Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
Glenn, drewid, from the NASA Apollo 8 Prelaunch Report, will send better reference later


Aborts During Translunar Coast
The abort procedure for this phase of the mission would be similar to the 90 minute abort. If conditions warrant an abort, abort information specifying a combination of SPS burn time and CSM attitude would be sent to the crew. Deep space aborts will be targeted to, in order of priority, (1) the Mid-Pacific line, (2) the Atlantic Ocean
line, (3) the East Pacific or West Pacific lines, and (4) the Indian Ocean line. Regardless of the recovery line selected, the landing latitude should remain nearly
the same. The minimum elapsed time between abort initiation and CM landing
increases with translunar coast flight time. About the time the CSM enters the moon’s sphere of gravitational influence, it becomes faster to perform a circumlunar abort rather than returning directly to earth.
 
I said i did not have to work Glenn. You are silly. I worked all night and instead of having to stick around got to leave. Came to McDonalds to drink coffee and mooch their net line.
 
Patrick1000 said:
You can read about it drewid. i am actually sitting in a McDonalds now after work
Click to expand...

I find this oddly believable

so don't have access to my references.
Click to expand...
Your use of the term "references" is laughable.

Search/hunt around for abort contingencies. They had several for these missions, real or imagined depending on one's persuasion. One of the contingencies was literally brake and then go 25,000 in the other direction once the thing is slowed and paused
Click to expand...
.

Uh, no.

This particular abort option must be triggered fairly early in the course of a mission. In the Apollo 8 situation, they were past this point when this particularly radical abort was said to have been considered.
Click to expand...

I know a thing or two about the trajectory, others know quite a bit more. You apparently don't know jack.
 
Good with the books

Just got home ApolloG. Actually I am quite good with books of all sorts. I am sleepy now, but will give you one general reference here about 8, more later, so sleepy, Ciao!.

Glenn's and Drewid's references;

Chaikin, A MAN ON THE MOON; Penguin paper, page 99;

"Minutes later, in consultation with Berry and other manages, Apollo program director Sam Phillips decided to let the flight continue. Even if Phillips had decided otherwise, Apollo 8 was too far away for the SPS to manage a swift about face maneuver. Borman Lovell and Anders were committed now; even if they had to abort their mission, they were going to go around the moon.
 
Patrick1000 said:
You'll come around to the fake poop=fraud view eventually. they all do in the end.
Click to expand...


Is it your contention that the conspirators invented the embarrassing and wildly unpleasant diarrhea incident to lend their supposedly far-fetched tale a sort of gritty verisimilitude? Do you think the concern was that the average man on the street would read about the Apollo missions and think to himself, "yeah I'll buy surviving the Van Allen belt and all that other stuff that to my ignorant mind might seem suspicious, but the accounts all seem to omit mentions of diarrrea and that for me is a major red flag"?

By "they all do in the end" do you mean that you have managed to eventually convince others of your "poop=fraud" theory? Or was there someone else who came up with the theory who eventually convinced you? Or by "they" do you mean your brother?

Patrick1000 said:
I honestly believe I have never convinced a single person under any circumstances of the bogusness of Apollo except my brother.
Click to expand...


Have you considered the possibility that that you are having difficulty convincing others of your theory because your theory is absurd and has no evidence to support it? Similarly, let's say that I try to convince the world that cars are powered by elves and that the whole "cars require gas to run" thing is just a conspiracy on the part of "Big Oil". Is any skepticism I may face an example of a close-minded "sheeple" public or might it simply indicate that my elves theory may be wrong?

BTW my earlier question about the Quote button wasn't meant as rhetorical. Why don't you use the Quote button when responding to posts?

1. You don't know how to use the Quote button and can't be bothered to learn.

2. You don't see the point of it.

3. It amuses you in your role of maverick to disregard convention, even if that convention serves a useful purpose.

4. Due to some peculiarity of your OS or browser you are unable to use the Quote button.

5. Two or more of the above.

6. None of the above.
 
Last edited:
Patrick1000 said:
It's fake, has to be. The Boorman thing, right there, has to be. Could not be otherwise. No way astronauts would be sick like that and have yo-yos for docs. the docs would be first rate. these guys in the NASA script are pretend docs. Sorry but it is true.
Click to expand...

Except for the FACT that the only remaining classified aspect of the missions are their medical records. Don't you think some of the actions they took and concern that you say they should have had might be expressed in there? Can you prove they aren't? All you have is an "If I ran the zoo" fallacy with incomplete evidence on your part.
 
Last edited:
Patrick1000 said:
One of the contingencies was literally brake and then go 25,000 in the other direction once the thing is slowed and paused.
Click to expand...

Reference please.

Of all the contingencies available, slowing a craft from 25000mph to zero, then back up to 25000mph, using what fuel was on board the CSM was impossible.

If anything, the closer they were to the neutral point, the more likeliehood of an abort would be possible. Yet it would be the less appealing of the two options of 1) doing a reverse burn and accelerate to the identical speed in the opposite direction or 2) free return trajectory.

18 hrs in to a lunar coast, the CSM would be doing 4-5000 mph.
 
Erock said:
Reference please.

Of all the contingencies available, slowing a craft from 25000mph to zero, then back up to 25000mph, using what fuel was on board the CSM was impossible.

If anything, the closer they were to the neutral point, the more likeliehood of an abort would be possible. Yet it would be the less appealing of the two options of 1) doing a reverse burn and accelerate to the identical speed in the opposite direction or 2) free return trajectory.

18 hrs in to a lunar coast, the CSM would be doing 4-5000 mph.
Click to expand...


Hey, why not? They did it for Apollo 13!

Oh wait...
 
Let's be fair, guys. He has given us the name of a book for his latest claim.

Oddly, it totally debunks him. But Hey!! It's a reference!
 
Patrick1000 said:
sts, Apollo is typically debated in terms of facts about things, the facts about the rocks, the telemetry, the photos. The best way to show Apollo bogus is to look at the story line. Hope this answers your question at #457. Is this what you wanted? Please elaborate if I misunderstood. thanx!
Click to expand...

you fail at that






special fail videos for you :D
 
Last edited:
Hey DC,

Thanks for the videos. Those are funny, have seen them before. You have to be patient. I have only begun to present my case.

Here is a tiny example. Consider this; when I first brought up the abort notion, very recently, a few members simply didn't believe an abort was a consideration from the position of an alleged translunar coast. Well of course it is. It is a very main stream notion, nothing "way out" there about it or anything like that.

So in order to even begin to present my case about one of the Apollo inconsistencies, first I have to provide references to support my assertion with regard to something that really is not controversial at all, an abort contingency from a translunar coast vantage.

There are many official story supporters who of course know such contingencies are part of the mainstream story/view and they could pop in right now and say, "the Patrick guy is correct, there is such a thing as an abort contingency for a full fledged high speed turn around". But as it turns out, a discussion like this seldom goes that way. Rather, I actually have to show some official story advocates the truth with respect to features of the official story. In this case, the truth that a translunar coast vantage abort contingency did exist and was even "considered" in some of the Apollo scripts; Apollo 8 and Apollo 13 to my knowledge. There may be others.

So you can't really suggest I've failed in any fair sense yet, because the guys and gals arguing from the other side are first of all waiting for me to provide them with their own facts, the facts of the official story.

None of this I mind by the way. My point is only that it takes a great deal of time. It is a very slow process. I believe ApolloG commented above that my little abort reference from Chaikin's book debunked my own claim. I haven't even begun to present my best evidence for my claim yet. I am still in the process of first providing evidence there was such a thing as an abort from cislunar space.

So I am challenged every step of the way.

The NASA official story claims the Eagle's coordinates were not known with certainty until 08/01/1969. This is the official story claim. Nothing CT about it. Very mainstream, very much a part of the official story. Yet as you'll see, it will be me presenting NASA's own materials to support what others will view as a claim on my part, yet within the materials which stand as those of Apollo's official canon there is no big deal about this.

So DC, I'll proceed now with presenting a little about the abort thing in terms of references. You'd think I would not really need to as it is a part of the main, official story wise, but because it's not part of the main, public appreciation wise, it falls to me to point it out when arguing my case.

I like your videos and do not feel offended by the way because I am confident about all of this, as I was with my point about telescope magnification. But each point takes a great deal of time to make. So in building my case, a day, two, three, four may pass before in the context of this forum everyone agrees on something as fundamental as aborts from a cislunar vantage.

You'll see I have many interesting things to say, all from NASA's own story. Here's one to consider for example. In the Apollo 11 Post flight Mission Report, in the section on LASER RANGING RETRO-REFLECTOR it says;

"The Laser Ranging Retro-Reflector(LRRR) experiment is optimally designed for lunar night operation and has consequently not yet been acquired by any laser ranging stations".

Well this report is from July 24 1969. We know that the LRRR was not successfully targeted until 08/01/1969 per NASA and the Primary Investigators of the LRRR experiment. The experimenters published their reports in the professional journal Science. We also know that it was still "daytime" on the moon on 08/01/1969. We know from NASA itself and the Apollo experimental scientists that Lick Observatory was not able to find the location of the LM at 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east until 08/01/1969 because they could not provide the Lick Observatory scientists with their best estimation of the LRRR's position until they analyzed trajectory data and photo data from the mission.

All this being the undisputed case, we also know that someone from Houston gave Lick Observatory the numbers 00 41 15 and 23 26 00 east on the evening of 07/20/1969.

Taken together, the above facts as presented by NASA, the Apollo Lunar Scientists and the Lick Observatory staff constitute an utterly incoherent narrative. I of course will suggest it is the NASA piece that is out of place, that is the BIG LIE because I see no reason for the Apollo Lunar Scientists to lie, nor a reason for the Lick Observatory Staff to lie, nor a reason for the LRRR primary investigators to lie, but many reasons for NASA to lie.

In my presentation of the above. I will only use primary sources in presenting the facts as outlined, nothing conjectural. But each point I imagine might take days if I so care to work at it. I say that because I will be the one presenting to my challengers NASA's own official story, and I will be challenged every step of the way, as you can see I was when I first suggested there was such a thing as a cislular abort consideration/contingency.

So you may want to withhold your opinion about my abilities for a bit in fairness since the process is so very slow going. But if not, that is OK too, you may keep sending the videos. I think the astronauts are sort of funny too.
 
Last edited:
Patrick1000 said:
sts, Apollo is typically debated in terms of facts about things, the facts about the rocks, the telemetry, the photos. The best way to show Apollo bogus is to look at the story line. Hope this answers your question at #457. Is this what you wanted? Please elaborate if I misunderstood. thanx!
Click to expand...

Well, I had a long answer fall into the bit-bucket. Briefly put - it's shocking that anyone who calls himself a "scientist" would work so hard to avoid examining empirical data. What we're left with is your uninformed view of a mish-mash of records and popular books, appeals to personal incredulity, and childish jokes. I can't help you put together a coherent narrative if you continue to avoid the questions.

BTW, I believe "#457" is now post 206 after the thread split. The questions still await an answer. I get the feeling they will become rather lonely waiting; fattydash/Patrick1000/DoctorTea/etc.,etc. can't or won't even give a straightforward answer to clarify which manned missions he believes in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom