Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
Last comment Uk,

the digital display issue may be more to cover something else up. My basic contention is there are parallel but antagonistic lines of the Apollo story. One features an Eagle that cannot be located. I suggest this as it is born out by the facts of the official narrative. The motive to hid the Eagle is to keep the Russian Luna from taking a pic of 00 41 15 north, 23 26 00 east sans astronauts. the other story is for the guidance officers and FIDO types. for them, tracking the Eagle must be "real".

The DEDA problem may be necessary top hide a bogus trajectory, one example, others possible.
 
Patrick1000 said:
UK,

The obvious motives would be prestige for USA and intimidation of our antagonists(USSR).

That said, there may well be occult motives, e.g. military motives to name one possibility.

Will try and write more for you perhaps tomorrow. i am so very tired now.

thank you for the question, Pat
Click to expand...

No, you miss the point of my question.

Let's try an analogy:

Let's say I've just made an attempt at the land speed record in a rocket powered car. You haven't personally witnessed this attempt, but there is corroboration from both my own team as well as a rival team that I have indeed broken the world land speed record.

Now, wow am I a brave guy. Oh yes, sitting there at the controls of a car which is being propelled at many hundreds of miles an hour by a powerful rocket. No doubt about my bravery, right?

So, why would I then choose to include in my account of said record breaking endeavour unnecessary vignettes such as "well you know for 15 seconds the steering wheel actually came off in my hand and I had to screw the thing back on using my teeth"?

What would be the point? All I would be doing is providing something for you to pounce on and say "It's all fake!"

Of course the obvious difference here, as always, is just how obvious the evidence really is.

Perhaps on a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being MOST OBVIOUS) my example would score a 10 for most people.

But your examples....... don't even register for most people. So, why were they included?

Why did Borman have to 'poop' even though to you (and, unless you are truly unique, one would assume many other people) this should have :
1. Never happened with the medication he was taking
2. Resulted in an immediate abort of the mission
3. Failing an abort, it would have caused sickness in the remaining crew

What was the point of faking that incident?
 
UK,

the point is that if it is not real, the extra stuff, would tend to, in the minds of some anyway, make it look more real.
 
Abort is an option, but there are others. The objection is to the lack of an evaluation, not the course of action chosen per se. I would not suggest because there is no abort that makes it clear that the thing is fake.
 
Patrick1000 said:
UK,

the point is that if it is not real, the extra stuff, would tend to, in the minds of some anyway, make it look more real.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. In the minds of some, the 'extra stuff' make it less real.
You are an example of this, since you use the 'extra stuff' as the basis for your belief that the apollo programme was a hoax.

You also appear to believe that these things make it obvious that it's a hoax.

So why do they include unnecessary events which appear to show what an obvious hoax it is?
 
Patrick1000 said:
Goes for you too DC. What a pack of cowards. Not one single attempt, not ONE!

For Glenn. The launch could have taken place anytime before Apollo 11 and after Surveyor VLL. I'll take a look at what I have on surveyor and see what they used for that, circumstances, setting, blah blah blah and see if I can come up with something reasonable for you.

Gotta' work Glenn, thanks for the good question, Pat
Click to expand...

i just see no way how they could have faked all moon landings.
NASA could just admit it and the would get all Oscars this year. and some goldenglobes and golden Bambi and what not.

Like Prof. Brian Cox said. you have to be a total moron to belief the moon missions were faked.

really there just is no way. The Commis would have loved to expose the hoax, but they were not able to, they knew it was real, i mean they didn't even try to claim it was not real.

SoT was totally right, 3 antenas and math is enough to debunk or confirm the moon landing.

it is real.
after Neil Armstrong's little step it is time for you to set a foot in reality.
 
uk_dave said:
So, why would I then choose to include in my account of said record breaking endeavour unnecessary vignettes such as "well you know for 15 seconds the steering wheel actually came off in my hand and I had to screw the thing back on using my teeth"?
Click to expand...
Now, if you had included the fact that you pooped your scivies, I would have believed the whole thing. :)
 
Inconsistencies the Key not Poop

Not necessarily obvious. Try this UK. The challenge question. the coordinates of Tranquility Base were given to the LRRR targeting team on the evening of 07/20/1969. This is not a point in dispute. NASA, Lick Observatory staff, Apollo lunar scientists, the primary LRRR investigators all agree this to be the case.

I suggest that if one answers the questions;

1) who told the Lick team the coordinates?
2) when was the notification given?
3) what were the coordinates given?
4) how were the coordinates determined?

One will find in the answering of the questions the only possible explanation for the answers will be to conclude Apollo fraudulent. Try it yourself. It is a simple exercise.

Answering the questions leads to the discovery of internal inconsistencies in the official Apollo narrative. I say Apollo can be seen as fraud because of these inconsistencies.

Once this is concluded things like the Borman episode may be viewed for what they are. Not that I do not see the Borman thing as evidence itself, but it is not as strong as the lunar coordinate inconsistency evidence.

that is why I posed my challenge, to have others try it. Try it. See what you find.

If you find no inconsistency, then you can show me to be way off target. However, I am almost positive, this will not be the case. I have yet to find a person who believes in the official story that has been able to go through this exercise and show that it yields no inconsistencies. And again, these inconsistencies are only solvable by way of appeal to "fraud"
 
Last edited:
Patrick1000 said:
OK Erock, at least I took a shot.
Click to expand...

Your 'shot' as you put it is not even feasible. It puts a whole team of new people 'in on it', and ignores the extra rocket that nobody noticed!!

Your comment about Luna being able to photograph the Apollo 11 LM is ridiculous. Show me what camera they had, orbital altitude, your calculations for resolution given late 60s technology and their orbital path as crossing anywhere near Apollo 11.

Care to take a shot at my question(s)? Much easier than yours to me. i gave it a go.
Click to expand...

The Lick issue - I could use your logic and say a team of squirrels were sent to the Moon with tri-angulation lasers on and remote controlled with mind implants.

I'll get around to it, I'm investigating and putting my own timeline on it. Takes time.

The poop question is pathetic and your opinion. Not aware of any other questions that are relevant.
 
No Patrick,

Let's not leave the poop thing aside, as you made a great deal of it a few posts back.

Why do they include obvious elements of fakery in the accounts of the Apollo program?

Doesn't this bother you? You get really excited about the comments from a FIDO, Borman's 'poop' and the faulty digital display, but it doesn't appear to exercise your inquisitiveness about why these things are added to the narrative when they serve no purpose but to pique your interest in their being a hoax.

This seems strange to me. I might almost conclude that you are avoiding thinking about it.
 
Patrick1000 said:
Sez, launch of an occult surveyor type lander might be testable, then again, might not. Perhaps they did it in secret. We launch/launched plenty of missiles/rockets without public notification.
Click to expand...

But none without notice.

As an example of the difference, if you go to any satellite watching site, you will find several "secret" satellites of unknown purpose are being tracked. The general public doesn't know what it is (although there are pretty good guesses who launched it). But any observer knows it is there and knows its orbital parameters as well.

You don't launch a rocket of any kind that can put a package on the Moon without it being noticed and tracked by all of the major powers, and by quite a number of amateurs as well.
 
Patrick1000 said:
Last comment Uk,

the digital display issue may be more to cover something else up. My basic contention is there are parallel but antagonistic lines of the Apollo story. One features an Eagle that cannot be located. I suggest this as it is born out by the facts of the official narrative. The motive to hid the Eagle is to keep the Russian Luna from taking a pic of 00 41 15 north, 23 26 00 east sans astronauts. the other story is for the guidance officers and FIDO types. for them, tracking the Eagle must be "real".

The DEDA problem may be necessary top hide a bogus trajectory, one example, others possible.
Click to expand...

Which would be Luna 15. What about Luna 16 through 24? Why didn't any of them look for a missing LM?

Or, since this is a magical spacecraft with better resolution from orbit than anything up to LRO, didn't it just take a series of pictures in a search pattern around the purported location of the LM?

Explain to me why the Soviets were unable to do either of these simple tasks.
 
I appreciate your comments Ebrock. I will look into the LUNA camera details. I had read in one reference the camera was quite good. Again, give my own challenge a try. If for no other reason, yuks. Pat
 
I know i made a big deal about it UK. It is a long story, but in another situation we got off on a tangent as we sort of went off on a tangent discussing the poop, the tangent was abort contingencies. It is ok if you want to examine the Borman episode, it is just I cannot divide my energies right now so have been focusing on the coordinates. I'll get back to Borman and you as I can. Need to sleep now. thank you for the challenging questions.
 
Nomuse, will read and answer your questions after i sleep. too tired now. Sorry i lost my temper with you. It was very foolish and immature. I admire you very much. Not that it matters to you, but such is the truth. Pat.
 
uk_dave said:
No Patrick,

Let's not leave the poop thing aside, as you made a great deal of it a few posts back.

Why do they include obvious elements of fakery in the accounts of the Apollo program?

Doesn't this bother you? You get really excited about the comments from a FIDO, Borman's 'poop' and the faulty digital display, but it doesn't appear to exercise your inquisitiveness about why these things are added to the narrative when they serve no purpose but to pique your interest in their being a hoax.

This seems strange to me. I might almost conclude that you are avoiding thinking about it.
Click to expand...

Not that strange, if one has an answer in search of a question...
 
Fats - Do you have a proper cite for Lick receiving those exact co-ordinates on the 7th? Just wondering .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom