Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[twinstead]

We have demonstrated the telemetry, the Apollo 11 Mission Report and the Apollo 11 Mission itself to all be fraudulent. As such, it is more likely than not to be the case that we shall find the spacecraft built by the NASA contractors would not have been a competent craft such that it could reach the moon. This conjecture, though strongly grounded in some very good evidence, is not a certainty however.

We can say, with utter conviction, that as of the time of the Apollo 11 Mission's completion, as of the time of the fraudulent Apollo 11 capsule splashdown, there had never been a successful lunar landing. As such, as of 07/24/1969, the day of the feigned Apollo 11 capsule return, we have no reason to believe a spacecraft was in existence capable of landing on the moon.

Given Alan Bean's apparent star/laser phobia as well, I suspect I will be concluding the same about the Apollo 12 Mission. But for now , Apollo 11 is US CERTIFIED fake , and at this time, there is nothing evidence wise to even remotely convince me that NASA had a spaceship that worked, worked in the sense of being able to land men on the moon.

Well, you're wrong. NOBODY has "demonstrated the telemetry, the Apollo 11 Mission Report and the Apollo 11 Mission itself to all be fraudulent", and most certainly not you, so everything that follows is utter garbage. How you think your uncanny ability to argue an untenable position for eternity is the same as real research I'll never know.

 

[abaddon]

We have demonstrated the telemetry, the Apollo 11 Mission Report and the Apollo 11 Mission itself to all be fraudulent.

No, you have failed miserably at that.

As such, it is more likely than not to be the case that we shall find the spacecraft built by the NASA contractors would not have been a competent craft such that it could reach the moon. This conjecture, though strongly grounded in some very good evidence, is not a certainty however.

The contractors designed built and tested each and every component rigorously. Why would they not work as designed?

We can say, with utter conviction, that as of the time of the Apollo 11 Mission's completion, as of the time of the fraudulent Apollo 11 capsule splashdown, there had never been a successful lunar landing.

Aaaaannnnd throw in a new claim for good measure. Utterly wrong. Got any evidence for the faking of the splashdown?

Didn't think so.

As such, as of 07/24/1969, the day of the feigned Apollo 11 capsule return, we have no reason to believe a spacecraft was in existence capable of landing on the moon.

Apart from the mountain of actual evidence, you mean?

Given Alan Bean's apparent star/laser phobia as well, I suspect I will be concluding the same about the Apollo 12 Mission. But for now , Apollo 11 is US CERTIFIED fake , and at this time, there is nothing evidence wise to even remotely convince me that NASA had a spaceship that worked, worked in the sense of being able to land men on the moon.

Your incredulity and disbelief and unsubstantiated claims do not constitute evidence.

Just because you are unable to understand the science does not mean no one else can.

 

[Patrick1000]

As bright as Sirius

Here you go.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_147644e564a1d48d0a.jpg[/qimg]

The picture is clearly overexposed, from the fact that the bright side of the Earth shows up as featureless white with a massive halo, and even so the two lasers are only faintly visible on the night side. On a TV signal with a sensible exposure they'd be completely invisible. They're so weak, in fact, that they might not even have been powerful enough to incinerate Neil Armstrong if he opened his visor.

The suggestion that "any laser" would have been visible on a TV picture is complete rubbish.

Dave

The Primary Investigator on the LRRR Experiment C.O. Alley is quite fond of pointing out the laser images there are as bright as Sirius, the brightest star in the sky. AND this is a very weak laser, 1 watt argon.

Charles Townes the Nobel laureate is fond of pointing out that Los Angeles where one of the lasers originates there is running on millions of watts, yet is invisible. The visible argon laser photographed by Surveyor VII was only of 1 watt in power.

Lasers available to target Tranquility Base on 07/20/1969 by not only our country but by Russia, France and others? were much much much more powerful than this feeble one watt affair here.

So no one could take a picture to prove the astronauts were not there, but someone could force them to take a picture of a laser were they really there. this is what they feared and so they deny stars, cut the tops of the moonscape photos so there is not even a hint of the earth in the sky except in a couple crummy shots. All so bogus and contrived.

 

[Patrick1000]

Alan Bean and his canmera ruse

Again, this is why Bean "points the camera at the sun" and breaks it. Everyone knew the coordinates of the Apollo 12 site were the landing site of Surveyor 3. If Bean had his camera, were the Apollo 12 Mission real, someone might try to force a photo of a laser. Since the Mission in all likelihood is fake, they bust the laser and now, no one can have their picture taken. how convenient. this again is why astronauts fear stars. Ever hear of an astronaut afraid of seeing stars? Not until the Apollo Missions.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Apart from the stills cameras and the Movie cameras that returned lots of pictures you mean?

 

[drewid]

Jack by the hedge has it right. You are effectively adding (in your head) the 20000 feet error that has already been corrected for, which was noted just a few pages up in the same mission report.

Reed was surprised that his reading (using the CSM as datum) was off from the others by 25000 feet.

Obviously this happened in the morning of the 7th, Of course they wouldn't have just shrugged and said "Well that's odd, now lets move on" That would be rediculous.
Not as rediculous as robot LRRRs and ghost launches, but still unlikely.

They would have studied the telemetry, discovered the 20,000 foot error, corrected the other readings and found them all to be fairly clustered, and still had time for coffee and doughnuts before handing off coordinates to Lick in the evening.

This is your grand conspiracy?

 

[phunk]

Again, this is why Bean "points the camera at the sun" and breaks it. Everyone knew the coordinates of the Apollo 12 site were the landing site of Surveyor 3. If Bean had his camera, were the Apollo 12 Mission real, someone might try to force a photo of a laser. Since the Mission in all likelihood is fake, they bust the laser and now, no one can have their picture taken. how convenient. this again is why astronauts fear stars. Ever hear of an astronaut afraid of seeing stars? Not until the Apollo Missions.

You know what's easier than breaking the camera? Not pointing it at earth continuously waiting for someone to shine a laser.

ETA: Not just any laser either, it would have to be more powerful than anything in existance to be picked up by that camera.

 

[Kiwi9]

I'm confused. Can somebody please help? According to Patrick1000, if I have it right:

1. Reed used a reversed rendezvous radar technique to find out exactly where the lunar module was in relation to the command and service module.

2. What Reed says about Apollo 11 is far more plausible than anything that anyone else says.

3. For Reed's technique to work and for whatever he says to be plausible, there has to be a lunar module on the lunar surface and there has to be someone inside it to turn on the radar.

4. But neither the lunar module nor the CSM can possibly cross cislunar space and therefore can't be on or orbiting the moon.

5. But what Reed says is still the most likely story because point 3 allowed him to get his figures.

Have I got that right?

Also,

6. Patrick1000 claimed early on that latitude and longitude figures given to Lick Observatory on 20 July 1969 proved fraudulent foreknowledge of the location of the LRRR, even though he couldn't prove in any way that the figures quoted were indeed the ones given to Lick that evening. He also cooked up completely unsupported nonsense about a "principal" at Mission Control personally phoning Lick with the coordinates.

7. Later, Patrick1000 changed his mind and declared that those figures were no longer necessary for him to claim fraud.

8. But he still says he has proved the foreknowledge and therefore the fakery.


But where, if he ditched his most important evidence, is his proof? And most of all, where is this proof in relation to 1 to 5 above?

It must be old age. I just cannot make any sense of this stuff.

HELP!!!!

 

[Hans]

It must be old age. I just cannot make any sense of this stuff.

Not to worry old timer - IT doesn't make any sense at all

 

[Loss Leader]

We can say, with utter conviction, that as of the time of the Apollo 11 Mission's completion, as of the time of the fraudulent Apollo 11 capsule splashdown, there had never been a successful lunar landing. As such, as of 07/24/1969, the day of the feigned Apollo 11 capsule return, we have no reason to believe a spacecraft was in existence capable of landing on the moon.

So there have never been any firsts in history? At the time Henry Ford introduced the first production-line consumer-oriented automobile, there had never been a production-line consumer-oriented automobile. As such, we have no reason to believe a production-line consumer-oriented automobile was ever in existence.

At the time Henry Hudson explored the Hudson River, there had never been an exploration of the Hudson River by a European. As such, we have no reason to believe that Hudson ever sailed up the Hudson River.

At the time Natalie Portman won an Oscar for Black Swan, Natalie Portman had never won an Oscar. As such, we have no reason to believe Natalie Portman won an Oscar for Black Swan.

I could, literally, never stop.

there is nothing evidence wise to even remotely convince me that NASA had a spaceship that worked, worked in the sense of being able to land men on the moon.

Then here's my question about that: Why does the AGC work? This guy built one in his basement. These guys programmed a computer to emulate it. NASA has released the complete schematics.

If the landing was a hoax, why does the AGC work?


Also, you recognize that you are using statements made during the lunar mission to show that there was no lunar mission. That's like me showing you a clip of Black Swan to prove that Natalie Portman never made Black Swan.

 

[twinstead]

To me, it all boils down to who actually cares if some random guy on the internet says he isn't convinced that NASA built a spaceship that worked? Anybody who is anybody IS convinced. That's good enough for me.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The Primary Investigator on the LRRR Experiment C.O. Alley is quite fond of pointing out the laser images there are as bright as Sirius, the brightest star in the sky.

The dynamic range of the camera used on the Apollo mission wasn't great enough to pick up any stars, though - a point plenty of Apollo deniers misinterpret as a sign of fakery - so clearly it wouldn't have picked up these laser signals.

AND this is a very weak laser, 1 watt argon.

One watt of optical power is not "very weak", certainly not for 1969. And, incidentally, it's more powerful than the time-averaged power of the LRRR laser, if the repetition rate was 30 seconds as someone posted earlier.

Charles Townes the Nobel laureate is fond of pointing out that Los Angeles where one of the lasers originates there is running on millions of watts, yet is invisible. The visible argon laser photographed by Surveyor VII was only of 1 watt in power.

I think you need to learn a little bit about lasers. In particular, you need to understand the difference between the electrical power needed to drive a laser, and the optical power produced by a laser.

Dave

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

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

I'm unfamiliar with this term. Can you elaborate for me? Thanks.

 

[Patrick1000]

So there have never been any firsts in history? At the time Henry Ford introduced the first production-line consumer-oriented automobile, there had never been a production-line consumer-oriented automobile. As such, we have no reason to believe a production-line consumer-oriented automobile was ever in existence.

At the time Henry Hudson explored the Hudson River, there had never been an exploration of the Hudson River by a European. As such, we have no reason to believe that Hudson ever sailed up the Hudson River.

At the time Natalie Portman won an Oscar for Black Swan, Natalie Portman had never won an Oscar. As such, we have no reason to believe Natalie Portman won an Oscar for Black Swan.

I could, literally, never stop.




Then here's my question about that: Why does the AGC work? This guy built one in his basement. These guys programmed a computer to emulate it. NASA has released the complete schematics.

If the landing was a hoax, why does the AGC work?


Also, you recognize that you are using statements made during the lunar mission to show that there was no lunar mission. That's like me showing you a clip of Black Swan to prove that Natalie Portman never made Black Swan.

We on the HB side could say "alleged" every time we make a statement about a mission statement or exchange. We assume most understand this to be our position. The mission is fake and these exchanges are not occurring in any real sense. Speaking from the HB side, we assume all on your side understand we believe this to be the case. It simply makes the communication easier than to say, "the Collins character, the Collins actor, the Collins thespian, in the fake Apollo 11 script said,. "blah blah blah" ". But that is what we mean. We are referring to an actor, not an astronaut. From here on out, assume this to be my meaning. The thing is fake, the astronauts are speaking lines, etc.. The astronauts are actors.

The Apollo 11 equipment never went to the moon. It was not proven to be functional in the context of a space trip. Just because Charles Draper has a great navigation device, doesn't mean it was employed in a bona fide moon adventure. Having/being in possession of sophisticated equipment and verifying that that equipment was employed in a genuine lunar landing are 2 different things.

I have show the telemetry data to be fraudulent, the Mission Report to be fraudulent and so too the entirety of the Apollo 11 Mission. The equipment may or may not work under any given set of circumstances, but as of July 24 1969, it had not been proven to do so as that lunar mission was bogus. We can look at Apollo 12 and the question of that particular batch of goods later.

 

[Kiwi9]

Patrick1000.

As a knowledgeable Apollo person you must be completely familiar with the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal and its resources, so please go there and look up the Preliminary Science Report for Apollo 11 and report back to everyone here what it says on page 180 about the coordinates used by Lick Observatory up until the writing of the report.

Then tell us how this fits in with your claims about coordinates.

And please don't disingenuously claim that that report on the LRRR is just a whole lot of lies published by NASA, because at the end of it you will see that it was written by the following:

C. O. Alley (University of Maryland), P. L. Bender (National Bureau of Standards), B. Bopp (McDonald Observatory), R. F. Chang (University of Maryland), D. G. Currie (University of Maryland), R. H. Dicke (Princeton University), James E. Faller (Wesleyan University), Tom Johnson (NASA Goddard Space Flight Center), W. M. Kaula (University of California at Los Angeles), G. J. F. MacDonald (University of California at Santa Barbara), J. D. Mulholland (JPL), J. Mullendore (University of Maryland), H. H. Plotkin (NASA Goddard Space Flight Center), S. K. Poultney (University of Maryland), J. Rayner (University of Maryland), Harvey Richardson (McDonald Observatory), Lloyd Robinson (Lick Observatory, University of California), E. Silverberg (University of Maryland), Paul Spadin (NASA Goddard Space Flight Center), C. Steggerda (University of Maryland), E. Joseph Wampler (Lick Observatory, University of California), Brian Warner (McDonald Observatory), Donald Wieber (Lick Observatory, University of California), D. T. Wilkinson (Princeton University), W. Williams (NASA Goddard Space Flight Center), and Irvin Winer (Wesleyan University).

 

[mercatormac]

Again, this is why Bean "points the camera at the sun" and breaks it. Everyone knew the coordinates of the Apollo 12 site were the landing site of Surveyor 3. If Bean had his camera, were the Apollo 12 Mission real, someone might try to force a photo of a laser.

You do realise that Apollo 12 didn't include an LRRR don't you? Or is there some other reason that people might be firing lasers at the site?

 

[carlitos]

I just want to point out that I noticed this, even if no one else did:

Aldrin did see a laser. Try this, pop "laser" into the search functuion for the Apollo 11 voice transcript. Aldrin sees the laser just after they leave the moon. He is quized about it by Houston on day 6 of the journey. I would quote it for you but gotta' run.

After they leave the Moon? Aldrin sees a laser.

OK.

Did I get that right, you are using what you say is a fictional account, to prove your own REAL fictional account is true?

 

[Dave Rogers]

I'm unfamiliar with this term. Can you elaborate for me? Thanks.

"Just the place for a Snark!'' the Bellman cried,
As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
By a finger entwined in his hair.


"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true.''

Lewis Carroll, The Hunting of the Snark.

Dave

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Astronauts are space men, and everyone knows that spacemen need to have lasers fired at them. Just how things are.

So, patrick1000, how's "india" treating you ? You seem to have really bad jet lag, if you're up posting at this time. Traveling to the west can exacerbate this, I've found. Try using caffeine and don't allow yourself to nap in the afternoon. Stop drinking coffee or tea about 4 hour before "bedtime" in your timezone.

But you probably know this already, as you are a practicing clinical physician.

Anyway, I've been wondering: if none of the Apollo craft went to the moon, how did the radio signals originate from there?

 

[twinstead]

What, is "india" some foreign word for "basement"?