Of course, you are light years off topic about the Heiwa €1M Challenges...
Nonsense. You have claimed to be a qualified and skilled engineer. You have offered a substantial prize for anyone who can refute your findings, which you characterize as having come from a rigorous engineering background. Your personal qualifications and expertise are therefore very much part of the question, and they will be investigated by any means possible.
Your choice of screen name and your decision to serve up your conspiracy claims from your "company" web site inexorably connects that company to your claims. Such claims would seem more credible if they came from an engineering company rather than from an individual. While it is highly incredible to suppose that a private individual has a million euros he would be willing to offer, it is more credible if readers believe the prize is being offered by a company.
In short, you seem to be using this pretense of a company to inflate your credibility. So long as you consider this sham company relevant to your claims, we will continue to investigate it as part of your claims. You may forestall that investigation only by repudiating the connection between your alleged company and your claims being made here.
Heiwa Co is a European agency for Safety at Sea.
Nonsense. "Agency" implies an arm of the government. I see no evidence that your web site describes an actual company, much less any government agency. It lists no employees or clients. Its business address is your residence. It is not licensed or accredited for engineering by the EU. Your site is hosted by a free web hosting provider with a poor reputation. And its content consists almost entirely of your personal conspiracy rants, with only vague references to maritime engineering and safety. While it purports to offer services, you provide no evidence that anyone has patronized those services.
...is very popular with > 1 450 000 downloads.
Popularity is not the same as legitimacy or correctness. Since the majority of your site content is conspiracy rants, and since you constantly post those links in debate and insist that people go read them, I doubt the hit-count has anything to do with the legitimacy of your business. You receive so much traffic because you are a prolific international crackpot, not because you merit the attention on legitimate grounds. You are the intellectual equivalent of a road accident; people have a hard time looking away.
It seems we citizens of member states of the European Union can use the EU flag to show that we are committed to European unity. So I have copied/pasted in my web site.
Then you should add a disclaimer to that effect, since it seems the common interpretation of your site is incorrect, misleading, and possibly illegal. You do not appear to have any connection whatsoever to the EU government, nor any legitimacy as an engineering organization under that jurisdiction. It would seem that you are attempting to fool people into thinking you are a qualified engineer by inventing a false company or government agency that employs you.
George 'Willy' Low has described it in his report...
No. The document in question is NASA SP-238
Apollo 11 Mission Report, prepared by the Mission Evaluation Team of NASA Manned Spacecraft Center. George Low, in his capacity as the acting administrator of NASA at the time the report was issued, wrote and signed a brief preface to the report.
He did not write the report himself.You praise Low for an entire paragraph, apparently trying to hype up his value as a technical expert so that your use of a report that you attribute to him will seem more authoritative than the single-source, secondary material it is. And in the end you accuse him of being an accomplice to the hoax. So in one breath you heap legitimate praise upon him for your own lazy ends, and then in another breath you announce that you're so much better than he because you discovered his hoax.
But as the report is signed "George M. Low" that is how you should identify him when citing his work. You have not earned the privilege of calling him "Willy," and your insistence on diminishing him in this fashion reveals your contemptuous bias.
ref [1] at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm
This URL warns many of your potential readers that your site will infect their computers with malware. If you are serious about your web presentation, and demand that people read your drivel as a condition of debating you, then do your readers the courtesy of hosting it at a real site.
The report you use as practically your only source of Apollo technical information is a summary. It does not contain all information pertinent to Apollo. It was prepared by the Mission Evaluation Team, which is essentially a clerical task as it applies to this product. It is not the authoritative source of Apollo material. You rely exclusively on secondary sources for information that can be more accurately and authoritatively obtained from primary sources. When you are shown those primary sources, you deny they exist.
Further, it has been repeatedly shown that you are not even competent with this source. You identify important factors such as mass properties of spacecraft and assert that they are "erroneously" reported elsewhere (which you write off as a NASA lie), but in fact you have simply misread your source(s). For example, you have been repeatedly corrected on your misreading of the LM fuel loadout, but you refuse to admit that your simple reading error is the source of the discrepancy you want to attribute to NASA lies. Forget space travel -- you need to work on how to read a book.
...and it is not convincing. I think it is a hoax.
Your ignorant opinion is irrelevant. You are unable to prove it is a hoax. You are so far able to prove only that you do not understand space travel in general and Apollo in particular. You further prove that you are unwilling to consider evidence that disputes your belief. In fact, you are unwilling to admit even that such evidence exists, even when it is plainly laid before you. In the face of such a demonstration you maintain that no such information exists, and that this alleged dearth of information is the source of any flaws someone might find in your claims -- not, in fact, your utter ignorance of the subject.
Hence it is painfully obvious that you have arrived at your belief first, and are simply concocting a fantasy characterization of the available sources to appear to support your belief. Your answer for the fact that all the professional practitioners unanimous disagree with you (and you with them) is that they are all lazy, incompetent "PhDs" who simply pull the wool over people's eyes. In other words, you create a fantasy world in which only you are the qualified expert -- a behavior consistent with having created the belief first and then subsequently paying attention only to that which appears to confirm that belief.
So to clarify matters I offer €1M to do it ... clarify matters.
No. You have revised the conditions of the prize after it was previously satisfied.
Your first offer was for a million euros to find errors on your page. We have done that. Your second offer was a million euros to show that we are "more clever" that you. You conceded that point when you corrected your web site to accommodate corrections you learned hear. Now you are deliberately trying to rephrase your egregious and fundamental errors as if they are minor points only, which do not merit the prize.
You are consummately a liar and a fraud. You have been roundly refuted on the very fundamental basis of your claims (e.g., the proper formulation of an energy-balance equation), and you simply refuse to admit it.
To start with just explain how the first and only lunar orbit insertion maneuver was done.
First, the question is phrased incorrectly. "First and only lunar orbit insertion maneuver" is factually incorrect. LOI-1 and LOI-2 were the two orbital insertion maneuvers that together placed the CSM/LM stack in the proper lunar orbit. In fact part of your error is quoting the velocity after LOI-2 and assuming it applies to LOI-1. The SPS accomplished both of those maneuvers as retrograde burns at the appropriate times, and produced the document change in velocity.
Second, the mechanics of Apollo's orbital insertion have been painstakingly laid out to you many times. To suggest that you haven't received an explanation is nothing short of a deliberate lie. You reject it because you attempt to validate it with your incorrect homegrown mathematics. When this fails, you attribute it to NASA lies rather than to your incompetence.
Your inability to understand practically anything of value in space travel is not a valid basis from which to challenge the authenticity of a space mission. You are simply not as smart as you want people to think.
I evidently do not believe it.
English is obviously not your first language, so I suggest you accept our advice that you are not using the word "evidently" properly in this context. You clearly do not believe the published facts about Apollo astrodynamics, but that's because you're grasp of astrodynamics is obviously incorrect.
I think it is a hoax. So I offer anybody €1 M to show that I am wrong.
You have been repeatedly shown in what ways you are wrong. You are
very wrong. For example, you simply refuse to believe that your homemade analysis can possibly be as wrong as it is. You insinuate that corrections could only be in minor ways, and that your overall approach is sound.
I cannot understand why people get upset about THAT!
Really? You can't figure it out?
You arrogantly presume to be an engineer. You obviously aren't. You arrogantly insinuate that an agency of the EU government (again, you need to see how properly to use "agency" in English), or, at best, an engineering company backs your claims. This "company" is obviously just you operating a free web account. You arrogantly tell the world you have a million euros to give out, but you steadfastly refuse to prove it. You arrogantly insult an entire industry in which highly-qualified individuals accomplish great things. You obviously have an axe to grind. You arrogantly set yourself up as the only judge of whether you've been properly correct, thus creating an obvious conflict of interest. You obviously desperately want some sort of legitimate credibility. You dishonestly ignore every single bit of evidence that would apply to your offer. You obviously have no intention ever of paying it out. You've been banned at several web forums for your egregiously irrational behavior. You obviously have no idea how to comport yourself in polite or professional company, and even here you require babysitting.
After all that, you really can't figure out why you provoke such a strong reaction among people with legitimate qualifications and expertise?
