Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[dafydd]

Fine Oji, I 'll be back later. I have no need for this nonsense now.

Got a plane to catch?

 

[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.

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?

Yep. The signals came from the moon. Having "no real clue" about the location of the LM within a couple kilometers means the craft is ON THE MOON.

I suspect you have no idea how the communications for Apollo worked. The suits had radios, so when they were on EVA they could talk to Houston. The signals from the suits, and from the LM when they were aboard, were received by the C/SM and retransmitted to Earth.

Baysinger picked up the transmissions from the LM.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

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!

You have this exactly 180 degrees wrong. If one single fact is presented that puts humans unequivocally on the moon or in orbit of the moon during any of the Apollo mission windows then your house of cards falls over.

Your entire premise is based on supposition and misunderstanding of several inconsequential things.

You say Lick received the exact, correct coordinates when they were officially not known. But you've never stated WHAT TIME they received the coordinates. You simply wave your arms in the air and hope we don't notice your failure to provide exact answers.

You say that CAPCOM knew the laser had targeted the LRRR, and I've read the same passage in the ALSJ transcripts, but this information existed in only one place -- Cronkite's report. NO WHERE ELSE is there a report of successful targeting on the night of the landing. This information was based on bad reporting.

So if your 'theory' is true then we should be able to look at the photos, rocks, telemetry, flight medical data, radio communications, photographs of Earth from space, journals, logs, transcripts and timelines and find discrepancies.

No discrepancies exist.

None.

The only "discrepancy" is your alleged communication of the actual coordinates to a third party, at some hour you have never specified.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

No I don't know that. Actually my suggestion was a joke.

Supposing what you say is true, one could hypothesis a transmitting satellite around the earth following the moon's path. I don't really think that happened however.

Your understanding of orbital mechanics is incomplete. What you are describing is impossible. The only way to do this is to orbit a transmitting satellite around the moon itself.

Which they did.

It was called the Command Module.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Nobody is anxious,where did you get that from? We all know that all you post is self-congratulatory crap.

It's public masturbation...

Fine Oji, I 'll be back later. I have no need for this nonsense now.

Oh, you most certainly do have a need for this nonsense. Posting at all hours of the night, even while on a business trip to a foreign country. You're quite clearly obsessed.

 

[abaddon]

What is this calling me dishonest jive Kiwi9? Everyone knows the LRRR was not targeted siuccessfully until 08/01/1969. this is not a point in dispute.

That's trivial. How many astronauts were on the moon on 08/01/1969?

Answer, none.

Who did you think would take the photograph? Pixies?

 

[dafydd]

That's trivial. How many astronauts were on the moon on 08/01/1969?

Answer, none.

Who did you think would take the photograph? Pixies?

That's just as likely as anything he has posted so far.

 

[nomuse]

of course it is NOT the Lick laser nomuse. that is the whole point ANYONE WITH ANY LASER CAN TARGET YOU. And you say I do not read your posts. I have said over and over and over in many didfferent ways, ANY LASER, friendly, unfriendly, ruby, argon, pink, ANY laser!!!!!

Wrong. Many laser formulations are not visible, or are difficult to detect by eye or camera film (the Lick ruby laser, for instance, is in a band where the Apollo-carried vidicons are extremely insensitive.)

As far as I have been able to find, there had been no intentional targeting and confirmed acquisition by a spacecraft until the Galileo experiment in 1992. The system used for the LRRR experiments was not up for tracking spacecraft in flight.

Armstrong's "laser" sighting was not confirmed, or matched up with any known terrestrial laser, and was a one-time incident. It is also of a color not available at the time and an intensity magnitudes greater than any we have been discussing. I find it extremely unlikely that was actually a laser.

 

[nomuse]

No I don't know that. Actually my suggestion was a joke.

Supposing what you say is true, one could hypothesis a transmitting satellite around the earth following the moon's path. I don't really think that happened however.

Elegant. Of course, to have an orbit period identical to the Moon it would have to be at the distance of the Moon. To appear to be coming from the Moon it would have to be located in the same direction as the Moon. The satellite ends up being...on the Moon.

 

[Oji]

Armstrong's "laser" sighting was not confirmed, or matched up with any known terrestrial laser, and was a one-time incident. It is also of a color not available at the time and an intensity magnitudes greater than any we have been discussing. I find it extremely unlikely that was actually a laser.

And this seems to be typical of all his arguments. What is more likely: that someone made a mistake (or there is an error in reporting what was said); or there is some incredibly complex hoax involving hundreds of thousands of people in multiple countries (including amateurs, schoolchildren, and enemies of the USA). Hmmm, tricky... Sounds like a job for Occam's razor.

 

[Andy_Ross]

But we know where Apollo 12 was, you even posted yourself that it was at one of the Surveyor sites so why not say they have seen a laser? Not that anyone pointed a laser at 12 as far as I am aware.

Even if a laser was pointed at them why would they see it when they were in bright sunlight, the laser would have been overwhelmed by the glare of the sun and the reflection from the lunar surfece. Plus what if they weren't looking at Earth when the pulse arrived?

We know where they were because people all over the planet, (Russians, Chinese, British, French, Australian etc Governments and private individuals were pointing their radio aerials at the moon to listen to them.

 

[dafydd]

And this seems to be typical of all his arguments. What is more likely: that someone made a mistake (or there is an error in reporting what was said); or there is some incredibly complex hoax involving hundreds of thousands of people in multiple countries (including amateurs, schoolchildren, and enemies of the USA). Hmmm, tricky... Sounds like a job for Occam's razor.

Sounds like a job for the nearest trashcan.

 

[nomuse]

Got a plane to catch?

A slow boat to China.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Elegant. Of course, to have an orbit period identical to the Moon it would have to be at the distance of the Moon. To appear to be coming from the Moon it would have to be located in the same direction as the Moon. The satellite ends up being...on the Moon.

Bearing in mind that this is just presented as an intellectual exercise.....

1. You don't need a satellite with an orbit period identical to the Moon, you need a satellite with an orbit that can approximate the Moon for a 12 hour period. So it could start off at an arbitrary "north" of the Moon and slide across the Moon's face over that 12 hours to an arbitrary "south" and still give a reasonable impersonation of a signal from the moon.

2. Alternatively you could have a satellite that powered itself to cover the moon for a 12 hour period. Armstrong et al could be sitting up there reading off a script while watching the pre-recorded TV footage - sort of like driving round the block a few times.

We must not ask if it was technically possible to Hoax the radio transmissions, it was technically possible because it happened.

Just as a slight diversion - is it true NASA called it the Apollo missions after Apollyon in the Bible?

How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!
You said in your heart, “I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain.
I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.”
But you are brought down to the grave, to the depths of the pit.
Those who see you stare at you, they ponder your fate

Just asking questions.

 

[tsig]

I want my photo of the laser, just like Captain Rendezvous with the bogus MIT degree said he had. Don't care about the others, just the one that would suggest I might be wrong. The other photos do NOTHING to counter my claim(s).

I don't have a photo, will this pacifier do?

 

[abaddon]

Bearing in mind that this is just presented as an intellectual exercise.....

1. You don't need a satellite with an orbit period identical to the Moon, you need a satellite with an orbit that can approximate the Moon for a 12 hour period. So it could start off at an arbitrary "north" of the Moon and slide across the Moon's face over that 12 hours to an arbitrary "south" and still give a reasonable impersonation of a signal from the moon.

Wouldn't work as they transmitted from the surface continuously.

2. Alternatively you could have a satellite that powered itself to cover the moon for a 12 hour period. Armstrong et al could be sitting up there reading off a script while watching the pre-recorded TV footage - sort of like driving round the block a few times.

Wouldn't work as they transmitted from the surface continuously.

We must not ask if it was technically possible to Hoax the radio transmissions, it was technically possible because it happened.

Just as a slight diversion - is it true NASA called it the Apollo missions after Apollyon in the Bible?



Just asking questions.

No it is not true. The JAQ gambit is well known.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

The program was named after the Greek god of light and music by NASA manager Abe Silverstein, who later said that "I was naming the spacecraft like I'd name my baby."[4] Dr. Silverstein recalls he chose the name after perusing a book of mythology at home one evening, early in 1960. He thought that the image of "Apollo riding his chariot across the Sun was appropriate to the grand scale of the proposed program."[5

los wikis

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Bearing in mind that this is just presented as an intellectual exercise.....

"intellectual" is a pretty strong word, considering your suggestions....

1. You don't need a satellite with an orbit period identical to the Moon, you need a satellite with an orbit that can approximate the Moon for a 12 hour period. So it could start off at an arbitrary "north" of the Moon and slide across the Moon's face over that 12 hours to an arbitrary "south" and still give a reasonable impersonation of a signal from the moon.

Which 12 hours? The missions each lasted over a week including travel to and from the moon. The amount of time data of one sort or another was being transmitted was astounding.

2. Alternatively you could have a satellite that powered itself to cover the moon for a 12 hour period. Armstrong et al could be sitting up there reading off a script while watching the pre-recorded TV footage - sort of like driving round the block a few times.

This makes no sense. What the hell does "cover the moon" mean, and again, why 12 hours? Where "up there" is Armstrong?

We must not ask if it was technically possible to Hoax the radio transmissions, it was technically possible because it happened.

user agreement prevents me from expressing my feelings adequately in response to this statement.

 

[little grey rabbit]

"intellectual" is a pretty strong word, considering your suggestions....



Which 12 hours? The missions each lasted over a week including travel to and from the moon. The amount of time data of one sort or another was being transmitted was astounding.



This makes no sense. What the hell does "cover the moon" mean, and again, why 12 hours? Where "up there" is Armstrong?



user agreement prevents me from expressing my feelings adequately in response to this statement.

There is no need to resort to filthy language here.

Since we know the Apollo mission is a fake there can only be a limited number of possibilities that can exist:
1. The transmissions were not so public or widely monitored as you make out. Those that claimed to receive them were fellow-cult members
2. The transmissions could be mocked up by one or more ground based stations.
3. Something much closer to earth provided the transmissions. As pure invention I am suggesting something in orbit that used a propulsion mechanism to maintain a position so as always to transmit as if coming from the direction of the moon.

Do tell me if there is a possibility I have missed out or if there is a flaw in my logic.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

T

Do tell me if there is a possibility I have missed out or if there is a flaw in my logic.

Yes. There is a flaw in your logic.

Oh, were you wanting more detail than that?

Maybe later. I gotta tuck the kids in to bed for the night. But I'll be back, Girl Genius hasn't updated yet.