Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[nomuse]

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.

Harder still when you bring up twenty different claims at once.

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.

If they were set (and capable of being set) to the same exposure setting. Read the description of the experiment again. The Surveyor camera was set to that the DARK side of the Earth was already at 50% vidicon saturation. This is completely outside any setting that would permit a visual record of the astronaut activities on the surface of the Moon.

No other reason for Armstrong to tell such a monstrous lie. It fits to well. Absolutely has to be the case.

Unless he knew he'd be talking to amateur and professional astronomers, astrophotographers, and even cinematographers who already knew and understood from experience that seeing stars under the conditions of lunar surface EVA would be non-trivial.

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.

You haven't provided documentation of that yet.

Assuming this is real and not some figment of your misreading, what of it? The conditions are different. After three forums, a dozen sock puppets, and who knows how many posts, you still can't seem to grasp that conditions matter.

Also, under the best possible conditions we are talking about an object no brighter than the brighter stars, which is only on for a brief time. The film and video record of Apollo are already filled with transient dots of about the right qualities -- transients caused by dust on the lens, cosmic ray strikes, dust during the development, etc., etc.

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!!!"?????????

Like I said, you don't get it. You don't understand the difference between different viewing conditions. You don't understand the difference between "can see stars by making a conscious effort" and "can see stars just while walking around." You don't understand the difference between "can see the brighter stars" (aka under ten) and "can see stars" (aka the unsaid assumption of a rich star field). You don't understand the difference between the human eye, a camera, and a 1960's video camera.

The "contradiction" here only exists within your own mind, and is an artifact of trying to ignore all applicable variables and boil down every single report to a single-value "true" or "false."

 

[dafydd]

You, sir, receive the Rhetorical Question Award for this evening

Donated by the Institute Of The Bleeding Obvious. It's about time that this troll was left to stew in his own juice.

 

[Loss Leader]

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.

So, Congress should never take up agricultural legislation when they have yet to resolve an issue regarding mining? I shouldn't move on to 6 Across if I can't figure out 2 Down? The Georgia Bulldogs shouldn't try to stop Alabama's running game until they've completely neutralized them in the air?

There is no logic in refusing to make your case on multiple fronts.

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.

Why wouldn't proving that Apollo 16 was faked give you more confidence to go back and attack Apollo 11? After all, if they were pretending to land people on the moon for the fifth mission, chances are it's because they had confidence in their ability to pull off the hoax after having succeeded in earlier missions.

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.

Exactly whom are you petitioning for permission to proceed? Who exactly, by name, is stopping you from proceeding? Name the poster and I will take it upon myself to convince him that you are correct and that permission to proceed should be granted.

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.

I don't understand why this supports your point. For all of the work the conspirators were doing, they certainly could have hung a few flashlights from the rafters of the soundstage and turned them on at the appropriate time.

I'm reminded of the book Jurasic Park where one of the scientists opines that they should go back and re-engineer the dinosaurs to be more like what people expect - slower, tails dragging and such. If NASA had an opinion about what people expected lasers to look like from the moon, they could have just added that to the fake set.

However, I believe that all your other points conclusively prove that Apollo 11 was faked and the Eagle did not land as we were told.

 

[Patrick1000]

So, Congress should never take up agricultural legislation when they have yet to resolve an issue regarding mining? I shouldn't move on to 6 Across if I can't figure out 2 Down? The Georgia Bulldogs shouldn't try to stop Alabama's running game until they've completely neutralized them in the air?

There is no logic in refusing to make your case on multiple fronts.





Why wouldn't proving that Apollo 16 was faked give you more confidence to go back and attack Apollo 11? After all, if they were pretending to land people on the moon for the fifth mission, chances are it's because they had confidence in their ability to pull off the hoax after having succeeded in earlier missions.





Exactly whom are you petitioning for permission to proceed? Who exactly, by name, is stopping you from proceeding? Name the poster and I will take it upon myself to convince him that you are correct and that permission to proceed should be granted.





I don't understand why this supports your point. For all of the work the conspirators were doing, they certainly could have hung a few flashlights from the rafters of the soundstage and turned them on at the appropriate time.

I'm reminded of the book Jurasic Park where one of the scientists opines that they should go back and re-engineer the dinosaurs to be more like what people expect - slower, tails dragging and such. If NASA had an opinion about what people expected lasers to look like from the moon, they could have just added that to the fake set.

However, I believe that all your other points conclusively prove that Apollo 11 was faked and the Eagle did not land as we were told.

OK, Loss Leader, sounds fine now that I think of it a bit. I'll try and broaden my view, read up on some of the other Missions. 8 is a favorite already for reasons mentioned and I have a jump start on 12 with my strong proof of fraud in the case of 11 already in light of star and laser phobia/coordinate confusion/bird hiding issues. So I'll take a shot at this and that, but may take a while to get up to speed and say much more than I already have. so if I have nothing to say on a point given my limited backgorund, I'll do so. Also have other fish to fry with my job and family so will not be around for while very soon. Thanks, your post was thoughtful, Patrick

 

[Patrick1000]

Bumble Bees ?

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?)

I dunno' nomuse, commander Armstrong sure is afraid of something, and I don't think it's bumble bees.

It has to be lasers nomuse. Think about it. With a 1 watt argon laser and my equipment in my backyard, as long as you honestly tell me that you in fact see the light of my weak laser, I can say EXACTLY where you are in cislunar space after sighting a few other objects. Even the sun and moon work. I have already been playing with the idea. Try it! do you have a scope! We can sort of practice "finding one another in cislunar space, like I am the Russians and you are Armstrong not really there or something silly like that.

And you know nomuse, the astrounts kept saying over and over and over again they could not see the light from the argon laser in Ell paso coming from the McDonald Observatory. That means they weere not in cislunar space.

It is sheer genius! I have hit on the solution!

 

[Loss Leader]

It is sheer genius! I have hit on the solution!

Please please please do not congratulate yourself. It is, at best, tacky.

 

[nomuse]

I dunno' nomuse, commander Armstrong sure is afraid of something, and I don't think it's bumble bees.

It has to be lasers nomuse. Think about it. With a 1 watt argon laser and my equipment in my backyard, as long as you honestly tell me that you in fact see the light of my weak laser, I can say EXACTLY where you are in cislunar space after sighting a few other objects. Even the sun and moon work. I have already been playing with the idea. Try it! do you have a scope! We can sort of practice "finding one another in cislunar space, like I am the Russians and you are Armstrong not really there or something silly like that.

And you know nomuse, the astrounts kept saying over and over and over again they could not see the light from the argon laser in Ell paso coming from the McDonald Observatory. That means they weere not in cislunar space.

It is sheer genius! I have hit on the solution!

You mean, with a ten watt argon-ion laser AND a mid-sized telescope with the correct fittings. 1 watt is the effective power following collimation and atmosphere.

Then you'd have to operate it during the night (it won't show up against day-side Earth).

And then the astronauts would have to get into shadow, crane their heads back in suits very much not designed for that, and wait until they could just make out the laser.

As I said; not trivial. Which doesn't mean "not do-able." It just means that you've have to specifically schedule that experiment. It isn't a matter of glancing over your shoulder every now and then and saying "Oh, there's the laser."

 

[Patrick1000]

Smile , don't take this stuff so seriously!

Please please please do not congratulate yourself. It is, at best, tacky.

Just having a bit of fun. I think I mentioned way back, one can never "win" here, either side. Just having a little fun, and very much at no one's expense, best, Patrick

 

[Patrick1000]

What did they see nomeuse!

You mean, with a ten watt argon-ion laser AND a mid-sized telescope with the correct fittings. 1 watt is the effective power following collimation and atmosphere.

Then you'd have to operate it during the night (it won't show up against day-side Earth).

And then the astronauts would have to get into shadow, crane their heads back in suits very much not designed for that, and wait until they could just make out the laser.

As I said; not trivial. Which doesn't mean "not do-able." It just means that you've have to specifically schedule that experiment. It isn't a matter of glancing over your shoulder every now and then and saying "Oh, there's the laser."

So what did Armstrong and Aldrin see when just after AOS upon first reaching lunar orbit after the "landing" they said they saw a laser? Was it a laser? I thought Aldrin said it was?

 

[Patrick1000]

Reed vs Mission Report

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.

So if I am wrong nomuse, what is going on with Reed? Is he making all of this up? Is he mistaken, bad memory or something? I just showed that Reed's account is corroborated by the voice transcript. The transcript doesn't corroborate the Mission Report's account. Why does the Mission report show such good agreement between most of the real-time solutions there and not only do they agree, they are close to Tranquility Base and Reed's calculations as well. That is not what Reed said. Reed said the numbers did not match his. where did these numbers come from then? did some one make them up? If they did, who made up Reed's numbers? So what IS the real story here if Reed has got it wrong?

 

[Patrick1000]

I mean with the argon laser at the McDonald Observatory

You mean, with a ten watt argon-ion laser AND a mid-sized telescope with the correct fittings. 1 watt is the effective power following collimation and atmosphere.

Then you'd have to operate it during the night (it won't show up against day-side Earth).

And then the astronauts would have to get into shadow, crane their heads back in suits very much not designed for that, and wait until they could just make out the laser.

As I said; not trivial. Which doesn't mean "not do-able." It just means that you've have to specifically schedule that experiment. It isn't a matter of glancing over your shoulder every now and then and saying "Oh, there's the laser."

You do not need to get so fancy nomuse. Look at the post where I listed all of the "laser" entries found in the voice transcript. Do you see there, when they ask the astronauts if they could see the laser from cislunar space and , the astronauts said no they could not? What that means is the McDonald Observatory was pointing their laser right at where the astronauts were pretending to be in the Apollo 11 astronauts' pretend Columbia space ship. When the thrice Emmy Nominated thespian trio deny seeing the laser, that means they are not in cislunar space. So these are honest astronauts. They are telling the truth. They cannot see the laser coming from McDonald Observatory, but not because of any real signaling problems, its just the guys are not up there, up there in cislunar space. When the astronauts say they don't see the laser, that is equilvalent to admitting the whole thing is a fraud. It has just taken us a while to figure it out.

I claim that I can find a spaceship fairly easily in cislunar space now, pretty accurately with my own little telescope, sighting stars/sun/moon/AND getting that bonus laser sighting confirmed. It is easy nomuse. You should really try it

 

[Patrick1000]

Said they had a picture of the laser and never produced it

Harder still when you bring up twenty different claims at once.



If they were set (and capable of being set) to the same exposure setting. Read the description of the experiment again. The Surveyor camera was set to that the DARK side of the Earth was already at 50% vidicon saturation. This is completely outside any setting that would permit a visual record of the astronaut activities on the surface of the Moon.



Unless he knew he'd be talking to amateur and professional astronomers, astrophotographers, and even cinematographers who already knew and understood from experience that seeing stars under the conditions of lunar surface EVA would be non-trivial.



You haven't provided documentation of that yet.

Assuming this is real and not some figment of your misreading, what of it? The conditions are different. After three forums, a dozen sock puppets, and who knows how many posts, you still can't seem to grasp that conditions matter.

Also, under the best possible conditions we are talking about an object no brighter than the brighter stars, which is only on for a brief time. The film and video record of Apollo are already filled with transient dots of about the right qualities -- transients caused by dust on the lens, cosmic ray strikes, dust during the development, etc., etc.




Like I said, you don't get it. You don't understand the difference between different viewing conditions. You don't understand the difference between "can see stars by making a conscious effort" and "can see stars just while walking around." You don't understand the difference between "can see the brighter stars" (aka under ten) and "can see stars" (aka the unsaid assumption of a rich star field). You don't understand the difference between the human eye, a camera, and a 1960's video camera.

The "contradiction" here only exists within your own mind, and is an artifact of trying to ignore all applicable variables and boil down every single report to a single-value "true" or "false."

Read the Aldrin quote again nomuse. the man said he saw a laser and Armstrong corroborated the sighting. Aldrin said he took a picture and then didn't produce said shot. That is a pathetic line of space malarkey if I ever saw one. Sure they saw the laser, sure they took the picture. Let's see the picture then Eagle scouts.

 

[Patrick1000]

The astronauts said they saw the laser, I need not prove it

You haven't proven they would have seen the laser either. Did you not see the multiple replys showing the pulse was measure in milliseconds? Are you really this dense?

I need not prove it. The astronauts THEMSELVES claimed to have seen a laser, and photographed it. Both Armstrong AND Aldrin saw it. So there you have your proof frenat.

 

[Patrick1000]

wHAT DO WE DO WITH IT, WE BUILD ON IT

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?

What do we do with the information that Apollo 11 is fake, why we build on it of course Loss Leader, and show the whole thing was fake(12,13,14,15,16,17).

We now know you can find an astronaut "hiding" in cislunar space , and on the surface of the moon with a laser, other sightings as well, provided the astronaut anwers honestly about seeing the laser or being able to image it with his optics. So with what we know of Apollo 11 , its fraudulence in light of these concerns, we can move to 12 and "Bean's Ruse". We can even call it that, "Bean's Ruse" like something out of the Sting miovie with Robert Redford and Paul Newman. But a $130,000,000,000 high tech "Space Sting".

 

[Patrick1000]

The laser business is not speculative

Look how many times "laser" comes up when you search the word in the Apollo 11 Voice Transcript. None of this is speculative. the Apollo script features the Columbia being targeted by the El Paso/McDonald Observatory argon laser and the script also features the astronauts claiming they saw(both of them) a laser, and Aldrin has a picture of it no less. This is not speculative. Take a look at the script, I mean Voice Transcript for yourselves.

 

[Patrick1000]

I want to see that picture!

I want to see that picture, or if they don't have it, I want to know what did happen to it.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Meanwhile, radio signals were received from the moon using highly directional antennas. In some cases these signals were received by foreign nations with whom the US was not friendly. In other cases the signals were received by knowledgeable amateur radio operators using hand-built equipment.

Were these signals faked? How was the light-speed communications delay faked? How was the signal transmitted to the earth from the moon if not by a radio on (and orbiting, as both ground radios and the CSM were received) the moon.

 

[Patrick1000]

Doesn't change the fact the telemetry Reed worked with was fake

Meanwhile, radio signals were received from the moon using highly directional antennas. In some cases these signals were received by foreign nations with whom the US was not friendly. In other cases the signals were received by knowledgeable amateur radio operators using hand-built equipment.

Were these signals faked? How was the light-speed communications delay faked? How was the signal transmitted to the earth from the moon if not by a radio on (and orbiting, as both ground radios and the CSM were received) the moon.

Regardless Apollognomon, we kniow the flight officers' telemetry is fake, see 1178 above. not sure what they were hearing over there in the foreign stations, maybe the same bogus stuff they fed the crew that worked before Reed's group, you know Apollognomon, the group that worked the EVA and as of the time Reed came on, had no real clue as to where the space ship was. i suggest it was those signals they were picking up. have you got a better idea?

 

[Patrick1000]

Fake is Fake is Fake is Phony

The beauty of narrative analysis is that no matter how many photos , rocks, reels of tape, whatever someone presents as "proof" positive of Apollo' authenticity, if a researcher can show a fatal contradiction as I have, all that stuff is junk.

We know Armstrong brought none of the rocks back. the photos must be fake as they come form a mission with a hidden bird, the Mission report is fraudulent, so we must toss everything. Junk! All of it!

 

[332nd]

The beauty of narrative analysis is that no matter how many photos , rocks, reels of tape, whatever someone presents as "proof" positive of Apollo' authenticity, if a researcher can show a fatal contradiction as I have, all that stuff is junk.

We know Armstrong brought none of the rocks back. the photos must be fake as they come form a mission with a hidden bird, the Mission report is fraudulent, so we must toss everything. Junk! All of it!

Wrong.
1) all you've shown is that you either do not or will not understand evidence.

2) At any rate, if you going to claim any contradiction renders the whole thing fake, then you have, by your own posts committed fraud!

You claimed to be leaving on a trip that would prevent you from posting for a month. Said same trip would be taking you to India via Europe. Wound up in Hong Kong. Then Shanghai!

Tsk,tsk.

Oh, on top of that all evidence STILL points toward Apollo 11 landing on the moon.