• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
nomuse said:
Let me see if I am following you correctly:

1) One of the Surveyor missions, or a secret launch of a similar craft, soft-lands on the Moon and deploys a retro-reflector.

2) A secret observatory performs a search pattern with a laser until they have found the device on the Moon. They generate the coordinates of their find.

3) The Apollo team, using those coordinates and existing topo maps of the Moon, reconstruct the flight parameters of Apollo 11; including adding for extra public interest the story of the overflight.

4) The Apollo team launches their fake Apollo, but just as they are about to reveal the coordinates of the pretended landing to the general public, a Soviet probe flies over the site. Quickly, they make up a plausible story about initial errors in determining position, so they can send the Soviets sniffing off in the wrong direction.

5) However, someone didn't get the memo, and has already slipped the Lick Observatory team the correct coordinates. Lick immediate aquires the LRRR, and reports this back to Houston -- even Walter Cronkite hears about it and tells the general public.

6) Lick and NASA quickly cover up the slip, claiming the Lick team are still searching. Without a chance to consult with each other, they make up different stories as to why the laser missed during the first few days.

7) Finally, Lick is "allowed" success, and it is waved around as proof that Apollo 11 really had been on the Moon.

8) Unfortunately, time takes its toll, and as various of the principles involved later dictated biographies, gave interviews, wrote books, or otherwise spoke about that time, they completely forgot the story they were supposed to be supporting. Instead, they gave out snippets of the true sequence of events, intermixed thoroughly with details that only make sense in terms of a hoax.


Do I have your latest and most current story more-or-less correct, Patrick?
Click to expand...

Patrick: This is called a concise summary. Your debunkers shouldn't have to provide this for you.
 
Be that as it may, among the many implications of his current sequence are:

° Presence of cameras on the Luna series capable of imaging an LM, plus maneuverability to make a pass over the location within hours of learning the coordinates from NASA.

° An otherwise total failure of the Soviets to track secret launches, track the purported Apollo craft, or even send a second camera.

° Ability of Lick to pick up the LRRR when the Moon was in sunlight, and, possibly, below the horizon for Lick, as well as the same performance and better from a secret observatory that actually had to paint the Moon to locate the LRRR in the first place.

And that's just the first objections that spring to mind.
 
I deny it all

Loss Leader said:
Patrick, do you deny or admit that Rockwell delivered to NASA a command module that could actually do the things NASA later claimed it did?

Do you admit or deny that Grumman delivered to NASA a lunar module that was actually capable of the things NASA later claimed it did?

Do you admit or deny that the Saturn V rocket could do the things that NASA later claimed it did?

Do you admit or deny that the Apollo Guidance Computer could function the way NASA later claimed it functioned?





Well, let's have more and not less. When was the Secret Surveyor operation launched? Where was it launched from? Was it observed by the Soviets? If not, how did they miss it? What living person is in the best position to confirm or deny this flight?





This appears to contradict your other claims. If the astronauts were afraid to look up because of the laser threat, then certainly they were on the moon. Right?
Click to expand...

I deny it all Loss Leader. As above, my claim is I have shown some principals within the Apollo program to have foreknowledge of the Tranquility Base coordinates. These people are therefore able to see into the future, or were part of an Apollo fraud plot. Since I do not believe in magic, I go with the latter option. Knowing the Apollo 11 Mission to be fraudulent I conclude the CSM never crossed cislunar space and the Eagle never landed. Whether they have such capabilities, I couldn't say. They did not do those things in the summer of '69.
 
So you really think hundreds of thousands of people were involved in the coverup and kept quiet ever since?
 
Rationale for coordinate confusion, why "hide your bird"?

nomuse said:
Be that as it may, among the many implications of his current sequence are:

° Presence of cameras on the Luna series capable of imaging an LM, plus maneuverability to make a pass over the location within hours of learning the coordinates from NASA.

° An otherwise total failure of the Soviets to track secret launches, track the purported Apollo craft, or even send a second camera.

° Ability of Lick to pick up the LRRR when the Moon was in sunlight, and, possibly, below the horizon for Lick, as well as the same performance and better from a secret observatory that actually had to paint the Moon to locate the LRRR in the first place.

And that's just the first objections that spring to mind.
Click to expand...

I also had mentioned nomuse, coordinate confusion or "bird hiding" as part of the Apollo 11 script may have not only had to do with the presence of LUNA 15, but also fears of the LRRR position simply being targeted by the Lick Observatory while the astronauts were supposed to be standing there, by Russian laser capability or French laser capability while the astronauts were supposed to be standing there, others? LUNA 15 need not even have to actually have a camera for NASA to fear it. The threat of photographing 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east and having someone document the non presence of astronauts would be enough.
 
Drat. And I also meant to stress that not only were the cameras of a quality simply unknown in that era -- performance that remains unmatched today (please...NASA couldn't dress up their LRRR robot to look at least enough like an LM to fool the current LRO?) but that this phantom LRRR mission also requires robotics in advance to what was current.

Okay, sure, you could deploy it. The Soviets managed the trick, although theirs were not focused particularly well. They also had two failures out of three attempts (okay; one total failure and one partial). How many Secret Surveyor Robots are we going to launch before getting our LRRR's 1, 2, and 3 right, Patrick? (Especially since all of them are larger and of better quality, in addition to the better focus, of even what the Soviets had hoped to achieve on the Lunkhod robots).

Oh, but I wonder if Patrick even realizes the LRRR had to be focused. Perhaps that was another of the tricks once the first acquisition was made. After all, an observatory did manage to acquire the lost and poorly-deployed Soviet LRRR. After, if I recall the details correctly, the robot itself was picked up visually by a photographic mission!

Given that this is happening several decades previous to that trick, refining down to capturing the one or two photons per pulse and sorting them from the noise and then pulsing the robot long enough for it to align itself properly -- well, that strains credibility a bit.

More importantly, this makes this billion-dollar hoax dependent on bleeding-edge technology that has already had multiple spectacular failures (as in, all the crashes and failures to deploy and so forth of automated probes in the period).

Scott Evil would say -- skip the stupid laser, or come up with a simpler and safer way to do it. After all, it isn't as if you are trying to fit the hoax to a previously released story. You can make up whatever narrative you like that is built around what is technically feasible and isn't likely to get your conspirators caught and hung.
 
Only a very few bad space apples

phunk said:
So you really think hundreds of thousands of people were involved in the coverup and kept quiet ever since?
Click to expand...

I think of the 400,000, there are only a very very very few bad space apples. We may never know who they were. One way I look for the bad apples is to see where there are "decision points" in the Apollo 11 Mission script phunk. For example, when the 1202 alarm goes off, GUIDO Bales is the guy that says, "don't worry GO!". Since the mission is a fraud, it has to be a go there. They are not going to abort a fake first landing. They are just spicing it up and helping to create rationale for the "bird hiding", the coordinate confusion. Remember Armstrong says he was worrying about "clearing alarms" so not paying attention to landing site landmarks. This helps to "hide the bird". More likely than not, Steve Bales is a bad space MAC, a bad apple. I say this because he "must say yes", must say GO. It is not a real decision. He is more likely than not in on it. Cannot say this with utter conviction though.
 
Last edited:
R.A.F. said:
See, Patrick, this is what happens when you make stuff up. Questions like this one will "follow" you until you either answer, or you admit that you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

We already know the answer...do you have the "courage" to answer truthfully?
Click to expand...

I have been a member here for quite a while now and I have never known a truther or CT aficionado admit to a mistake.
 
Patrick1000 said:
I think of the 400,000, there are only a very very very few bad space apples. We may never know who they were. One way I look for the bad apples is to see where there are "decision points" in the Apollo 11 Mission script phunk. For example, when the 1202 alarm goes off, GUIDO Bales is the guy that says, "don't worry GO!". Since the mission is a fraud, it has to be a go there. They are not going to abort a fake first landing. They are just spicing it up and helping to create rationale for the "bird hiding", the coordinate confusion. Remember Armstrong says he was worrying about "clearing alarms" so not paying attention to landing site landmarks. This helps to "hide the bird". More likely than not, Steve Bales is a bad space MAC, a bad apple. I say this because he "must say yes", must say GO. It is not a real decision. He is more likely than not in on it. Cannot say this with utter conviction though.
Click to expand...

You have a vivid imagination. Pity you can't devote it to something useful.
 
Patrick1000 said:
I deny it all Loss Leader. As above, my claim is I have shown some principals within the Apollo program to have foreknowledge of the Tranquility Base coordinates. These people are therefore able to see into the future, or were part of an Apollo fraud plot. Since I do not believe in magic, I go with the latter option. Knowing the Apollo 11 Mission to be fraudulent I conclude the CSM never crossed cislunar space and the Eagle never landed. Whether they have such capabilities, I couldn't say. They did not do those things in the summer of '69.
Click to expand...

That's the most sideways reasoning ever. Reminds me of Jack White, claiming the surface photographs were fake because the missions were fake. Why did he know the missions were fake? Because of issues with the surface photographs!

You have no answer to the problem of ALL of the technology being available to go to the Moon, of meeting the scientific needs, of being extensively and consistently documented. You have no answer, either, as to why the landings could not have taken place.

You in short offer no alternative and no rebuttal. All you offer is a question; and a question to which there are multiple answers more plausible than yours. This is truly the domain of Occam's Razor; no-one has to show that one specific answer MUST be true, but only that there are plausible answers you have not been able to refute.


Patrick -- my car won't start. I hypothesize there is an invisible, super-strong weasel hiding in the engine compartment clutching the crankshaft with his little paws not allowing it to turn.

It is possible I am out of gas; the meter is pointing down near "E." It is possible my battery doesn't have the juice to crank; the headlights are dim and yellow and flicker when I turn the key. No, I can't PROVE either of these hypothesis. It is entirely within reason that the tank still holds enough gas and the battery still holds enough juice. But being unable to PROVE that the reason the car does not start is due to a dead battery is completely different from deciding I am forced to accept the reality of Super-Weasel.
 
Patrick1000 said:
I think of the 400,000, there are only a very very very few bad space apples. We may never know who they were. One way I look for the bad apples is to see where there are "decision points" in the Apollo 11 Mission script phunk. For example, when the 1202 alarm goes off, GUIDO Bales is the guy that says, "don't worry GO!". Since the mission is a fraud, it has to be a go there. They are not going to abort a fake first landing. They are just spicing it up and helping to create rationale for the "bird hiding", the coordinate confusion. Remember Armstrong says he was worrying about "clearing alarms" so not paying attention to landing site landmarks. This helps to "hide the bird". More likely than not, Steve Bales is a bad space MAC, a bad apple. I say this because he "must say yes", must say GO. It is not a real decision. He is more likely than not in on it. Cannot say this with utter conviction though.
Click to expand...

You said that rockwell and grumman didn't deliver working systems to the mission. You think all of those people working on those wouldn't know that they were building something that didn't work?
 
Patrick1000 said:
I think of the 400,000, there are only a very very very few bad space apples. We may never know who they were. One way I look for the bad apples is to see where there are "decision points" in the Apollo 11 Mission script phunk. For example, when the 1202 alarm goes off, GUIDO Bales is the guy that says, "don't worry GO!". Since the mission is a fraud, it has to be a go there. They are not going to abort a fake first landing. They are just spicing it up and helping to create rationale for the "bird hiding", the coordinate confusion. Remember Armstrong says he was worrying about "clearing alarms" so not paying attention to landing site landmarks. This helps to "hide the bird". More likely than not, Steve Bales is a bad space MAC, a bad apple. I say this because he "must say yes", must say GO. It is not a real decision. He is more likely than not in on it. Cannot say this with utter conviction though.
Click to expand...

And you claim to understand something about the AGC.

You seriously think the specialists at Mission Control are left the same as you when your Windows PC goes BSOD and all is on screen is a hex code you know nothing about?

They knew the software. They were part of the team that wrote the software.

Bales knew what the code was, had a pretty good idea what kinds of events could be causing it, and more importantly than that, knew the AGC interrupt handling. He knew that the problem in the current form was incapable of preventing the priority tasks from being accomplished.

What, when you see a dead pixel on your laptop, are you afraid there will now be a corresponding hole in the spreadsheet you are working up? The problem of the approach radar being on and triggering frequent interrupts was more serious than that, but ultimately maps the same way to the functionality of the landing subroutines.
 
Patrick1000 said:
I also had mentioned nomuse, coordinate confusion or "bird hiding" as part of the Apollo 11 script may have not only had to do with the presence of LUNA 15, but also fears of the LRRR position simply being targeted by the Lick Observatory while the astronauts were supposed to be standing there, by Russian laser capability or French laser capability while the astronauts were supposed to be standing there, others? LUNA 15 need not even have to actually have a camera for NASA to fear it. The threat of photographing 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east and having someone document the non presence of astronauts would be enough.
Click to expand...

Are you withdrawing the claim that Lick received and reported a return earlier than was scripted?
 
nomuse said:
Drat. And I also meant to stress that not only were the cameras of a quality simply unknown in that era -- performance that remains unmatched today (please...NASA couldn't dress up their LRRR robot to look at least enough like an LM to fool the current LRO?) but that this phantom LRRR mission also requires robotics in advance to what was current.

Okay, sure, you could deploy it. The Soviets managed the trick, although theirs were not focused particularly well. They also had two failures out of three attempts (okay; one total failure and one partial). How many Secret Surveyor Robots are we going to launch before getting our LRRR's 1, 2, and 3 right, Patrick? (Especially since all of them are larger and of better quality, in addition to the better focus, of even what the Soviets had hoped to achieve on the Lunkhod robots).

Oh, but I wonder if Patrick even realizes the LRRR had to be focused. Perhaps that was another of the tricks once the first acquisition was made. After all, an observatory did manage to acquire the lost and poorly-deployed Soviet LRRR. After, if I recall the details correctly, the robot itself was picked up visually by a photographic mission!

Given that this is happening several decades previous to that trick, refining down to capturing the one or two photons per pulse and sorting them from the noise and then pulsing the robot long enough for it to align itself properly -- well, that strains credibility a bit.

More importantly, this makes this billion-dollar hoax dependent on bleeding-edge technology that has already had multiple spectacular failures (as in, all the crashes and failures to deploy and so forth of automated probes in the period).

Scott Evil would say -- skip the stupid laser, or come up with a simpler and safer way to do it. After all, it isn't as if you are trying to fit the hoax to a previously released story. You can make up whatever narrative you like that is built around what is technically feasible and isn't likely to get your conspirators caught and hung.
Click to expand...

Many references by C.O. Alley and the others to using unmanned craft for their project nomuse. Discussed all of the time. One of my references cited already has a bit on that from Alley himself. I will provide more of these.
Unmanned LRRR experiments were discussed by the American team all of the time.
 
So pat has proven foreknowledge of the coordinates, but can't say at what time the coordinates were recived....

Heh.
 
Patrick1000 said:
I also had mentioned nomuse, coordinate confusion or "bird hiding" as part of the Apollo 11 script may have not only had to do with the presence of LUNA 15, but also fears of the LRRR position simply being targeted by the Lick Observatory while the astronauts were supposed to be standing there, by Russian laser capability or French laser capability while the astronauts were supposed to be standing there, others? LUNA 15 need not even have to actually have a camera for NASA to fear it. The threat of photographing 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east and having someone document the non presence of astronauts would be enough.
Click to expand...

500MW spread over a 2 mile diameter circle comes out to a bit over 5 W per square foot, divided by the time of the pulse (12ns) gives a pulse power of 0.000000005 Watt/seconds, once every 30 seconds.
 
Proof of Bird Hiding and Forekowledge

R.A.F. said:
Sorry, but you've "proved" no such thing...but it is funny how you "declare" yourself victorious.



No...it is not a "given" as you've proved no such thing.



Don'cha just love qualifiers?? :)

So Mr. big talker...what launch delivered the LRRR?? Prove that there was an unscheduled launch, now, or stop making claims you can't support.


What a bunch of garbage...I'd like to see you even try to prove any of this junk.



But of course that isn't your "purpose" here....you're just here to troll.
Click to expand...


RAF,


Take a look at my post there at #1114. Proof looks pretty good to most giving me feedback on it(not necessarily here at this forum). Show me where this proof of foreknowledge and Apollo 11 Mission fraudulence is wrong. Have yet to see an attempt from anyone here except Kiwi9. I believe my post at #1114 covered his objections, though those objections had been covered in a previous post to nomuse. Give it a try RAF. Show me where, how, why I am wrong there in #1114. If my analysis is garbage as you claim, show me how so. Where does my reasoning break down? Where is the flaw? I would like to see specifics, references, analysis from you, not empty declarative statements. These are meaningless RAF.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom