Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
Patrick1000 said:
X, the poop stuff, any details, are believed by script writers, writers in general, writers of any ilk, to make a story line more credible. Stuff like that would be anticipated. A writer would expect the poop were he or she reading this as script. If you are reading it as a scientist, you think, "why the poop?".

They tried to make the thing more "realistic". Pretty dumb, given the fallout.
Click to expand...

And yet, when they describe the TLI burn (two for the non-free-return trajectories) they apparently talked to enough scientists to get the details right. When they describe lunar geology, same. Telecommunications, same.

For that matter, there are multiple papers on the physiological findings of humans in space; tables of changes in bone density, white blood cell counts, plotted heart rates over the missions. And of course accurate tracking of consumables including oxygen, water, CO2 scrubbing, even (if you look) totals for waste.

So they DID have doctors they could consult with while writing the script. Were they sick the day Apollo 8 was scripted? And why just them, when a dozen other professionals were in the room concocting a narrative that stands up to scrutiny from professionals in the field TODAY?
 
Patrick1000 said:
Fine nomuse, let's move on. If you have a comment to make about Aldrin's lying please do so. Otherwise you are free to go until one of your colleagues yet again steps in it.
Click to expand...

I don't take that "Paid Shill" insult lightly.

If you had the ability of a clam you'd see my posting schedule bore no relation to where you were in any of your rambling monologues.

I do this for amusement. And because, like the cartoon goes, I have a really hard time with gross untruths being promulgated right under my nose.
 
ApolloG,

Lying and covering up, as is the case here with the above Aldrin reference means Aldrin is simply not credible. He is lying, about what happened in July of 1969, where were the thing true, there would be no reason to lie. AND, the fact that the quote exposing him as lying has been removed from the republication of the report means the perpetrators past and present, don't want you to know about this lying and Aldrin's lack of credibility.
 
Last edited:
AND nomuse, my statement about your inappropriate use of the word "WE" stands. Not that you care.
 
Last edited:
Patrick1000 said:
...Here indeed is a gem of a find. Let's take a look at some astronaut chit-chat from the original version of the Apollo 11 Technical Crew Debriefing.

...The interesting thing about the above passage from the Apollo 11 Technical Crew Debriefing is that it doesn't appear at all in the debriefing's more recent republication...

...Lying no less about something so very important that they're willing to risk major exposure/vulnerability by deleting the statement from the clearly DOCTORED/REDACTED Apollo 11 Technical Crew Debriefing Report republication....
Click to expand...
(bolding mine)

There are three versions of the crew debrief at the ALSJ site hosted by NASA: the original scanned format in sections, a text-converted PDF, and a pure HTML version. The statement is found in all three:

8.2.16 AGS Activation, Self-Test, Calibration, and Alignment

Aldrin
... Let's see, there was one funny thing that I don't think we've mentioned. It was pretty minor. One of the strokes on the DEDA was not illuminated. Each character is made up of all these different strokes. The one missing was in the middle character, and it would leave you in a position where you couldn't tell whether it was a three or a nine. I didn't realize at the time that there was any room for confusion. Later, in looking at some numbers, you could not really tell whether in fact that was a three or a nine.

Armstrong
Yes. You just need that one stroke to close it, and it becomes a nine.

Collins
I got the bottom one.

Aldrin
With this particular one missing, there was some doubt as to exactly what you had.

Armstrong
That's true of any digit on any of those electrical switch displays.

Collins
Remember, we had one of those in the EMS.

Armstrong
Yes, that's right. Fortunately, the simulators usually got some out and you got used to putting up with that. But, it's a problem that really could get to you some time if you misinterpret that number.

Aldrin
We missed putting the AGS time in there. We missed by 15 centiseconds hitting it right on, which I thought was very close. We did even better than that when we updated at 120 hours.
Click to expand...

Poor fattydash. One would think that a few of his army of super-sock-friends could use some of their mad research skillz to help him out. Hey, I admit it's a lot of work; it took me at least 30 seconds to find these "doctored/redacted" copies online at both NASA and non-NASA sites.

Seriously, though, this shows rather clearly the poor guy's fixation on quote-mining and appeals to ignorance and ridicule (not to mention his inability to understand how sourcing works in research). He doesn't understand the topic, but he thinks by playing up some routine passage from a technical discussion and using scare quotes he will gain some traction. It's just embarrassing, though, when he trips over himself like this in his haste to claim a cover-up.
 
Last edited:
JohnG said:
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"?
Click to expand...
Patrick1000 said:
X, the poop stuff, any details, are believed by script writers, writers in general, writers of any ilk, to make a story line more credible. Stuff like that would be anticipated. A writer would expect the poop were he or she reading this as script. If you are reading it as a scientist, you think, "why the poop?".

They tried to make the thing more "realistic". Pretty dumb, given the fallout.
Click to expand...


So...that's a "yes", then?

Why invent something so embarrassing in a such a disgusting "TMI" sort of way? Surely there's other, equally effective, yet far less nauseating ways to "make a story line more credible"? Could you tell us again exactly why you find "poop=fraud" such a logical slam-dunk?
 
sts,

Of course the original copy has the 8-18 Aldrin quote as stated and of course it is found on the internet. The point was that the Aldrin quote is missing from the REPUBLICATIONS such as that edited by Robert Godwin and published by Apogee.

Now if you purchased an Apollo 11 Mission Report collection by Apogee , the Godwin edit, AND you showed me that had the stuff that I claim was removed in there, I would say, "wow sts, you got me". But you will find that is not the case. Please check the publication I mentioned. you will not find the Aldrin quote in there. It has been removed intentionally by Godwin at the behest of the keepers of the lies.

And again, of course you found the lie/quote in the original publication. Where do you think I found it?
 
Last edited:
OH yes sts, please keep in mind these republications are NASA authorized. And we can see why, authorized with a very special reason in mind.
 
WOW!!!, it is true sts. I did find the quote in another section of my Apogee publication. Not in 8-18. So i do withdraw my claim about the Apogee publication. However, the point about Aldrin's lying stands. Of course a DEDA reading "3" instead of "9" or "9" instead of "3" would be a major concern and not a "pretty minor" thing. The statement by Aldrin is clearly a lie. That said, i was incorrect in my suggestion it was being covered up by removing it from the Apogee publication. It is in there, under a different heading than the original 8-18.
 
Bull. Without seeing the actual document you conveniently have the only copy of, I can't tell if the entire thing has been edited for brevity or clarity. Or if you are simply mistaken.

Since the UNedited versions of the document are available in the original scans from the NASA website, it is clear that nothing is being officially hidden.

Okay, let me amend that. It may be hidden from people with really poor research skills.
 
Patrick1000 said:
OH yes sts, please keep in mind these republications are NASA authorized. And we can see why, authorized with a very special reason in mind.
Click to expand...

What a load of old cobblers.

The use of the word 'edited' gives a clue to the book. Since I have not the time, money or inclination to buy something freely available in great detail to 99.999999% of people interested in such a thing (ie. not interested in buying that book), I fail to see how this stunning irrelevant piece of poop is even worth the effort it took to read it.

I am calling you out on that NOUN 76 issue YOU raised at apollohoax, where you did your victory dance and told everybody how smart you were.

It is clearly the same writing style, excessive verbosity, patronising tone and 'humourous' overtones about the nature of what you have discovered.


So, deny it - who cares. Say you are this multi-gifted individual, multi-qualified part of a team of internet 'investigators' challenging Apollo - who cares.

Who were handed your butt, you know it, I know it, and anybody who compares the multiple sock puppet posts knows it.
 
Oh, but you forget, Doctor Socks and his chess club (of radar technicians in China?) are all posting through a $3,000 natural-language software program that turns concise, polite posts into identical patronizing, disorganized, attempted-humor-filled walls of text.

I have a friend who spent two years in the development of natural-language tools for an online text-based role-playing game. He and I would be fascinated to learn the name of this phantom software.
 
Patrick1000 said:
WOW!!!, it is true sts. I did find the quote in another section of my Apogee publication. Not in 8-18. So i do withdraw my claim about the Apogee publication. However, the point about Aldrin's lying stands. Of course a DEDA reading "3" instead of "9" or "9" instead of "3" would be a major concern and not a "pretty minor" thing. The statement by Aldrin is clearly a lie. That said, i was incorrect in my suggestion it was being covered up by removing it from the Apogee publication. It is in there, under a different heading than the original 8-18.
Click to expand...

Thanks for being man enough to admit a mistake. That's highly unusual among conspiracy theorists.

That said, I have some questions regarding your qualified apology:
1) In what way would it be a "major concern?"

2) What would have happened if the error had not been detected?

3) Was this error during a test flight corrected for later missions?

4) How does this count as a "lie" by Aldrin?
 
patrick1000 said:
Original claim
Click to expand...

I want to nail you down about this. You keep doing it on multiple forums, so perhaps you can stop tip toeing about and tell everybody how the laser reflector arrived on the Moon. The Apollo 11 craft put them there, or some mystery invisible take off rocket did?

You see, from where I'm standing, your claim is internally inconsistent in the most extreme way possible.

Your claim has to be an unmanned mission placed them there, as I cannot imagine that even you with your non-scientific bias would suggest that it isn't actually there. Only somebody with the sheer stupidity of Jarrah White would make that ignorant claim;)

So I want to ask you some very simple questions.

If NASA has the capability of determining the exact position of a laser reflector on the Moon, how exactly could it do that? The same telemetry data used for a manned landing plus onsite analysis, would be used for any unmanned landing.

If they knew the position of a supposed unmanned laser.....

Why then would it invent such a convoluted account concerning the 'Lost Bird' if it already had a laser in place?

If NASA did not have a laser in place, how then could they give LICK exact co-ordinates that (though didn't work due to Earth positioning errors) turned out to be exactly where future laser ended up?

You appear to have some sort of contradiction here, perhaps you should explain your whole theory for all to see.


p.s. The 'dodgy script' scenario ain't cutting it.
 
Patrick1000 said:
Speak for yourself nomuse. Don't pull that bogus jive on me. Look at the posts of others. Knock off the WE stuff. You may say "I nomuse" didn't deny the abort option. The others did. Sorry 'bout that, but my messages weren't for you. THEY WERE FOR THE OTHERS WHO DID DENY THE ABORT OPTION. And quit trying to defend them. Let them fight their own battles, you embarrass them all the more.
Click to expand...

Quote ANYONE from this thread who said abort was impossible. I think you will find that most of the posters who made a statement on the matter made a QUALIFIED statement. Most of the statements took the form "...the abort scenario as Patrick describes it."

This is another cloudy green sky. The majority of the posters on this thread have agreed that there were abort scenarios, including the minimum-time return. What they, and I, have objected to is the characterization of stopping dead in space from 25,000 MPH (please, please, learn to use m/s like the rest of us!) and accelerating to 25,000 MPH in the other direction (a delta-V of 50,000 MPH).

"We" is appropriate and justified.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom