Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Patrick1000]

twinstead, for one, we could get Remington Stone from the Lick Observatory together with David Reed from Mission Control and see if THEY could make sense of the fact that Stone, the laser operator, knew what Reed, the FIDO, needed to know but didn't, or better said, had to figure out for himself. that would be a grand start.

 

[Greedo]

Okay... This is off topic, but I keep noticing this.

Why do CTers always double-, triple-, or even quadruple - post?
I mean, what's up with that?

 

[sts60]

fattydash/Patrick1000/etc.,

Please answer the following questions relating to your claims.

But of course, if one pauses, internal incoherence is precisely what one would expect from a bogus telling of an Apollo moon landing. Such would be a bogus telling's hallmark...

and

The narrative is inconsistent, internally incoherent and therefore necessarily untrue...

and so on.

1. Given the numerous contradictions in your claims across three different message boards now, e.g.
My claim as to why the lander could not perform a guided ascent is we have no evidence that Aldrin was able to determine lander coordinates for the Eagle

...I do not believe there was an ascent as I do not believe there was a landing.
-------------------
They did not have a LM that could land on the moon.

If one looks at the facts and concedes the lander works, and I do imagine the builders constructed the thing well. I am not trying to play games. I grant the lander works, fine.
-------------------
Yes we know there was most definitely no telemetric transmission of the coordinates.

This makes sense given the general features of Apollo guidance. It is for the most part telemetric.

what does that say about your story?

The only way one ever makes headway in coming to terms with any of this is to look at the narrative itself. Study the story.

I have studied various aspects of the story, and considered it as a whole, from the perspective of a practicing space engineer with an educational background in space physics. I also have spaceflight operations experience.

2. How many missions have you personally worked?

That said, retroreflector present or not, the exposure of of Apollo's fraudulence by LUNA's camera was nevertheless a major concern, retroreflector already "planted" at Tranquility Base or not. There were no astronauts for LUNA to photograph.

3. Exactly what evidence do you have for a retroreflector planted at the Apollo 11 landing site by anything other than the Apollo 11 crew?

4. Please describe, in reasonable detail, the ability of Luna 15 to conclusively image the A11 landing site from orbit. This includes the type of camera, its resolution, and the targeting/tracking capability while in orbit. As Luna 15 landed a considerable fraction of the Moon's circumeference away from A11, we know it did not image the site in proximity.

5. Given your repeated criticisms of NASA and the astronauts and engineers for allegedly lying, what does it say about you that you have repeatedly lied in agreeing to the TOSs for various boards in order to register sock-puppets?

5a. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that your "fattydash" story was actually true. What does it say about the honesty of you and this supposed group of people - lying in agreeing to the TOS in order to post content disguised as being from one person?

 

[Chaos]

Patrick, when will you finally address sts60´s argument?

 

[SezMe]

To the OP, Patrick1000, I'd like to know a) how many people were in on the hoax, and b) who was the highest up the food chain who knew.

Patrick1000, I'd like a response to this.

I understand that your in depth research on telescopes must be quite time consuming but I'd still like a specific, detailed response to my questions.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Pat, not only are you not correct, you're not even wrong in the right direction. Now, how about you answer some questions and provide some cites, hmmm?

P.S. At least I learned something from the telescope discussion. Thank you to everyone not name Patrick100 for the info. That's why I love this forum.

 

[R.A.F.]

I am not so sure it is pointless.

Look at how pat1k has been exposed for what he is.

You make a good point.

 

[R.A.F.]

double post

 

[sts60]

Now is as good a time as any to add

6. fattydash/Patrick1000/etc., you have previously said, if I recall correctly, that you believe all the Apollo missions were faked. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Does this mean only missions to/around the Moon, or does it include Earth orbit missions as well?

6a. What about Mercury and Gemini?

6b. What about Shuttle missions?

6c. What about Skylab, Salyut, Mir, and ISS?

6d. What about other Soviet/Russian and Chinese manned orbital missions?

7. You have already accepted the ability to fly vehicles to the Moon and soft-land them. What exactly prevented Apollo from going to the Moon as recorded? No handwaving, please.

7a. What exactly is different between Apollo lunar missions (and any other manned missions you may reject), and the manned missions cited above you accept (if any), which allows the latter to succeed but not the former?

 

[sts60]

(taps keyboard) Hello, hello, is this thing on?

 

[Patrick1000]

ApolloG, your point is very well taken. Ironically, because you never attacked my integrity as the others did, I wound up wasting my time debating a point i know to be correct as is now evident to all. But it was the debate per se that was a waste of time. My larger point is made. Here is a bold faced fact all must now accept as the experimental evidence as presented in Calrk's work supports my side and not the other. so I apologize. But i suspect you might have done the same to make a point were you challenged in such a way. i look forward to a meaningful debate with you about your rocks. Pat

 

[tsig]

(taps keyboard) Hello, hello, is this thing on?

Well I can see your posts.

 

[Patrick1000]

About Gemini sts,

What is the story with that Michael Collins "spacewalking" photo that Ralph Rene' always claimed was fake. Has that ever been debunked? In all honestly, I have never read up on that myself, never really studied Gemini. But I do have 2 copies of "carrying the Fire" I have a first edition paperback that has the spacewalk photo, and then the more recent edition does not have it. I would think this is such old stuff there is some story explaining why Collins had that in the first book's publications, but not in the latter editions. Anyway, that is what I know about Gemini hoax stuff, the Collins photo, and really do not have an opinion on it. I never took the time to study it. I am a late comer to Apollo studies.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I am a late comer to Apollo studies.

Perhaps because the Apollo program had been finished for 23 years on the day you were born?


I honestly have no idea what you're flailing on about now. Collins spacewalked during the "gemini sts?" What the hell was that? Did they go time-traveling in the Endeavour?

You're ideas are beneath contempt. I'm gonna go watch some Futurama with my kids.

 

[nomuse]

About Gemini sts,

What is the story with that Michael Collins "spacewalking" photo that Ralph Rene' always claimed was fake. Has that ever been debunked? In all honestly, I have never read up on that myself, never really studied Gemini. But I do have 2 copies of "carrying the Fire" I have a first edition paperback that has the spacewalk photo, and then the more recent edition does not have it. I would think this is such old stuff there is some story explaining why Collins had that in the first book's publications, but not in the latter editions. Anyway, that is what I know about Gemini hoax stuff, the Collins photo, and really do not have an opinion on it. I never took the time to study it. I am a late comer to Apollo studies.

Yes, it was a fake. So is the R.E.M. video, and the cover of one of Allen Steele's books. What of it? It was never claimed to be a part of the official record.

 

[Stellafane]

I think it is behind us now. thanks for writing. Pat

OK, cool. So why do you think the landings were faked? I don't mean the reason why someone would do it (although that's an interesting topic in and of itself), I mean what persuades you to believe they were faked? I tried to read your earlier posts, but kind of got bogged down. Do you have one particular reason, something that can be articulated in a sentence or two? (Of if you have many reasons, can you pick what you think is the most compelling one?)

 

[Patrick1000]

Thanks for the question Stellafane. One of the main ideas I presented so far stella has to do with FIDO David Reed's account of what happened on the morning of 07/21/1969. He was set to determine the LM trajectory and was surprised to find as it turned out that they did not know within roughly 5 miles of where the LM was. Moreover, all of the methods for determining where the LM was were at great variance, the numbers for the coordinates as determined by the PNGS, AGS, maps, telemetry didn't agree, according to him, "not even close". So he discounted all of those numbers and found the LM using the rendezvous radar "in reverse".

I say, how can the Apollo 11 story as told be real if the above is true AND many hours before Reed even arrived on duty at Mission Control, the scientists at Lick Observatory targeting the LRRR were told the coordinates of Tranquility Base were 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east? The precise coordinates of Tranquility Base as it would turn out.

If Apollo is real, why didn't anyone think to tell Reed the coordinates? The astronauts lives were on the line. So they tell Lick Observatory and not the FIDO. It has to be fake.

Also, if you look at the Mission report, all of the coordinates there are consistent, and with the exception of the north coordinate as determined by the AOT, they are all close to 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east. So either David Reed is making up his story about the coordinates being at great variance and not even close, or NASA is. Reed has no reason to lie. He is not psychotic, so NASA is lying. There is no middle ground solution.

Apollo must be fraudulent.

 

[Patrick1000]

The last point I made there stella to try and be more specific, is that I would argue the Mission Report is bogus, features forged coordinates. I say this because rReed was the FIDO, the coordinate guy. He says in real time, the coordinates as presented were at great variance. Now in the formal NASA Mission Report Publication they all match up. I say it is fake because I believe Reed and not NASA. Reed has no reason to lie. He is not psychotic. NASA has a jillion reasons to lie and apparently, lie they indeed do.

 

[nomuse]

Thanks for the question Stellafane. One of the main ideas I presented so far stella has to do with FIDO David Reed's account of what happened on the morning of 07/21/1969. He was set to determine the LM trajectory and was surprised to find as it turned out that they did not know within roughly 5 miles of where the LM was. Moreover, all of the methods for determining where the LM was were at great variance, the numbers for the coordinates as determined by the PNGS, AGS, maps, telemetry didn't agree, according to him, "not even close". So he discounted all of those numbers and found the LM using the rendezvous radar "in reverse".

I say, how can the Apollo 11 story as told be real if the above is true AND many hours before Reed even arrived on duty at Mission Control, the scientists at Lick Observatory targeting the LRRR were told the coordinates of Tranquility Base were 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east? The precise coordinates of Tranquility Base as it would turn out.

If Apollo is real, why didn't anyone think to tell Reed the coordinates? The astronauts lives were on the line. So they tell Lick Observatory and not the FIDO. It has to be fake.

Also, if you look at the Mission report, all of the coordinates there are consistent, and with the exception of the north coordinate as determined by the AOT, they are all close to 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east. So either David Reed is making up his story about the coordinates being at great variance and not even close, or NASA is. Reed has no reason to lie. He is not psychotic, so NASA is lying. There is no middle ground solution.

Apollo must be fraudulent.

HOW were the astronaut's lives on the line?

You have been contending for several weeks in at least three forums that the LM required coordinates accurate to within some arbitrary and unstated standard or rendezvous would be impossible. You have entirely failed to show that any of the available estimates of the LM's position were not accurate enough for that task.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Show me where i discussed aperture nomuse. I would like to see my post on that very much.

Does it really matter?

NO!

You've chosen to deflect the conversation from your initial claim that somehow the Apollo 11 landing position not being exactly known to within a quarter mile calls into question the entire space program from BumperWAC to "Moon, Mars and Beyond."

Aperture, smaperture. You wouldn't know aperture if it bit you on the ankle. Mr. so-called "clinician" that can't even spell or formulate an intelligent sentence, mr. so called "math" guy that doesn't even bother to post a simple calculation for positional error or f-number (neither of which, apparently, do you understand.)

So let's discuss rocks, already, dag nabbit! Where did they come from? How did they get here? How many of them have never even been cut in half? YOU claimed
a) they're all fake
b) most of them haven't been studied.

I've given you the friggin' link over and over, and here it is again: http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/compendium.cfm

Go to it, "doc." Prove your clams.