Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe I do get to say what I wish if properly referenced

R.A.F. said:
...and as we keep telling you, the Apollo missions are ESTABLISHED FACT. If you disagree, the onus is on you to prove yourself right.

You simple do not get to arbitrarily decide that we have to prove you wrong....until you get this simple fact through your fat head, this discussion is pointless.
Click to expand...

I welcome you to this splendid fray RAF, good to see you back. I encourage you to take your best shot.

As always, please support your claims for the official narrative with references please. I have supported mine with official narrative referncing as you can well see. As we both are citing the same set of "facts", it would seem we are "telling the same story", just spinning it differently.

Pat
 
Last edited:
This is a generalized description of the difference between coherent light and diffuse light.

This does not state that a human being on the moon could actually SEE the light.

Nor does it state that a human being could actually see a laser pulse who's duration is measured in NANOseconds.

Your inability to understand what you read is quite frustrating.
 
Asked and answered.

Captain_Swoop said:
Do you actualy think that the laser used on the LLLR can be seen by anyone one the moon?

Do you think that the lasers are bright shafts of light as seen in Sci Fi movies, James Bond etc?
Click to expand...

Asked and answered Captain_Swoop.

Yes.

If you are unappreciative of nature's own answer, I suggest you contact professors Alley and Townes and ask them if they might request mother nature to change the world so as it would be more to your liking.

Pat
 
Last edited:
AOT is the way to go go go when in the LM

R.A.F. said:
Patrick...will you NOW admit your error regarding this?...or will you ignorantly continue making unreasoned claims?
Click to expand...

The astronauts employed the AOT and not a sextant aboard the LM. The AOT was primarily used to realign the platform, though coordinate determinations were made with the aid of this device, such as in the context of running a P68, just after landing.

The astronauts claimed to not see stars from the surface of the moon or from cislunar space for the most part RAF. Not infrequently, they said that they had difficulty sighting stars through both the AOT and the CSM optics.

With regard to claims made by the astronauts, I find that the claims of not seeing stars from the surface of the moon and not seeing stars for most of the journey through cislunar space to be ludicrous, and in a very real and meaningful sense, contemptuous. How dare they play us for such fools?

I suggest you write to Neil Armstrong if you object to his claims. I did once and he never wrote me back. Perhaps you will have better luck.

Pat.
 
Last edited:
Patrick1000 said:
A final point before I conclude for the day. There is the famous visor down photograph of Armstrong "walking across the surface of the moon". We are all very familiar with this image. This cannot be an authentic moonscape shot. They would not allow Armstrong to do this and of course Armstrong would not do such a fool hardy thing in the context of genuine potential for exposure to laser light of that intensity. There must not be any authentic risk of exposure to ruby red light in the "context" of this famous photo, and so one may conclude Neil Armstrong is not on the surface of the moon on July 20 1969. Pat
Click to expand...

If it was too dangerous to open the visor, why is there a visor on the suit?

There are MANY pictures of astronauts with the visors open.
 
Patrick1000 said:
The astronauts employed the AOT and not a sextant aboard the LM. The AOT was primarily used to realign the platform, though coordinate determinations were made with the aid of this device, such as in the context of running a P68, just after landing.
Click to expand...

So what?

The astronauts claimed to not see stars from the surface of the moon or from cislunar space for the most part RAF. Not infrequently, they said that they had difficulty sighting stars through both the AOT and the CSM optics.
Click to expand...

Shifting the goalposts again? Above you claimed
"for over 200,000 miles of coasting out to mother earth's closest luminary, for the most part, the astronauts say they saw no stars? "

With regard to claims made by the astronauts, I find that the claims of not seeing stars from the surface of the moon and not seeing stars for most of the journey through cislunar space to be ludicrous, and in a very real and meaningful sense, contemptuous.
Click to expand...

Didn't you just move the goalposts AWAY from this mistake? Kicking the ball into your own net is amusing but not very productive.

How dare they play us for such fools?
Click to expand...

You're doing that part all by yourself.

I suggest you write to Neil Armstrong if you object to his claims. I did once and he never wrote me back. Perhaps you will have better luck.

Pat.
Click to expand...

"Mr. Armstrong: I'm an uneducated high school kid pretending to be a Doctor on the Internet, and I've made up a completely stupid theory about the moon landings....."

Yeah, I'm sure that one went straight to the top of the pile.
 
Patrick1000 said:
This explains one of Apollo's deep mysteries drewid. At the post Apollo 11 flight press conference, Armsrtong says that at no time did any of the astronauts("WE" he says) see stars from the surface of the moon or the sunlit side of the moon when travleing in the CM. Ever wonder why he says this? Why say something so off the wall unless of course your contrived story demands it? This is a risky risky lie because it is so out there. As such, it reveals one of the fraud's crucial aspects, difficulty in dealing with the laser/LRRR. On the one hand, the LRRR's successful targeting will "prove" they really were up there, on the other hand, they can't let anyone know where the LRRR is while they have cameras running and while they are vulnerable to being asked questions about it. (Actually Aldrin claims to see it once, the laser, and is asked about it fairly late in the trip. But this is staged, contrived, inauthentic.) The laser is a hot hot problem given the astronauts are not in fact anywhere near it and wouldn't begin to really know how to describe it. Aldrin says it is white I believe. Were they really on the moon, it would all be different.

Ever wonder how Armstrong gets away with saying that for the vast majority of the cislunar excursion to the moon, for over 200,000 miles of coasting out to mother earth's closest luminary, for the most part, the astronauts say they saw no stars? Not a credible statement at all, a very risky lie. Must be covering for something very big to take that risk, sonmething like an inability to deal with the laser issue. Best to deny it by way of saying one cannot see anything.

Haven't you ever wondered drewid why it is that Armstrong makes such a preposterous claim? Well here it is, one of the deep and great Apollo 11 Mission mysteries now before us open to read like a child's space adventure book, so very simple now to see wouldn't you say?

To see stars is to see the laser, an ever so complicated problem with which to deal for so many reasons if the journey is fraud and not science.

This is critical stuff drewid, critical.

Pat
Click to expand...

WHICH IS WHAT? Can you PLEASE learn to write a complete thought, instead of these long pointless rambles?

WHY is the "hoax" forced to claim that seeing stars from the surface of the Moon is impossible (which they do not, you fracking incompetent liar, but anyhow...!) WHY!? WHY is this important?

PLEASE stop with the walls of text and learn to write!
 
Is and isn't possible.

Thanks for the comment Travis. Brevity is and is not possible under these circumstances.

If I wish to convey a relatively complex idea such as , "The Apollo 11 Mission official narrative is internally incoherent". Sure I can state that, matter of fact, I did right there. But such a stand alone statement means little in this context. One needs to support one's position in many ways, and this requires not an insignificant amount of writing.

On the other hand, once I've said something fairly "big" and have supported it as best I can in the context of its presentation, then I can shoot off fairly brief answers to questions.

I do try as funny as that sounds.
 
Last edited:
nomuse said:
WHICH IS WHAT? Can you PLEASE learn to write a complete thought, instead of these long pointless rambles?

WHY is the "hoax" forced to claim that seeing stars from the surface of the Moon is impossible (which they do not, you fracking incompetent liar, but anyhow...!) WHY!? WHY is this important?

PLEASE stop with the walls of text and learn to write!
Click to expand...

The questions are rhetorical nomuse, or in your parlance, "rhetorical rambles". When Neil says that the only thing one is able to see in cislunar space is the earth and the sun, ya' gotta' ask yourself, "does this guy really believe I am buyin' this line?" Of course the answer is, "No!" But that's an of course, of course. So the question, the "rhetorical ramble", well that takes it to the next level, takes you to the next level deep, or not so deep, of metaphor, depending on how badly your mom feels about doling out all those, even in 1960s bucks, worthless greenbacks.

I wonder if they couldn't mix those worthless tax dollar greenbacks with John Borman's imaginary space poopies to make a nitrogen rich rocket fuel for NASA's imaginary Apollo 11? Maybe they did! Wonder if that is what gave that phony Saturn 5 trailing blaze that nice nice orange glow? Remember in freshman chemistry class nomuse how you'd test for "sodium" "Borman, poopies" or what not, by subjecting this , that, or the other flaming substance of interest to some type of colorimetric assay? I remember that stuff. I was always one of the smartest kids in the class, even in college and grad school.

Oh well, guess I should go back to researching this, that and the other thing for my next fabulous iteration of an interminably eloquent DrPat master stroke.

And by the way nomuse, thanks a CSM space capsule full of John Borman poopie load for your incredibly relevant post. The folks at the forum here seem to be able to produce one ripe non sequitur after another, like veritable hot cakes, like they're going out of style.

Best to you good buddie while I drink my way back on topic.

Much love from somewhere NOT in cislunar space, your favorite doc, DrPat.
 
Last edited:
Okay....let's focus. Why do you still feel that Borman didn't poop in space?
 
Twenty-six posts have been sent to AAH. Do not attack the individual, do not behave with incivility.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Loss Leader
 
Patrick1000 said:
The questions are rhetorical nomuse, or in your parlance, "rhetorical rambles". When Neil says that the only thing one is able to see in cislunar space is the earth and the sun, ya' gotta' ask yourself, "does this guy really believe I am buyin' this line?" Of course the answer is, "No!" But that's an of course, of course. So the question, the "rhetorical ramble", well that takes it to the next level, takes you to the next level deep, or not so deep, of metaphor, depending on how badly your mom feels about doling out all those, even in 1960s bucks, worthless greenbacks.

I wonder if they couldn't mix those worthless tax dollar greenbacks with John Borman's imaginary space poopies to make a nitrogen rich rocket fuel for NASA's imaginary Apollo 11? Maybe they did! Wonder if that is what gave that phony Saturn 5 trailing blaze that nice nice orange glow? Remember in freshman chemistry class nomuse how you'd test for "sodium" "Borman, poopies" or what not, by subjecting this , that, or the other flaming substance of interest to some type of colorimetric assay? I remember that stuff. I was always one of the smartest kids in the class, even in college and grad school.

Oh well, guess I should go back to researching this, that and the other thing for my next fabulous iteration of an interminably eloquent DrPat master stroke.

And by the way nomuse, thanks a CSM space capsule full of John Borman poopie load for your incredibly relevant post. The folks at the forum here seem to be able to produce one ripe non sequitur after another, like veritable hot cakes, like they're going out of style.

Best to you good buddie while I drink my way back on topic.

Much love from somewhere NOT in cislunar space, your favorite doc, DrPat.
Click to expand...

When did Armstrong say that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom