abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Oh. hello. another wall of pointless text which provides nothing.
Your continuous baseless claims bring us precisely nowhere.
Just for a change, try answering the questions posed.
Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga
- Thread starter Patrick1000
- Start date
- Status
Oh. hello. another wall of pointless text which provides nothing.
Your continuous baseless claims bring us precisely nowhere.
Just for a change, try answering the questions posed.
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
Bogus Telemetry confirmed by voice transcript, Bird Hiding Acid Test
Bird Hiding Acid Test, Bogus Telemetry Confirmed by Voice Transcript
A consistent claim of mine has been that Apollo fraud insiders engaged in this game of "bird hiding". Pretending that they do not know where the Eagle is. Of course, the pretense is not absolute. The fraud perpetrators must fool the guidance people, including FIDO, H. David Reed, and so the Eagle cannot be "too lost".
Reed stated, as discussed and referenced many times previously, that he and his colleagues, the SELECT officer and DYNAMICS officer, found themselves in a bit of quandary on the morning of 07/21/1969. There the Eagle had been sitting, all bloody evening, and Reed walks into work, and no one can tell him, at least to his satisfaction, a satisfaction adequate to confidently provide a launch solution, where the Eagle is simply lunar coordinate wise, and even more importantly, where the Eagle is in relation to Michael Collins in his Columbia CM.
Reed's Dynamics officer suggests they turn the rendezvous radar on one rev early, target the CM and solve for the CM/LM relation and Eagle landing coordinates in this fashion.
We can use Reed's detailed description to "check Reed's story". According to the Mission report, the Eagle's location was known in real-time fairly well, with multiple real-time methods; PNGS, AGS and powered flight processor all providing solutions in good agreement, one of those solutions was within .64 miles of the Eagle. However, in contradistinction, Reed claimed that these 3 methods and 2 others as well available to him; targeted site("real-time" but dynamic) maps/photos, all provided solutions at very significant and from a practical launch solution standpoint, UNACCEPTABLE variance from one another.
Reed's testimony, appearing in the flight officer authored, first person account page turner, FROM THE TRENCHES OF MISSION CONTROL TO THE CRATERS OF THE MOON, clearly stated Reed and his associates after having the cap com instruct Aldrin to turn the rendezvous radar on one rev early, passed "agonizing minutes" waiting for their solution to come through. Reed's description, caps mine;
"After all, we knew where the CSM was and the problem was a relative one between the CSM and the LM, not actually requiring latitude and longitude. To do this we would need to have the rendezvous radar (RR) turned on in the LM one revolution earlier than planned. ONLY TWO MORE PASSES OF THE CSM REMAINED BEFORE ASCENT IGNITION, BEFORE WE HAD TO HAVE A SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM! I remember taking my headset off and walking up to the Flight Director, 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."
So here is a test, and a good one. Let's go to the voice transcript and see if that's how things went down. If we find the cap com asking Aldrin to turn the rendezvous radar on one rev early, well then we believe Reed all the more. As before, we never had any reason to doubt his testimony and plenty of reason to suspect NASA was engaging in space age deception. So here's the voice transcript;
"121:51:21 Evans: Roger. We agree wholeheartedly. And while you're starting on that, I'll just read these notes on P22. Call P22 possible program alarm 526, range greater than 400 nautical miles, and then use the P22 as described on PGNS-20. Take option 1 in Noun 06, and use the no-update mode. The rendezvous radar will lock on at about 25 degrees elevation above the horizon. If 503 alarm occurs, designate Fail. Key a Proceed and allow the rendezvous radar to search for the CSM. And place the range altitude monitor switch in altitude/altitude rate to prevent the tape meter from driving into the stops. And press on."
So with 2 turns/revs after this until liftoff, the cap com tells Aldrin to turn on the rendezvous radar just as Reed claims in his piece in the book.
As for Collins in the CSM;
"122:11:43 Collins: (Static) Houston, Columbia. My rendezvous radar transponder is operating.
122:11:52 Evans: Spacecraft calling Houston? Say again.
122:11:57 Collins: This is Columbia saying the rendezvous radar transponder is operating.
122:12:02 Evans: Roger. Copy, Columbia."
And finally and importantly, acquisition of the Columbia by the radar is reported by the Public Relations Officer;
"122:20:50 Evans: Tranquility, Houston. Roger.
[The NASA Public Affairs commentator reports that the LM rendezvous radar (LM-9 photo by Randy Attwood) has picked up the CSM transponder.]
122:21:03 Aldrin: On second thought, since that will peg the range rate, I guess maybe we'd better not do that. (Pause) And for this range that the AGS are showing now, 425 miles with a signal strength of 2.2. It looks like we ought to proceed on this. Over."
And so it is verified. The Eagle has been sitting there for the entirety of its stay on the lunar surface. Only 2 hours remain until the LM will leave the lunar surface at 124:21:54, and only now, with 120 minutes to go, have they really begun to work toward a launch solution. Note, radar has acquired the CSM, but the flight boys have yet to crunch the numbers. No wonder Reed wrote;
"ONLY TWO MORE PASSES OF THE CSM REMAINED BEFORE ASCENT IGNITION, BEFORE WE HAD TO HAVE A SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM!"
Not to mention;
"WE COUNTED THE AGONIZING MINUTES AS THE TELEMETRY CAME FLOWING IN UNTIL THE CSM WAS RECEDING."
So who is credible here, Reed or the NASA Mission Report, a report that indicated everything was hunky dory at this point? Coordinate confusion? You betcha'! They are jerking Reed's chain big time. Thought the report said they had good numbers. Reed's semi-panicked, but nary a stressed voice appears in the transcript.
NO WONDER THEY FEATURE ASTRONAUTS AS CAPCOMS. THE VOICE TRANSCRIPT, THE MOST IMPORTANT DOCUMENT OF ALL IS A CLOSED SYSTEM, WITH ONLY THE VOICES OF PERPETRATORS, FRAUD INSIDERS APPEARING ANYWHERE.
Bird Hiding Acid Test, Bogus Telemetry Confirmed by Voice Transcript
A consistent claim of mine has been that Apollo fraud insiders engaged in this game of "bird hiding". Pretending that they do not know where the Eagle is. Of course, the pretense is not absolute. The fraud perpetrators must fool the guidance people, including FIDO, H. David Reed, and so the Eagle cannot be "too lost".
Reed stated, as discussed and referenced many times previously, that he and his colleagues, the SELECT officer and DYNAMICS officer, found themselves in a bit of quandary on the morning of 07/21/1969. There the Eagle had been sitting, all bloody evening, and Reed walks into work, and no one can tell him, at least to his satisfaction, a satisfaction adequate to confidently provide a launch solution, where the Eagle is simply lunar coordinate wise, and even more importantly, where the Eagle is in relation to Michael Collins in his Columbia CM.
Reed's Dynamics officer suggests they turn the rendezvous radar on one rev early, target the CM and solve for the CM/LM relation and Eagle landing coordinates in this fashion.
We can use Reed's detailed description to "check Reed's story". According to the Mission report, the Eagle's location was known in real-time fairly well, with multiple real-time methods; PNGS, AGS and powered flight processor all providing solutions in good agreement, one of those solutions was within .64 miles of the Eagle. However, in contradistinction, Reed claimed that these 3 methods and 2 others as well available to him; targeted site("real-time" but dynamic) maps/photos, all provided solutions at very significant and from a practical launch solution standpoint, UNACCEPTABLE variance from one another.
Reed's testimony, appearing in the flight officer authored, first person account page turner, FROM THE TRENCHES OF MISSION CONTROL TO THE CRATERS OF THE MOON, clearly stated Reed and his associates after having the cap com instruct Aldrin to turn the rendezvous radar on one rev early, passed "agonizing minutes" waiting for their solution to come through. Reed's description, caps mine;
"After all, we knew where the CSM was and the problem was a relative one between the CSM and the LM, not actually requiring latitude and longitude. To do this we would need to have the rendezvous radar (RR) turned on in the LM one revolution earlier than planned. ONLY TWO MORE PASSES OF THE CSM REMAINED BEFORE ASCENT IGNITION, BEFORE WE HAD TO HAVE A SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM! I remember taking my headset off and walking up to the Flight Director, 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."
So here is a test, and a good one. Let's go to the voice transcript and see if that's how things went down. If we find the cap com asking Aldrin to turn the rendezvous radar on one rev early, well then we believe Reed all the more. As before, we never had any reason to doubt his testimony and plenty of reason to suspect NASA was engaging in space age deception. So here's the voice transcript;
"121:51:21 Evans: Roger. We agree wholeheartedly. And while you're starting on that, I'll just read these notes on P22. Call P22 possible program alarm 526, range greater than 400 nautical miles, and then use the P22 as described on PGNS-20. Take option 1 in Noun 06, and use the no-update mode. The rendezvous radar will lock on at about 25 degrees elevation above the horizon. If 503 alarm occurs, designate Fail. Key a Proceed and allow the rendezvous radar to search for the CSM. And place the range altitude monitor switch in altitude/altitude rate to prevent the tape meter from driving into the stops. And press on."
So with 2 turns/revs after this until liftoff, the cap com tells Aldrin to turn on the rendezvous radar just as Reed claims in his piece in the book.
As for Collins in the CSM;
"122:11:43 Collins: (Static) Houston, Columbia. My rendezvous radar transponder is operating.
122:11:52 Evans: Spacecraft calling Houston? Say again.
122:11:57 Collins: This is Columbia saying the rendezvous radar transponder is operating.
122:12:02 Evans: Roger. Copy, Columbia."
And finally and importantly, acquisition of the Columbia by the radar is reported by the Public Relations Officer;
"122:20:50 Evans: Tranquility, Houston. Roger.
[The NASA Public Affairs commentator reports that the LM rendezvous radar (LM-9 photo by Randy Attwood) has picked up the CSM transponder.]
122:21:03 Aldrin: On second thought, since that will peg the range rate, I guess maybe we'd better not do that. (Pause) And for this range that the AGS are showing now, 425 miles with a signal strength of 2.2. It looks like we ought to proceed on this. Over."
And so it is verified. The Eagle has been sitting there for the entirety of its stay on the lunar surface. Only 2 hours remain until the LM will leave the lunar surface at 124:21:54, and only now, with 120 minutes to go, have they really begun to work toward a launch solution. Note, radar has acquired the CSM, but the flight boys have yet to crunch the numbers. No wonder Reed wrote;
"ONLY TWO MORE PASSES OF THE CSM REMAINED BEFORE ASCENT IGNITION, BEFORE WE HAD TO HAVE A SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM!"
Not to mention;
"WE COUNTED THE AGONIZING MINUTES AS THE TELEMETRY CAME FLOWING IN UNTIL THE CSM WAS RECEDING."
So who is credible here, Reed or the NASA Mission Report, a report that indicated everything was hunky dory at this point? Coordinate confusion? You betcha'! They are jerking Reed's chain big time. Thought the report said they had good numbers. Reed's semi-panicked, but nary a stressed voice appears in the transcript.
NO WONDER THEY FEATURE ASTRONAUTS AS CAPCOMS. THE VOICE TRANSCRIPT, THE MOST IMPORTANT DOCUMENT OF ALL IS A CLOSED SYSTEM, WITH ONLY THE VOICES OF PERPETRATORS, FRAUD INSIDERS APPEARING ANYWHERE.
Last edited:
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
Moonscapes are shots from the lunar surface
They avoid the Earth like a celestial ball carrying plague. Moonscapes are photos taken from the lunar surface. There are 2 such photos with the Earth included, I believe. I will double check. They are taken with the earth over the LM's shoulder. Nary a laser light pointed Armstrongward to be found!
They avoid the Earth like a celestial ball carrying plague. Moonscapes are photos taken from the lunar surface. There are 2 such photos with the Earth included, I believe. I will double check. They are taken with the earth over the LM's shoulder. Nary a laser light pointed Armstrongward to be found!
Jrrarglblarg
Unregistered
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 12,673
I have a question maybe STS60 can help with. This is vaguely related to Patrick's claim that the Apollo11 was "lost" (or pretending to be lost).
How far off would an LM have to land from the target to be outside the fuel budget for hooking back up with the CSM after the mission?
I'm not sure it's even possible to go outside that because the CSM and LM both have orbital maneuvering fuel in the budget to match orbits, but maybe someone who has Orbiter can help figure this out.
How far off would an LM have to land from the target to be outside the fuel budget for hooking back up with the CSM after the mission?
I'm not sure it's even possible to go outside that because the CSM and LM both have orbital maneuvering fuel in the budget to match orbits, but maybe someone who has Orbiter can help figure this out.
The first half of post #1457 was actually quite readable. Could still be tightened, but at least you could understand what Patrick was getting at.
He's laughably wrong in numerous places in it, of course. His inference that stars were trivially visible from the Lunar surface and should have made up part of Armstrong's description. His failure to realize that the ruby lasers used by Lick and others were NOT as visible to humans or optics as the argon-ion used in the Surveyor experiment. The idea that a laser with a beam diameter of 2 miles could be used to refine a location which was already known to within a similar magnitude of error.
(Anyone else get a flash from Clarke's "A Fall of Moondust" with that one?)
I, also, am refining my theories. I think Patrick is a hoax believer who tried out the "No stars" claim when he first started and got beat up bad over it, then retreated to study and theorize until he could blaze back on the scene and show everyone he was actually right all along about the visibility of stars from the lunar surface and why it has anything to do with the reality of Apollo.
He's laughably wrong in numerous places in it, of course. His inference that stars were trivially visible from the Lunar surface and should have made up part of Armstrong's description. His failure to realize that the ruby lasers used by Lick and others were NOT as visible to humans or optics as the argon-ion used in the Surveyor experiment. The idea that a laser with a beam diameter of 2 miles could be used to refine a location which was already known to within a similar magnitude of error.
(Anyone else get a flash from Clarke's "A Fall of Moondust" with that one?)
I, also, am refining my theories. I think Patrick is a hoax believer who tried out the "No stars" claim when he first started and got beat up bad over it, then retreated to study and theorize until he could blaze back on the scene and show everyone he was actually right all along about the visibility of stars from the lunar surface and why it has anything to do with the reality of Apollo.
Jrrarglblarg
Unregistered
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 12,673
I'll go ask at AH.
Sorry...that would be Heinlien's "Searchlight," in which blind piano prodigy Betsy Barnes participates in her own rescue from a spaceship crashed on the Moon by identifying a tone carried on a scanning laser.
(That should have been two sentences, or at least have a proper clause. Can I plead it is the first thing in the morning and I haven't had my coffee yet?)
(That should have been two sentences, or at least have a proper clause. Can I plead it is the first thing in the morning and I haven't had my coffee yet?)
matt.tansy
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2007
- Messages
- 991
The major concern would be cross-track error. In-track error would be fixed without any fuel expenditure by adjusting the timing of lift-off and/or a longer or shorter duration of the "catch-up" orbit, called the Constant Delta Height orbit. (I know you AH guys know this stuff, so I'm including these details for those who don't.)
Cross-track error would have to be fixed with a plane change. iirc, the Ascent Module had an APS reserve delta-v of about 40 m/s. Applied Pythagorascally (I know that's not a real word) to the orbital velocity allows for about 366 m/s of velocity to be applied to an orbital plane change. That comes out to 12.8° of plane change. Projected onto the surface it would be about 290 km.
This neglects any contribution from the CSM.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
My major concern would be the recursive nature of the thread. Patrick posts and posts about Apollo 11 until the subject is exhausted, he claims he'll be moving on to the other five successful flights (lord knows why you'd have to fake an unsuccessful flight in the middle of them, but whatever), he takes a couple stabs at Apollo 12 or 8 or 17, then he reposts his Apollo 11 thesis again.
For the sake of progress, let's all just agree that Apollo 11 was faked. They did not land on the moon. I don't know what they did with all that hardware, but they didn't go to the moon with it. I personally believe that Apollo 11 did not land on the moon.
What's next? What about the other five successful flight? What about the fact that the Soviets (who had every reason in the world to expose us) never disputed the moon landing? What about the moon rocks brought back by the astronauts? What about the detailed simulators and emulators available for the AGC? What about the success of future space missions?
What do we do with the information that Apollo 11 was a fake?
For the sake of progress, let's all just agree that Apollo 11 was faked. They did not land on the moon. I don't know what they did with all that hardware, but they didn't go to the moon with it. I personally believe that Apollo 11 did not land on the moon.
What's next? What about the other five successful flight? What about the fact that the Soviets (who had every reason in the world to expose us) never disputed the moon landing? What about the moon rocks brought back by the astronauts? What about the detailed simulators and emulators available for the AGC? What about the success of future space missions?
What do we do with the information that Apollo 11 was a fake?
Jrrarglblarg
Unregistered
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 12,673
Sure, I'll play along.
What I do with the information is start looking for all the natural consequences.
F'rinstance:
http://www.arrl.org/eavesdropping-on-apollo-11
The account of Larry Baysinger, W4EJA, eavesdropping on the ground-to-orbit communications of Apollo 11 with a home built corner-reflector antenna is false.
That means one or more of the following are true:
a) NASA had a way of broadcasting false transmissions from the moon
b) Larry Baysinger was part of the conspiracy
c) the Louisville (Kentucky) Courier-Journal reporter who witnessed his actions was part of the conspiracy
or
c') the reporter was completely and utterly fooled by the false broadcast.
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
As on the surface of the moon, so too in cislunar space
AS ON THE SURFACE OF THE MOON, SO TOO IN CISLUNAR SPACE
With all due respect Loss Leader, I very much beg to differ. In the first place, it has hardly been conceded by my forum colleagues from the other side of the aisle that Apollo 11 was fraudulent. If there is an "earnest caving in" on the other side, by all means, I am for moving on to Apollo 12, but that is not the case. To move on simply for the sake of moving on, hardly makes any sense, unless there is a genuine concession from the Apollo advocate side that ELEVEN was fake.
More importantly, building the strongest case possible for Apollo 11 as fraud only helps me to move forward to 12 with more confidence and vigor. I will present another fact in the case of Apollo 11 in support of my general premise, "the hidden bird business", and show you why I should be allowed to proceed.
So Armstrong told us he could not see stars from cislunar space, and so that means he is afraid of the same thing there, just like on the surface of the moon. He could be targeted by an "unfriendly", or friendly laser for that matter. If the laser image comes up on a movie they are taking of the earth, then those targeting the Columbia know not only its angle from the Earth, but also exactly where it is by sighting the sun and moon roughly simultaneously. If the astronauts happen to not be in cislunar space when they're "forced to take a laser's picture", then they are busted. If the image of the laser doesn't show up in the video that is being televised live, busted too.
So this fact helps me to show Apollo 12 would be afraid of the same things. But I need to establish these points with bedrock certainty in the case of 11, before I move on to 12, or I will lose focus and get scattered.
Astronauts are LASER PHOBIC and STAR PHOBIC TOO!!! because they are equivalent in a sense visibility wise, and IF YOU ADMIT TO SEEING STARS IN CISLUNAR SPACE, IT MEANS YOU CAN BE TARGETED WITH A LASER AND SO LOCATED! IF YOU ARE NOT IN CISLUNAR SPACE WHEN YOU SAY YOU ARE, YOUR MISSION IS PROVEN FRAUDULENT.
AS ON THE SURFACE OF THE MOON, SO TOO IN CISLUNAR SPACE
With all due respect Loss Leader, I very much beg to differ. In the first place, it has hardly been conceded by my forum colleagues from the other side of the aisle that Apollo 11 was fraudulent. If there is an "earnest caving in" on the other side, by all means, I am for moving on to Apollo 12, but that is not the case. To move on simply for the sake of moving on, hardly makes any sense, unless there is a genuine concession from the Apollo advocate side that ELEVEN was fake.
More importantly, building the strongest case possible for Apollo 11 as fraud only helps me to move forward to 12 with more confidence and vigor. I will present another fact in the case of Apollo 11 in support of my general premise, "the hidden bird business", and show you why I should be allowed to proceed.
So Armstrong told us he could not see stars from cislunar space, and so that means he is afraid of the same thing there, just like on the surface of the moon. He could be targeted by an "unfriendly", or friendly laser for that matter. If the laser image comes up on a movie they are taking of the earth, then those targeting the Columbia know not only its angle from the Earth, but also exactly where it is by sighting the sun and moon roughly simultaneously. If the astronauts happen to not be in cislunar space when they're "forced to take a laser's picture", then they are busted. If the image of the laser doesn't show up in the video that is being televised live, busted too.
So this fact helps me to show Apollo 12 would be afraid of the same things. But I need to establish these points with bedrock certainty in the case of 11, before I move on to 12, or I will lose focus and get scattered.
Astronauts are LASER PHOBIC and STAR PHOBIC TOO!!! because they are equivalent in a sense visibility wise, and IF YOU ADMIT TO SEEING STARS IN CISLUNAR SPACE, IT MEANS YOU CAN BE TARGETED WITH A LASER AND SO LOCATED! IF YOU ARE NOT IN CISLUNAR SPACE WHEN YOU SAY YOU ARE, YOUR MISSION IS PROVEN FRAUDULENT.
Last edited:
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
Why astronauts fear stars
To say it as succinctly as possible. If astronauts concede that they can see stars, then they can see lasers too. Remember the Surveyor experiment and the 1 watt argon laser. If you are successfully targeted by a laser, you can be located with other simple sightings in addition to this key "laser sighting". If you are located OR not located when you should be, your mission may be proven fraudulent. Better to deny deny deny deny altogether. So Armstrong takes this HUGE risk telling this HUGE lie. It is patently bogus, but what can he do? The authenticity of the subsequent 6 missions is on the line.
To say it as succinctly as possible. If astronauts concede that they can see stars, then they can see lasers too. Remember the Surveyor experiment and the 1 watt argon laser. If you are successfully targeted by a laser, you can be located with other simple sightings in addition to this key "laser sighting". If you are located OR not located when you should be, your mission may be proven fraudulent. Better to deny deny deny deny altogether. So Armstrong takes this HUGE risk telling this HUGE lie. It is patently bogus, but what can he do? The authenticity of the subsequent 6 missions is on the line.
Last edited:
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
I try my best
I read all of the questions. I try to answer the very hardest ones for me, most of the time. It is hard when there are 20 posters against you and you are by yourself. I am afflicted with terminal verbosity and that makes matters all the worse.
If Surveyor VII is able to image the Kitt Peak laser, so too could the Apollo 11 astronauts image similar or brighter lasers with better cameras, if the thing were real that is.
No other reason for Armstrong to tell such a monstrous lie. It fits to well. Absolutely has to be the case.
Armstrong and Aldrin both pretended to see that bright thing/laser I already mentioned on AOS from lunar orbit just up from the "landing". If they saw it, they could have photographed it. Aldrin said he did, right there in the voice transcript he says it. Where is the picture of the laser? They are laser and star phobic, scared to death of them.
I think after a while, they realized the lie was just so outrageous, they had to cover their tracks, make up a bogus cover to pretend Armstrong never made the "can't see star claim", never made the claim to begin with.
Ever read MOON SHOT "by" Slayton/Shepard/Barbree, intro by Armstrong? May well be just a "cover" not even a "real book". Armstrong talked the book and guys up in the intro something fierce. Check this out;
" “Where were the stars?” the myth believers then asked. The cameras that NASA sent to the moon had to use short-exposure times to take pictures of the bright lunar surface and the moonwalkers’ white spacesuits. Stars’ images, easily seen by the moonwalkers, were too faint and underexposed to be seen as they are in photographs taken from space shuttles and the International Space Station."
Barbree, Jay; Alan Shepard; Deke Slayton (2011-04-27) ebook location 3607. Moon Shot: The Inside Story of America's Apollo Moon Landings .
What's this about? Thought Armstrong didn't see stars? Changing stories now that people are shouting, "BOGUS!!!"?????????
I read all of the questions. I try to answer the very hardest ones for me, most of the time. It is hard when there are 20 posters against you and you are by yourself. I am afflicted with terminal verbosity and that makes matters all the worse.
If Surveyor VII is able to image the Kitt Peak laser, so too could the Apollo 11 astronauts image similar or brighter lasers with better cameras, if the thing were real that is.
No other reason for Armstrong to tell such a monstrous lie. It fits to well. Absolutely has to be the case.
Armstrong and Aldrin both pretended to see that bright thing/laser I already mentioned on AOS from lunar orbit just up from the "landing". If they saw it, they could have photographed it. Aldrin said he did, right there in the voice transcript he says it. Where is the picture of the laser? They are laser and star phobic, scared to death of them.
I think after a while, they realized the lie was just so outrageous, they had to cover their tracks, make up a bogus cover to pretend Armstrong never made the "can't see star claim", never made the claim to begin with.
Ever read MOON SHOT "by" Slayton/Shepard/Barbree, intro by Armstrong? May well be just a "cover" not even a "real book". Armstrong talked the book and guys up in the intro something fierce. Check this out;
" “Where were the stars?” the myth believers then asked. The cameras that NASA sent to the moon had to use short-exposure times to take pictures of the bright lunar surface and the moonwalkers’ white spacesuits. Stars’ images, easily seen by the moonwalkers, were too faint and underexposed to be seen as they are in photographs taken from space shuttles and the International Space Station."
Barbree, Jay; Alan Shepard; Deke Slayton (2011-04-27) ebook location 3607. Moon Shot: The Inside Story of America's Apollo Moon Landings .
What's this about? Thought Armstrong didn't see stars? Changing stories now that people are shouting, "BOGUS!!!"?????????
Last edited:
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
Take three deep breaths and think about this
Frenat,
Every time the astronauts were asked to confirm visually, with or without optics, that a laser was targeting their craft, they denied it. Were they in cislunar space, traveling from the earth to the moon and back, they would have "seen the light". Their denial complete, confirms their guilt AND seals their fates. All who denied the stars may now be implicated.
One final thought, as mentioned previously, I suspect Armstrong and the others did this believing themselves to be acting in the interest of national security. And until proven otherwise, I MYSELF PRESUME THIS TO IN FACT BE THE CASE, THAT THEY INDEED WERE "ACTING" IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL SECURITY.
Consequebtly, they are far from criminals. They just got themselves into a bit of a tight public jam. Everyone should leave them alone. If they want to say something , fine, if not, fine.
My opinion.
Frenat,
Every time the astronauts were asked to confirm visually, with or without optics, that a laser was targeting their craft, they denied it. Were they in cislunar space, traveling from the earth to the moon and back, they would have "seen the light". Their denial complete, confirms their guilt AND seals their fates. All who denied the stars may now be implicated.
One final thought, as mentioned previously, I suspect Armstrong and the others did this believing themselves to be acting in the interest of national security. And until proven otherwise, I MYSELF PRESUME THIS TO IN FACT BE THE CASE, THAT THEY INDEED WERE "ACTING" IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL SECURITY.
Consequebtly, they are far from criminals. They just got themselves into a bit of a tight public jam. Everyone should leave them alone. If they want to say something , fine, if not, fine.
My opinion.
Last edited:
Unless, of course, there is something there that is different from cisclunar space. Something...can't quite put my finger on it...1,737 km in diameter, average albedo .136, occupies approx 180' of the visual field...anyhow, whatever this "thing" is, don't you think it might have some effect on night vision and the appropriate exposure ranges of cameras and video equipment?
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
You, sir, receive the Rhetorical Question Award for this evening
- Status