Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Patrick1000]

Cislunar negotiability

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".

Had never heard anyone managing to cross cislunar space before the Apollo 8 mission and the associated claims that followed, that cislunar space had been traversed by a manned craft.

 

[dafydd]

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.

Stop dodging and answer the question. If what you say is true,then he and his colleagues are liars. Are they?

 

[Patrick1000]

Haven't seen the pics

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.

Will comment in an instant if I can see the pics. Am I supposed to make a statement about pictures I have not seen?

 

[Patrick1000]

Having trouble understanding the challenge

Stop dodging and answer the question. If what you say is true,then he and his colleagues are liars. Are they?

I'll study up a bit on Apollo 17 and perhaps can say more then. Not sure what else to say. I have no background on the mission . I haven't even looked into where 17 landed before.

 

[nomuse]

Had never heard anyone managing to cross cislunar space before the Apollo 8 mission and the associated claims that followed, that cislunar space had been traversed by a manned craft.

Oh, look, magical freaking humans again. Like we can't measure anything with instruments. Like there is no such thing as animal testing. No...not until some jumped-up hominid sticks his face in it do we actually know if it can kill you or not.

Plus, you miss the whole point of the previous post in that someone has to be the first.

 

[dafydd]

I'll study up a bit on Apollo 17 and perhaps can say more then. Not sure what else to say. I have no background on the mission . I haven't even looked into where 17 landed before.

I can save you the trouble,it landed on the Moon. Be brave,are they liars or not?

 

[nomuse]

I'll study up a bit on Apollo 17 and perhaps can say more then. Not sure what else to say. I have no background on the mission . I haven't even looked into where 17 landed before.

That's a moronic dodge. You already have said it is unnecessary to understand any aspect of Apollo 11 other than the single point you have determined proves it to be a hoax.

And, yet, you need to know everything about specific photographs in order to say anything meaningful on the way in which astronomical imagery -- directly pertaining to the Apollo program in this instance -- could be hoaxed?

 

[Loss Leader]

Don't release the software for the AGC.

[
And whatever you do, don't release the schematics for the AGC so a guy can build one in his basement. And, if that happens, don't feature the guy's step by step instructions on a government website. And probably don't allow hobbyists to build AGC emulators that sit on their desktop and behave exactly like the AGC. Also, don't link to their work on your government website.

For now, my claims deal with Apollo 11 and its fraudulence.

Patrick, do you believe that faking five more successful lunar landings was necessary to the conspiracy? If not, do you believe that man has ever been to the moon? If so, how do you account for Apollo 13? Why would anyone fake a failed mission? If keeping the secret was so important, why did no astronaut repeat a flight to the moon (cutting down on total conspirators). Why did NASA bother making safety changes after the failed plugs-out test of Apollo 1? Why did NASA scrap Apollo 18 long into the planning phase of the mission?

By the way: Here is Apollo 12, picture taken in 2009..

Here's 17.

And Harrison Schmitt during lunar day, with the earth behind him. Notice the lack of stars. It's daytime.

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.

Well, let's not get too carried away. Apollo 8 was sent just as much for political reasons. The LEM wasn't ready and the US wanted to lay some claim to some sort of manned exploration of the moon before the Russians did whatever they might do. If it were really just to test equipment, docking with the LEM, powering it up and pushing all the buttons would have made sense.

 

[dafydd]

That's a moronic dodge. You already have said it is unnecessary to understand any aspect of Apollo 11 other than the single point you have determined proves it to be a hoax.

And, yet, you need to know everything about specific photographs in order to say anything meaningful on the way in which astronomical imagery -- directly pertaining to the Apollo program in this instance -- could be hoaxed?

Patrick,if what you claim is true,then the pictures must be hoaxed. You cannot get around that. You do not need to see the pics. If you did see them and judged them to be genuine would you change your mind and admit that the Moon landings happened? Are they liars or not?

 

[Patrick1000]

Yes nomuse, no manned landing on or prior to July 24 1969

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

Nomuse,

Yes, this is in fact my claim. Per my post #1178, which conclusively and incontrovertibly demonstrates Apollo 11 Mission Report tampering in the context of covering for real-time Apollo 11 Mission telemetry fraudulence, we can say with unabashed conviction, despite popular opinion opposition, that the Apollo 11 Mission was fake. The unmanned craft of course landed. Surveyor VII was the real deal. The Apollo 11 fraud owes its success to Surveyor.

 

[nomuse]

Nomuse,

Yes, this is in fact my claim. Per my post #1178, which conclusively and incontrovertibly demonstrates Apollo 11 Mission Report tampering in the context of covering for real-time Apollo 11 Mission telemetry fraudulence, we can say with unabashed conviction, despite popular opinion opposition, that the Apollo 11 Mission was fake. The unmanned craft of course landed. Surveyor VII was the real deal. The Apollo 11 fraud owes its success to Surveyor.

I want to be absolutely clear here:

"No manned mission had landed on the Moon" (at least prior to Apollo 12, which you haven't discussed yet)

"Unmanned spacecraft had landed safely on the Moon prior to Apollo 11."

 

[theprestige]

Had never heard anyone managing to cross cislunar space before the Apollo 8 mission and the associated claims that followed, that cislunar space had been traversed by a manned craft.

And nobody had ever broken the sound barrier in a manned vehicle before Chuck Yeager did it in the Bell X-1. Yet the sound barrier had been broken many times before, and the theoretical and practical principles were well established and well understood by the time he made his record-breaking flight. There was never any question that Yeager could fly faster than the speed of sound. There was only the matter of actually going up there and doing it. Which he did.

Same with Apollo 8. There was nothing particularly novel about the mission--that being rather the point of NASA's iterative approach to the project. Humans had already demonstrated they could spend extended periods of time in space. Many, many spacecraft had already been successfully operated in cislunar space. The Apollo flight hardware and operations had already been extensively tested up through the previous missions.

All Apollo 8 did was combine the previous proven activities: extended manned spaceflight, in cislunar space, in a proven spacecraft. There was never any question that Apollo 8 could go to the Moon and back. There was only the matter of actually going up there and doing it. Which it did.



Which is not to say there weren't mishaps. Such is the nature of test flight operations. Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier with a cracked rib. The crew of Apollo 8 had to deal with some mild GI distress. Nobody anywhere finds any of this confusing or mysterious except you.













ETA: As much as I hate analogies, it's like saying that because I've only ever driven between San Diego and Los Angeles, we won't know if I can drive from San Diego to Nevada and back again until I prove it by doing so.

 

[Buckaroo]

Will comment in an instant if I can see the pics. Am I supposed to make a statement about pictures I have not seen?

I'm not asking you to comment on the photos. They are not for public consumption at this time, but may be released later. I have personally seen them, however. Now, once again: If Apollo 17 was faked, then either I, the LRO team, or my officemate is a liar. Are you prepared to to claim this?

 

[Patrick1000]

Of course the Apollo 11 pictures are bogus

Patrick,if what you claim is true,then the pictures must be hoaxed. You cannot get around that. You do not need to see the pics. If you did see them and judged them to be genuine would you change your mind and admit that the Moon landings happened? Are they liars or not?

Of course the pics are fake, and we can say with utter conviction that the heap of "moon rocks" in NSA's possession may have come from a genuine lunar source. But Neil and Buzz did not bring any of them here. The telemetry has been addressed in a direct fashion already in post #1178. H. David Reed and his colleagues were being fed phony data for an Apollo 11 Mission that was not in earnest taking place and solving solutions for problems that really were of no real concern or importance as the astronauts were no where near to the moon. Could not have been.

Reed says coordinate confusion. The Mission Report says coordinate concordance. They cannot both be correct. Convince me dafydd that the data in the Mission Report is correct and that account should be preferred to Reed's.

I am reachable. I can be swayed and convinced of Apollo 11's authenticity. Present your evidence with respect to the coordinate confusion issue. Show me where I am wrong and the Mission Report data is correct. Show me where my logic breaks down. I'll gladly recant everything if you are so able.

 

[Patrick1000]

Why can't I comment on the photos before I call anyone a liar?

I'm not asking you to comment on the photos. They are not for public consumption at this time, but may be released later. I have personally seen them, however. Now, once again: If Apollo 17 was faked, then either I, the LRO team, or my officemate is a liar. Are you prepared to to claim this?

Why can't I comment on the photos before I call anyone a liar? Seems hardly fair, or even softly fair.

 

[Buckaroo]

Of course the pics are fake,

Let's be clear here: You're saying that the images that a member of my group obtained directly from the LRO team as raw data sent from the orbiter, are fake? So my officemate is a liar, and complicit in perpetrating a hoax? Or the LRO team? Or me?

 

[Buckaroo]

Why can't I comment on the photos before I call anyone a liar? Seems hardly fair, or even softly fair.

I can only assume you're being deliberately dense here. You don't need to see the images to answer the question. Are you REALLY this thick?

 

[Buckaroo]

For some reason, the phrase "pig wrestling" springs to mind.

 

[nomuse]

Not the animal that springs to my mind. I'm thinking more something furry, long and slender, of the family Mustelidae.

 

[Patrick1000]

your colleague can be honest and the images still fraudulent

Let's be clear here: You're saying that the images that a member of my group obtained directly from the LRO team as raw data sent from the orbiter, are fake? So my officemate is a liar, and complicit in perpetrating a hoax? Or the LRO team? Or me?

Because your colleague is an honest person does not mean the pics are authentic.