission Planning and Analysis division). The ground would compute the predicted downrange error and send that correction to the crew prior to powered descent ignition. It allowed us to land within a few hundred feet or less of the desired landing site."]

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Incidentally, I believe that refutes, yet again, your fundamental premise. Now, what would you expect to find in the samples taken from the immediate vicinity of the LM?
Edit to add: A Guide To BBCode on ATS

Armstrong's not collecting the contingency sample immediately shows from the get go that the Apollo 11 Mission was full on fraudulent, full fledged bogus

reply to post by sputniksteve


Consider this sputniksteve, with regard to surface operations, beyond opening the hatch and putting his foot down to touch the lunar powder, Armstrong was to have above and beyond everything else, COLLECTED THE MOON ROCK CONTINGENCY SAMPLE, AND DO THIS FIRST FIRST FIRST.

More than anything else, Armstrong was to return with ROCKS. Photos would be OK, but he was told to get ROCKS FIRST, and with good reason.

So what is up with these bogus videos ????????????







No way this can be the real deal. Armstrong would have collected the rocks FIRST were the rocks collected as they should have been during a genuine manned lunar landing mission. My sense is the reason that Armstrong didn't collect the rocks first, before he took the panorama photo, had to do with my objection as mentioned in the opening post. Those rocks would be expected to have chemical evidence of rocket exhaust on them.

reply to post by decisively

Exactly my point!!!

Those rocks would be expected to have chemical evidence of rocket exhaust on them.

And what would that evidence be, exactly? I've already told you once. Please show that you were paying attention.

This is Super interesting sputniksteve, H2O as one product of hypergolic fuel combustion

reply to post by sputniksteve


Check this out sputniksteve;

www.madsci.org...

From the above;

"4. Hypergolic - fuels and oxidants that ignite on contact without an
ignition source. These are generally used for maneuvering after the soak
vehicle has reached orbit. The combustion products depend on the chemicals
used. The space shuttle uses monomethyl hydrazine (N2CH6) and nitrogen
tetroxide (N2O4). The combustion products are nitrogen, water vapor and
carbon dioxide."

WATER VAPOR IS A COMBUSTION PRODUCT !!! I'll have to look into the details of what kind of hypergolic fuel the LM used. I assume at this time that the "combustion" produced water. If it did, then ANY rocks collected, especially the ones near the LM would be contaminated with water. But one never hears anyone talk about this. Pretty suspicious, No ?

Here we go, some more !!!!

reply to post by sputniksteve


Check it out sputniksteve;

en.wikipedia.org...

"Aerozine 50 (a hydrazine and unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) mix) + nitrogen tetroxide (NTO) - widely used in historical American rockets, including the Titan 2; all engines in the Apollo Lunar Module; and the Service Propulsion System in the Apollo Service Module

Aerozine 50 is a mixture of 50% UDMH and 50% straight hydrazine (N2H4)."


Looks like when the LM came down, it would have sprayed some water on the rocks, perhaps we can calculate how much !!!!!

I think we are on to something VERY COOL here !!!!

Neil may be like the wicked witch in the Wizard of Oz, he may be a melting sooner than we think !!!

This one is even better......

reply to post by sputniksteve




books.google.com... &hl=en&sa=X&ei=NdrFT4zNFMeCsgLMwtClBg&ved=0CEkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Aerozine%2050%20water%20exhaust&f=false

Perhaps we should see water under the LMs !!!! We shall see soon enough.....

reply to post by decisively

Finally!!!

Perhaps we should see water under the LMs !!!! We shall see soon enough.....

You would expect to find nitrogen under the LM. That's why Armstrong put a little distance between himself and the lander, to avoid that contamination. Guess what they found in a sample taken under the LM on Apollo 17?

Lunar landers use hydrazine and N2O as rocket fuel. One wishes to know if residual gas or reaction products (H2O, CO2, N2) from the rocket engine contaminate the lunar regolith.Thus a soil sample was collected from beneath the LM (figure 1) and sealed in a special environmental sample container for return to earth (figure 5)....

Gibson and Andrawes (1978) studied nitrogen release by crushing soil (very high values due to hydrozine? ).

curator.jsc.nasa.gov...

Here's Gibson and Andrawes paper:

adsabs.harvard.edu...

There is absolutely no doubt that the soil underneath Apollo 17 was contaminated with very high levels of nitrogen due to the hydrazine propellant.