Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Patrick1000]

It is concise

TL;DR

Why does the word concise pass over your head repeatedly?

Do you have reading comprehension issues?

Ever seen anyone prove the Apollo 11 Mission telemetry bogus in a full length book before let alone a hand full of pages if that? Complicated subject and big fraud dealt with very concisely most would say.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

This coordinate business has nothing to do with the CSM except as regards it is part of the launch solution.

The relative positions of the LM and CSM are all Reed cares about.

...[Reed] is talking about the landing coordinates of the LM as determined by the PNGS, AGS, planned targeting, photos and MFSN. They are worthless as they differ so much from one another and cannot be used to calculate a solution to bring the Eagle to the CSM.

Reed doesn't say they are worthless, he says they don't agree.
I think the 25,000' discrepancy he's talking about is relative to the position of the CSM, and the error is in the position of that, not the LM.

Naturally, you won't agree as it's all you have supporting your current story, but I'm sure you'll have another one tomorrow.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Ever seen anyone prove the Apollo 11 Mission telemetry bogus...

No.

 

[Patrick1000]

Proof of bogus telemetry and confimation of Apollo 11 Miision fraudulence at #1178

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.

Take a shot debunking my argument there RAF at post #1178. Bogus telemetry proven and along with it Apollo 11 Mission fraudulence all in one fell swoop, in one post and no less, and we are not done yet exploring this fraud further.

 

[Patrick1000]

take a shot

No.

Would you care to take a shot at debunking my argument at post #1178 Jack by the hedge? I made that claim, the telemetry is bogus. I just see a declarative sentence from you and nothing else. Let's see what you have got.

 

[Patrick1000]

Effectively worthless

The relative positions of the LM and CSM are all Reed cares about.

Reed doesn't say they are worthless, he says they don't agree.
I think the 25,000' discrepancy he's talking about is relative to the position of the CSM, and the error is in the position of that, not the LM.

Naturally, you won't agree as it's all you have supporting your current story, but I'm sure you'll have another one tomorrow.

Worthless in practice. Reed ignores the coordinates that he doesn't calculate on his own. He takes his head set off and squares off with the Fight Director. He emphasizes at the end of his telling his tale that using the other numbers could have led to a ten second error in liftoff time. Here's Reed;

"I remember taking my headset off and walking up to the Flight Direc- tor, Milt Windler to explain the situation. We only used that kind of face to face communication when we had a serious problem such as this. I detailed the problem as best we knew it and the process that we’d have to follow to get the data we needed, and why we had to start a rev early to finish the calculations and then find the critical lift-off time for lunar launch. I recall the CapCom instructing Buzz Aldrin that we needed him to perform the RR check early but I don’t believe that CapCom explained why, just another check was all. Shaft & trunnion angles were passed up to aid acquisition. Right on time as the CSM cleared the horizon we began seeing data. We counted the agonizing minutes as the telemetry came flowing in until the CSM was receding. Now we had the data we needed to run the problem (a rendezvous problem in reverse) and get the correct liftoff time*. And that’s what we used. Later we would find out just where were we on the surface. We were actually over 25,000 feet from the nearest of the other five choices we had! At 5,000-fps orbital velocity of the CSM that could have been up to a ten second error in liftoff."

Those numbers look pretty worthless to me. Also Jack by the hedge, care to explain why the numbers as they appear in the Mission Report do agree with one another and do agree with Reed's calculations? I say they are phony, it is all phony, fake, a fraud. How would you reconcile the difference between Reed's accounting of what the coordinate numbers were and what NASA reports in its Apollo 11 Mission Report. I reconcile it by saying the telemetry received by the flight officers was fake. It did not come from real space ships on a real mission. I say the flight officers for the most part, were all of course assuming everything to be real. What do you think Jack by the Hedge? How do you resolve the discrepancy between the story Reed tells and the other story as told by very different numbers in the Apollo 11 Mission Report?

 

[abaddon]

This coordinate business has nothing to do with the CSM except as regards it is part of the launch solution. Here is Reed;

"I sat down at the console for that prelaunch shift and was debriefed by the previous team to complete hand-off. I probably had my second cup of coffee by then and got on the loop to SELECT to get the best landing site. I remember asking SELECT what he had for landing site coordinates. I’ll never forget his answer when he said, “take your pick FIDO!” I also remember not reacting too positively to his offer. He explained that we had five different sites. He said “we have MSFN(tracking radars), PNGS (primary LM guidance computer), AGS(backup LM guidance computer), the targeted landing site and, oh yes, the geologist have determined yet another site based upon the crew’s description of the landscape and correlating that with orbiter photos”. No two of these were even close to each other."

Nothing there per Reed about the CSM in this particular quote. He is talking about the landing coordinates of the LM as determined by the PNGS, AGS, planned targeting, photos and MFSN. They are worthless as they differ so much from one another and cannot be used to calculate a solution to bring the Eagle to the CSM.

Also nothing there to support your wild claims.

 

[abaddon]

Means plenty. We have incontrovertible proof that the telemetry is fake and so the Apollo 11 Mission is fake. No other way to read this.

You are kidding, right?

What "incontrovertible proof" have you offered?

None at all.

 

[abaddon]

Take a shot debunking my argument there RAF at post #1178. Bogus telemetry proven and along with it Apollo 11 Mission fraudulence all in one fell swoop, in one post and no less, and we are not done yet exploring this fraud further.

Bogus telemetry is NOT proven.

No matter how many times you claim this, it will not magically become true by means of sheer repetition.

 

[abaddon]

Would you care to take a shot at debunking my argument at post #1178 Jack by the hedge? I made that claim, the telemetry is bogus. I just see a declarative sentence from you and nothing else. Let's see what you have got.

Yes, you did make the claim, therefore the onus is on you to provide solid evidence.

Yet you fail to provide anything substantive. All you provide are restatements of your claim, with no evidence.

It matters not a whit how many words you use, nor how you vary your claim.
In the absence of actual evidence it remains a baseless claim.

 

[Patrick1000]

Incontrovertible proof

Bogus telemetry is NOT proven.

No matter how many times you claim this, it will not magically become true by means of sheer repetition.

Reed says one thing about the numbers on the morning of 07/20/1969. the numbers were at great variance from one another and all of them at least 25,000 feet from his. Now the Apollo 11 Mission Report is published months later and there is little variance and the numbers are close to Reed's own. This is a fraudulent Mission Report and it means the numbers being dealt with during the mission were fraudulent as well. Those numbers are communicated via telemetry. Go ahead abaddon, prove me wrong. Debunk my claim. Produce an alternative explanation for this cooking of the Apollo 11 Mission Books.

 

[abaddon]

Those numbers look pretty worthless to me. Also Jack by the hedge, care to explain why the numbers as they appear in the Mission Report do agree with one another and do agree with Reed's calculations?

So now you are complaining about the consistency of Reed's account and the Mission report.

I say they are phony, it is all phony, fake, a fraud. How would you reconcile the difference between Reed's accounting of what the coordinate numbers were and what NASA reports in its Apollo 11 Mission Report.

And all of a sudden you are complaining about the inconsistency between Reed and the mission report.

Do you not see how this makes you appear? You are changing your fable in the space of a single post.

I reconcile it by saying the telemetry received by the flight officers was fake. It did not come from real space ships on a real mission.

Baseless claim supported by no evidence at all.

I say the flight officers for the most part, were all of course assuming everything to be real. What do you think Jack by the Hedge? How do you resolve the discrepancy between the story Reed tells and the other story as told by very different numbers in the Apollo 11 Mission Report?

And this brings us full circle. How could a few at the top fool everyone?
If everyone was building a working spaceship, testing it, and making sure it all worked, why not just use it?

 

[dafydd]

Take a shot debunking my argument there RAF at post #1178. Bogus telemetry proven and along with it Apollo 11 Mission fraudulence all in one fell swoop, in one post and no less, and we are not done yet exploring this fraud further.

No. Why do CT fans think that Bellman tactics will work?

 

[abaddon]

Reed says one thing about the numbers on the morning of 07/20/1969. the numbers were at great variance from one another and all of them at least 25,000 feet from his. Now the Apollo 11 Mission Report is published months later and there is little variance and the numbers are close to Reed's own. This is a fraudulent Mission Report and it means the numbers being dealt with during the mission were fraudulent as well. Those numbers are communicated via telemetry. Go ahead abaddon, prove me wrong. Debunk my claim. Produce an alternative explanation for this cooking of the Apollo 11 Mission Books.

There is nothing to debunk, as you have provided no substance.

All you have done is concoct a fantasy.
It is not evidenced in the real world, and is becoming increasingly bizarre over time, as you feebly attempt to adjust your fantasy to accommodate the facts that have been pointed out to you repeatedly, or ignore the facts which make swiss cheese of your fantasy.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Reed's reaction to the "take your pick" comment is slight hyperbole to improve the story he's telling. There were multiple estimates for the landing site and they didn't agree. No big deal.

The 25,000' offset is a separate matter. That's the error in where he thought the CSM was, relative to the landing site. When he measured where the LM and CSM were relative to each other using radar, he would have got a location for the LM which was thousands of feet off. But that would have been based on his assumption about where the CSM was.

That can't be the same figure which appears in the post-mission report, but we don't know how that figure was updated or corrected due to later readings from the ascent etc.

<edit to add> The above is just my interpretation of how what Patrick's presented is internally consistent with a real mission. His story is self-debunking, without recourse to the reams of evidence which prove beyond a shred of doubt the missions were absolutely real.

 

[Patrick1000]

I gots plenty O substance

There is nothing to debunk, as you have provided no substance.

All you have done is concoct a fantasy.
It is not evidenced in the real world, and is becoming increasingly bizarre over time, as you feebly attempt to adjust your fantasy to accommodate the facts that have been pointed out to you repeatedly, or ignore the facts which make swiss cheese of your fantasy.

Looks like plenty of substance to me. David Reed says one thing and the Apollo 11 Mission authors write something completely different. Looks like cover up, fraud , lying, whatever you want to call it.

So abaddon, why are the numbers in the Mission Report not like Reed describes them, at variance from one another, at variance from the numbers he came up with. why would the Apollo Mission Report authors write something entirely different from how Reed describes what happened. why o why?

 

[drewid]

oh. HAHAHHAA, I see what he did.
Oh Patrick, that's a bit underhand.
More interested in winning an argument than uncovering the truth?

 

[Patrick1000]

I'll give you a head's up abaddon

There is nothing to debunk, as you have provided no substance.

All you have done is concoct a fantasy.
It is not evidenced in the real world, and is becoming increasingly bizarre over time, as you feebly attempt to adjust your fantasy to accommodate the facts that have been pointed out to you repeatedly, or ignore the facts which make swiss cheese of your fantasy.

Better brace yourself for my next wall of text when I compare the numbers with those fed to Michael Collins in the CM. Take a look at that abaddon.

It is not a fantasy abaddon to point out the FIDO said one thing and the Mission Report says something entirly different. I see no fantasy there. Again, you explain the discrepancy, or ignore it if you wish and as you please. I will continue with my presentation unopposed. Makes no difference to me. Others will see the truth in this if/as you refuse to accept it.

 

[abaddon]

According to you:

Also Jack by the hedge, care to explain why the numbers as they appear in the Mission Report do agree with one another and do agree with Reed's calculations?

Yet then:

Looks like plenty of substance to me. David Reed says one thing and the Apollo 11 Mission authors write something completely different. Looks like cover up, fraud , lying, whatever you want to call it.

So abaddon, why are the numbers in the Mission Report not like Reed describes them, at variance from one another, at variance from the numbers he came up with. why would the Apollo Mission Report authors write something entirely different from how Reed describes what happened. why o why?

You are still avoiding the question asked.

If the few at the top hoodwinked the 400,000 scientists and engineers into designing and building and testing a working spaceship, capable of bringing 3 astronauts to the moon and back, why did they not use the spaceship?

 

[Patrick1000]

I obviously am quit commited to the truth

oh. HAHAHHAA, I see what he did.
Oh Patrick, that's a bit underhand.
More interested in winning an argument than uncovering the truth?

take a shot at my argument drewid. Let's see if you can debunk the truth. Not my truth, THE truth.