Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Erock]

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.

You sure about that date? Apollo 11 landed in the East coast mid afternoon.

Do you know what time Reed's shift started? Citation please.

 

[nomuse]

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.

Why? Why does error in determining the position mean the data was faked? (Wouldn't it be the other way around?)

I'm simply not following you here. It is impossible to follow your chain of thought through the length of your rambling, endless paragraphs full of posturing, gloating, random material, and unnecessary asides.

Are you saying there should never have been any errors? Are you saying all the tracking methods are perfect, and all the steps of communicating the data are perfect? Are you saying that any time a scientific apparatus generates a number that is out of bounds for the experiment (such as has happened at the LHC) it means the entire experiment is a fraud?

Can you possibly explain, in one sentence, how you are getting from "A" to "B" here?!

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Comment: I haven't the strength to do any more of this but I hope the point is clear. And that's just a first pass!

Pretend for just a moment I'm being a bit dim.

What?

 

[nomuse]

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.

That's called "refining."

Why do you assume that the numbers stated on the day are and must be an accurate reproduction of the most accurate determination that can be done by each separate method?

You have already described -- in detail -- two ways in which human error can and had mis-communicated some of the numbers (aka the blown digit on the DSKY, and the Texas accent on the phone to Lick).

You have also already learned about the necessary layers of correction -- analogues to which occur in almost every scientific apparatus across the world -- that would be applied to the raw numbers over time; aka correcting for known and for newly discovered errors in that particular navigational method.



But why should it matter? Even if you can show that the exact same AGC readout was given two different values in two different accounts, this is mere noise. It is expected. Go open a random high school or college astronomy text and you will find a clearly wrong number for the mass of Io or perhaps the distance of (the barycenter of) 61 Cygni. Errors slip through editors. Errors are sometimes copied from secondary sources and propagate for years until they are finally caught.

Welcome to the real world!

Unless you can show a clear pattern of numbers being changed in a necessary way to support the otherwise unsupportable (aka, if all the original numbers described an Apollo mission with insufficient delta-V to even make it to the Moon), you've got nothing.

 

[Oji]

He can't even come up with a consistent handwave ....

And as he says: if it is inconsistent, it isn't true.

 

[nomuse]

Since the astronauts were not on the moon, they feared lasers. Not necessarily just "our own" ruby red laser at Lick Observatory, but any laser.

If they weren't on the Moon, the Lick laser couldn't hit them. QED.

You see, others could not take a picture of the landing site to prove or disporve the landing's authenticity,

Are you now officially withdrawing your Luna 15 claim?

Also, your argument fails. MY version of the hoax attaches the LRRR to the roof of the LM, and wires the latter for automated landing. Any passing spacecraft sees just what it is supposed to see.

but they could shine light from the earth, and just like the argon laser filmed/photographed in 1968 by surveyor VII, it would be anticipated for a laser image to appear in astronaut filmings/photos, if they were shots that included the earth at a time when anybody's laser was fired.

Not with any camera settings not intended specifically for picking up said laser. You've been shown the math on this already. You ignored it.

This by the way is why Alan Bean purposely breaks the tv camera during the Apollo 12 mission. Because everyone including the Russians and French know those guys are supposed to be at the Surveyor 3 site. It can easily be targeted. If the Russians or French or whomever shoot a laser of any type, one at least as bright and visible as the 1968 Surveyor VII filmed argon laser, then the light should appear in video, photos of the earth.

Busy guy, that Al Bean. He must have broken ALL the cameras, because landing coordinates were given on all the landings and they have been verified by modern missions not controlled by NASA.

Also not counting the other two LRRR set up on following missions. To which of course coordinates were given -- especially since the Apollo 11 one was the smallest of the bunch and not used as much by places like Apache Point.

And did Al Bean also smash all the Hassies? I seem to recall a picture or two surviving from the lunar surface....

Astronauts feared stars because to see stars was to admit to being able to see lasers, and lasers of any sort would be expected to show up on imaging. The astronauts were never on the moon. so the absence of these images would prove Apollo bogus. More, with good detail and references galore to follow abaddon.

You don't understand physiological optics, do you? No; do the math for yourself; the laser would not be visible to astronauts or to cameras set to operate on the daylit surface.

What a stupid conspiracy you've invented here. Scott Evil would shoot THEM. So....in order to not have to be asked by an enterprising journalist if they had noticed a nanosecond laser pulse, the astronauts are told to lie about the visibility of stars? Something which is easily refuted by any backyard astronomer?

And why? They can't just lie about having seen a laser? Wouldn't that be a simpler solution? Your conspiracy sounds just like those Hollywood villains who decide in order to keep a secret it is smart to pursue the hero through fifty blocks of rush-hour traffic shooting at him while every cop in the city watches.

 

[drewid]

Not much of a narrative is it? Poor plotting for a writer.

 

[nomuse]

...
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.
...

I presume you mean, other than the magical invisible LRRR-deploying robot, the very real Surveyor and Lunokhod programs, etc.

 

[nomuse]

For that matter, what about 8 and 10?

Oh, wait, I remember now. He "proved" 8 was "fake" because Borman crapped his pants but they didn't immediately decelerate from 25000 miles per hour to zero and then zoom back to earth at 25000 miles per hour so he could have a shower and get some fresh tighty-whiteys.

I sorta hoped once he might get back to that because I read the prelim medical report and it really put things in context.

"So, Doctor. The patient in Room 14 is puking up all over everyone. Seems to be the same bug the staff had last week. But in other news, the drinking water is green and stinks, we've just barely got the carbon monoxide leak under control but the fact that the hospital is at 8,000 feet is giving everyone altitude sickness. The bomb in the basement appears to be safe for the moment, but the dirty bomb that went off next door is still irradiating the outside of the building. So far the bricks seem to be stopping it but that could change over the next twelve hours. Oh, and the bridge to the mainland is down and we can't get anyone in or out for the next eight days. So...the patient in Room 14 takes priority, right?"

 

[Travis]

I find it odd he expects us to take his medical opinion with great gravity when he continues to insist that any fecal contamination incident needs to be treated like a Norovirus isolation emergency.

 

[nomuse]

I wanted to work in the still-unknown effects of long-duration exposure to microgravity but my hospital scenario was already far too strained.

But, really -- you read reports of the period, and they are obviously concerned about the astronauts surviving just being in space -- with fragile and fairly new systems to provide habitable pressure, temperature, humidity, partial pressure of oxygen, limited toxic outgassing, potable water, etc. Plus the concerns of, well, flying around in a giant bomb. You can see them metaphorically sighing in relief as calcium mobilization and bone depletion and cardiac arythmias and so forth don't get too much worse than previously observed, and no new and unpredicted result of the space environment comes up to harm the astronauts. And they dodge the bullet once again on a Class A flare pointing directly at the spacecraft. A 24-hour 'flu seems positively mild by comparison.

 

[Toke]

I have still not figured out that camera thing.
Sure, somebody standing one the moon points it at the sun and ruin it.

Apparently it is to hide the fact that that he is not on the moon and cannot catch a laser beam supposed to arrive at some point?
So how did he ruin it if not on the moon?
Why claim to ruin it, how about claiming to have been pointing it somewhere else at the laser time?

 

[dafydd]

Not much of a narrative is it? Poor plotting for a writer.

He's not a patch on Tom Clancy,but Tom Clancy is an author.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I have still not figured out that camera thing.
Sure, somebody standing one the moon points it at the sun and ruin it.

Apparently it is to hide the fact that that he is not on the moon and cannot catch a laser beam supposed to arrive at some point?
So how did he ruin it if not on the moon?
Why claim to ruin it, how about claiming to have been pointing it somewhere else at the laser time?

Toke -- you have accurately summarized the current "theory" offering from Dr. Sox, The Man Who Mistook His *** For A Hat.

 

[Travis]

Yes, deliberately ruining a camera that wouldn't have been able to see the laser anyways is surely the best explanation.

 

[nomuse]

Scott Evil says; "You want to run a conspiracy that will abscond with billions of dollars and remain undetected for forty years? First, don't tell them anything you don't have to. Tell them the camera was never pointed at the sky -- just policy, don't explain it. Tell them there was a laser at Lick -- don't tell them the aperture, don't tell them the beam diameter, don't give them any details they don't need."

"Don't bring 16mm movie camera, multiple video cameras, and medium format professional-quality cameras with wide lenses and 200-frame snap-in magazines...just bring A camera. Take four shots to show you were there. Heck; that's more than Hillary and Tenzig took! Don't do all your voice communication in the clear; encrypt it. Don't release the software for the AGC. Don't let anyone know the ISP of the S1 -- it's Rocketdyne or Grumman or whatever trade secret, that's all you have to say."

 

[Buckaroo]

Here's the thing, "Patrick." I work in the same office with a gentleman who creates lunar visualizations from LRO data, squirted fresh out of the craft's udder. I have personally, and just last week, seen high-resolution raw images of the Apollo 17 landing site that show the descent stage of Challenger sitting on the lunar surface, along with the rover and tracks of the astronauts (though, interestingly, the tracks of the rover don't show up for reasons I won't go into here). Remember, this data comes straight from the spacecraft, to the receiver, to the LRO team, to my officemate, with no middlemen. I would be interested to hear your explanation of this data. Is my officemate in on the hoax? The LRO team? (It's never come up in our staff meetings...) Are you prepared to claim that they, or I, am lying?

 

[Patrick1000]

Would love to see the pics

Here's the thing, "Patrick." I work in the same office with a gentleman who creates lunar visualizations from LRO data, squirted fresh out of the craft's udder. I have personally, and just last week, seen high-resolution raw images of the Apollo 17 landing site that show the descent stage of Challenger sitting on the lunar surface, along with the rover and tracks of the astronauts (though, interestingly, the tracks of the rover don't show up for reasons I won't go into here). Remember, this data comes straight from the spacecraft, to the receiver, to the LRO team, to my officemate, with no middlemen. I would be interested to hear your explanation of this data. Is my officemate in on the hoax? The LRO team? (It's never come up in our staff meetings...) Are you prepared to claim that they, or I, am lying?

I would love to see the photos Buckaroo.

For now, my claims deal with Apollo 11 and its fraudulence. I have begun to explore Apollo 12 with respect to the "sun blinded tv camera issue" a bit, but as I have yet to complete my evaluation of the Apollo 11 Mission, my focus remains there, primarily on the Apollo 11 Mission..

The other missions are certainly worth looking into. I suspect they are fraudulent as well. Perhaps you have seen my comments with respect to the Borman diarrhea episode. If one proves that a feigned and not authentic bout of g.i. distress, then all of the Apollo Missions would be seen as fraudulent as 8 was the one that was supposed to prove cislunar space was negotiable.

Anyhoo, love to see the pics.

 

[Buckaroo]

You didn't answer my question. Remember, there are no middlemen. The LRO team gets the data directly, so if the Apollo missions were a fraud, then either the LRO team is lying, my officemate is lying, or I am lying. Do you claim this? Simple question.

 

[theprestige]

[Apollo] 8 was the one that was supposed to pro ve cislunar space was negotiable.

Wrong. By the time Apollo 8 flew, cislunar space was already well known to be negotiable, and had in fact been negotiated many times already.

Indeed, since the beginning of human spaceflight, there was never any doubt that cislunar space was negotiable. It was only ever really a question of building the spacecraft to do it. And even that question had been well answered before Apollo 8 ever left the ground.

The actual purpose of Apollo 8 was to test and refine flight hardware and flight operations, as a precursor to future, more extended and more complex cislunar flights. Which it did, and ably so, demonstrating that even minor bouts of GI distress could be accommodated in the Apollo mission profile.

Not that the accommodation was a surprise to anybody involved, since they were all well accustomed to accommodating--and compensating for--minor and major mishaps in flight test operations, going back to even before manned spaceflight began.

There are libraries full of the stories written about test pilots, their mishaps, and their accommodations. You think Borman's poopscapade is all that? What about Yeager breaking the sound barrier for the first time ever with a cracked rib? Or Yeager (again) getting slapped in the face with a burning ejection-seat rocket motor a mile over the Mojave, and living to tell the tale? If test pilots getting into (mildly) crazy situations and coming out the other side alive is a sign of hoax, then nobody since the Wright brothers has ever flown an airplane, ridden a rocket, or probably driven a race car or sailed an ocean-going yacht. Indeed, one needs only to consider the amount of idiocy and illness involved in Christopher Columbus's notorious voyage, to conclude that the entire New World is a hoax of epic proportions.

Of course, in reality, the only hoax here of any proportions, epic or otherwise, is you. And my money's on "otherwise".