Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Patrick1000]

Looked into it

Do you have any proof that the Russians didn't ?
Didn't think so.

The French did. As far as I can tell so far, not the Russians, no unfriendlies, at least not early on. We can check with Lick Observatory/McDonald Observatory on this stuff. Obviously a huge point and worth learning about in great detail.


Still, if we went to the trouble of putting an LRRR on the moon, whether by way of a manned OR unmanned spaceship, and assuming Professor Miller is correct in his assertion that such LRRRs are indeed employable as a part of a weapons system given that ranging allows for more accurate targeting of terrestrial objectives, it is hardly credible that we would place said device up on the moon and allow the Russians any access to it, "whether we came in peace or in war".

I suspect this is why "the secret", which is no secret really, is so strongly denied, because the occult irony is that we went in war, well an unmanned craft brought a piece of a weapon up to the moon, and of course if the LRRs are still being successfully targeted, they REMAIN tools of both the military and civilian/scientific sectors of our community.

 

[Patrick1000]

Giving Tangents up For Lent

But please, do tell us what the Russian sub was up to.

Giving Tangents up For Lent mercatormac. Start with Blind Man's Bluff if you haven't read any sub books and go from there. I made my point, have limited time and will restrict my comments to what is now pertinent. We can start another thread about the subs in a couple months if you like. It is a favorite subject of mine.

 

[mercatormac]

Giving Tangents up For Lent mercatormac. Start with Blind Man's Bluff if you haven't read any sub books and go from there. I made my point, have limited time and will restrict my comments to what is now pertinent. We can start another thread about the subs in a couple months if you like. It is a favorite subject of mine.

Then I'll assume it was involved in conventional operations when it sank and that the news reports in 1975 were substantially accurate. Thanks for playing.

 

[Patrick1000]

My Claims, No goal Post Shifting

Goal post moving noted.

My Claims

1) The Apollo Program was a military program that included but was not limited to the placement of LRRR devices on the lunar surface for both the "peaceful purpose" of studying the earth-moon relationship and gravitational phenomena, as well as for the purpose of improved military ranging of terrestrial and space objects. (This claim is strong, but speculative. Has support from Joseph Wampler as per above quote.)

2) The Apollo 11 Mission was fraudulent as demonstrated by the irreconcilable inconsistencies between the testimony of Flight Dynamics Officer David Reed and the account of the lunar module launch scenario as presented in the Apollo 11 Mission Report and Apollo 11 Descent Trajectory analysis(descent trajectory analysis features landing coordinate data and how data was arrived at). (This claim is NOT SPECULATIVE.) It is confirmed and supported by a straightforward analysis of the coordinate numbers presented in the Mission Report, in the Descent Trajectory Report, and in David Reed's first person account of the events on the morning of 07/21/1969 as told in the book, FROM THE TRENCHES OF MISSION CONTROL TO THE CRATERS OF THE MOON. Additionally, the astronauts own testimony, all 3 of them, as they were quoted in my posts above, that they did not know where they(Armstrong/Aldrin) were on the surface of the moon, supports this confirmed and non speculative claim.

3) The Apollo 11 Mission appears as it does with the astronauts being afflicted by "star phobia" and with this unrealistic "losing of the Eagle", because to admit to seeing stars, is to admit to seeing lasers. Being found by a laser can expose an astronaut's whereabouts. With the astronauts not on the moon, nor in cislunar space, avoidance of laser targeting was critical. Likewise, the Eagle could not be found while the astronauts were actually on the moon. Again, because a found Eagle would subject the astronauts to laser targeting and its unpleasant consequences. (Very strong claim with lots of support, though speculative.)

4) The Eagle and astronauts cannot be too lost, otherwise the guidance and flight dynamics people would see the Apollo 11 Mission for the ruse it was. So the degree to which the "bird is hidden" is kept to within credible limits.(Very strong claim with lots of support, though speculative.)

5) The presence of LUNA 15 may have encouraged the Eagle hiding all the more. Even the THREAT of a camera, a lousy one, would have given NASA pause and would have encouraged the coordinate confusion that we have been discussing. (Moderately strong claim, though speculative.)

6) The LRRR's were brought to the surface of the moon by unmanned craft. (Given 2 above, NOT SPECULATIVE, confirmed.)

7) The LRRR's may have been brought to the moon under the guise of the Apollo Mission Saturn V launches with the Apollo 11 LRRR leaving for the moon on 07/16/1969. (Speculative)

 

[Patrick1000]

Error, Professor Wampler not Miller made statement about distance issue

The French did. As far as I can tell so far, not the Russians, no unfriendlies, at least not early on. We can check with Lick Observatory/McDonald Observatory on this stuff. Obviously a huge point and worth learning about in great detail.


Still, if we went to the trouble of putting an LRRR on the moon, whether by way of a manned OR unmanned spaceship, and assuming Professor Miller is correct in his assertion that such LRRRs are indeed employable as a part of a weapons system given that ranging allows for more accurate targeting of terrestrial objectives, it is hardly credible that we would place said device up on the moon and allow the Russians any access to it, "whether we came in peace or in war".

I suspect this is why "the secret", which is no secret really, is so strongly denied, because the occult irony is that we went in war, well an unmanned craft brought a piece of a weapon up to the moon, and of course if the LRRs are still being successfully targeted, they REMAIN tools of both the military and civilian/scientific sectors of our community.

Note my error, it is Professor Wampler that makes the statement about the Russians wanting to know the earth-moon distance, not Miller. Miller was the one fielding questions and not saying anything about the coordinates. sorry about my error. doesn't change the argument of course.

 

[Patrick1000]

Sorry nomuse, you probably already puicked this error up, just in case.

I find it rather strange that I make a serious point by quoting a full professor of Astronomy, Joseph Miller, who participated directly in the LRRR experiments and informs us that successful LRRR targeting could and would be used by the Russians to better locate our own cities and other targets, and you criticize ME.

If you can show me Miller is WRONG nomuse, fine. I will accept the point. So far, you have not been able to do that. AND, I do not believe you can.

that said, I know you are capable, perhaps Miller was wrong. For the time being, I ask you for once, to leave me personally out of this and simply look at the man's argument, Miller's argument, and show me where his logic breaks down. I had to spend a fair amount of time looking into this to see what it was all about.

Think about it nomuse. Why did the Russians never successfully target, back then anyway, our LRRR? If it was passive, they would have.

Try and debunk this, plain and simple. Argue the point and leave me out of it. Miller vs you, let's see what you have got.

Sorry nomuse. You probably already picked this up. From the University of Santa Cruz article, Joseph Miller was the one answering the reporters' questions and not being able to say what the coordinates were. It was Professor Wampler that made the statement about the Russians wanting to know the Earth-moon distance for improved targeting of our cities. Of course it doesn't change the substance of my challenge to you. Simply a different guy. I got them mixed up I think because both have Joseph as a first name.

 

[abaddon]

My Claims

1) The Apollo Program was a military program that included but was not limited to the placement of LRRR devices on the lunar surface for both the "peaceful purpose" of studying the earth-moon relationship and gravitational phenomena, as well as for the purpose of improved military ranging of terrestrial and space objects. (This claim is strong, but speculative. Has support from Joseph Miller as per above quote.)

Flat out wrong. You claim to be a scientist, yet cannot figure out why the LRRR would have no useful military purpose.

2) The Apollo 11 Mission was fraudulent as demonstrated by the irreconcilable inconsistencies between the testimony of Flight Dynamics Officer David Reed and the account of the lunar module launch scenario as presented in the Apollo 11 Mission Report and Apollo 11 Descent Trajectory analysis(descent trajectory analysis features landing coordinate data and how data was arrived at). (This claim is NOT SPECULATIVE.) It is confirmed and supported by a straightforward analysis of the coordinate numbers presented in the Mission Report, in the Descent Trajectory Report, and in David Reed's first person account of the events on the morning of 07/21/1969 as told in the book, FROM THE TRENCHES OF MISSION CONTROL TO THE CRATERS OF THE MOON. Additionally, the astronauts own testimony, all 3 of them, as they were quoted in my posts above, that they did not know where they(Armstrong/Aldrin) were on the surface of the moon, supports this confirmed and non speculative claim.

Not a single one of these claims have you shown to be true. Insisting that you have just demonstrates the weakness of your argument.

3) The Apollo 11 Mission appears as it does with the astronauts being afflicted by "star phobia" and with this unrealistic "losing of the Eagle", because to admit to seeing stars, is to admit to seeing lasers. Being found by a laser can expose an astronaut's whereabouts. With the astronauts not on the moon, nor in cislunar space, avoidance of laser targeting was critical. Likewise, the Eagle could not be found while the astronauts were actually on the moon. Again, because a found Eagle would subject the astronauts to laser targeting and its unpleasant consequences. (Very strong claim with lots of support, though speculative.)

All explained to you exhaustively and repeatedly throughout this thread. Your lack of comprehension does not add weight to your wild claims.

4) The Eagle and astronauts cannot be too lost, otherwise the guidance and flight dynamics people would see the Apollo 11 Mission for the ruse it was. So the degree to which the "bird is hidden" is kept to within credible limits.(Very strong claim with lots of support, though speculative.)

No, it is a weak fantasy, with no supporting evidence.

5) The presence of LUNA 15 may have encouraged the Eagle hiding all the more. Even the THREAT of a camera, a lousy one, would have given NASA pause and would have encouraged the coordinate confusion that we have been discussing. (Moderately strong claim, though speculative.)

Already soundly shown to be absolute fantasy. No camera with that capability existed on Luna 15. You can't just make one up.

6) The LRRR's were brought to the surface of the moon by unmanned craft. (Given 2 above, NOT SPECULATIVE, confirmed.)

Yet there is no evidence for such craft, nor the engineers and scientists working on them, nor the launch facilities required, nor the manufacturing of such craft. It is all pure fantasy.

7) The LRRR's may have been brought to the moon under the guise of the Apollo Mission Saturn V launches with the Apollo 11 LRRR leaving for the moon on 07/16/1969. (Speculative)

They may have been delivered by pink unicorns, or green leprechauns, or any other fantasy of your choice.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Here be ye Gyants

What does he think was holding NASA back? Radiation? If fuel is no issue, then you CAN lift ships covered with four feet of lead (the problem of bremmstrahlung goes away if you can get enough metal). If it is problems with food supply or life support -- again, being able to lift arbitrary masses eases a lot of pain. Perhaps there are worrisome aliens? If fuel is no issue, send up battleships (or even recycle a sunken W.W.II naval craft, if that's what floats your Yamato). Power is power; if you can generate delta-V, you can generate electrical power to feed Giant Lasers or relativistic cannon. Not to forget, of course, the Kizinti Lesson itself.

Or perhaps he is alluding to (but unwilling to say) that NASA is actually tooling around the visible universe already in their top secret flying saucers (swastikas carefully scrubbed off for a new and spiffy all-black paint job.) And so the only "issue" is owning up to how they are already fighting aliens and ferrying slaves to the Rich People colonies around distant stars -- when they aren't assuaging their boredom by controlling weather and scaring farmers during the long shifts on Earth.

Really, nomuse, this is most unworthy of you. Put it quite simply, I am from Australia and I am here to help.

All I can do is show you the door, it is you that has to walk through it.

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee226/mralbertfish/wbs8.jpg

Slightly OT (rather unusually for me), I was watching this documentary that claims the Nazis reached the Moon first, they even seemed to have found some blueprints.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KEueJnsu80

Strangely they seem to be all au fait with the Ironosphere, the vast fields of sarcastic irony permeating the universe. Which might explain why they managed to get there.

 

[Patrick1000]

My same challenge to you abaddon as that to your coleague nomuse

Flat out wrong. You claim to be a scientist, yet cannot figure out why the LRRR would have no useful military purpose.



Not a single one of these claims have you shown to be true. Insisting that you have just demonstrates the weakness of your argument.



All explained to you exhaustively and repeatedly throughout this thread. Your lack of comprehension does not add weight to your wild claims.


No, it is a weak fantasy, with no supporting evidence.



Already soundly shown to be absolute fantasy. No camera with that capability existed on Luna 15. You can't just make one up.



Yet there is no evidence for such craft, nor the engineers and scientists working on them, nor the launch facilities required, nor the manufacturing of such craft. It is all pure fantasy.



They may have been delivered by pink unicorns, or green leprechauns, or any other fantasy of your choice.

Please pause and think there what Professor Wampler's claim is saying abaddon. You risk ever so much, the entire Apollo war, if you stake the program's authenticity upon the fragile hope that this incredibly bright man is wrong on this point.

Perhaps first you should show us where Professor Wampler's logic/reaoning has failed him. His colleague, Professor Miller, spoke with reporters on the evening of 07/20/1969 and was not allowed to disclose the coordinates of the LRRR for this very reason. 2 world class astronomers, and you challenge them? Fine, let us see what you have abaddon.

Much hangs in the balance now. The stakes indeed have become ASTRONOMICAL, Apollo's authenticity is at risk. It would seem if Joseph Wampler is correct in his reasoning, Apollo indeed is fraudulent. and all of this from a University of Santa Cruz interview with one little ol' scientist who was present at Lick Observatory that evening. I must say this has been a dramatic evening for me as well. And now mid day.

So if you please abaddon, your counter to Joseph Wampler's statement there. We quite literally are on the edge of our seats , waiting for your reply.

And as I said to nomuse, for once, cut the personal stuff. Debunk Wampler if you can, and if you do, I shall admit you are correct, and move on. If you cannot show Professor Wampler to be wrong in this regard, I will claim Apollo fraudulent, yet again, yet with this to add as more evidence. And with that, we shall have the fraud's elusive MOTIVATION finally nailed down. Planting LRRRs to help accurately target high value Russian military and civilian sites.

It really does seem to fit so well now abaddon. as i said, there is much hanging in the balance. Let us see what you have. your colleagues are counting on you.

 

[excaza]

Planting LRRRs to help accurately target high value Russian military and civilian sites.

This is quite possibly the dumbest and most pointless idea I've ever seen.

 

[Patrick1000]

sorry it took so long erock

Let's put it out there........

As the current "best estimate" of the landing site shifted, predicted ranges were affected by approximately 4 km (28 ffsec). Site coordinates for Tranquility Base provided by the NASA Manned Spacecraft Center on July 22, 1969, are currently being used.




I can't actually see the date from this, but I assume you mean they watched the EVA, then referred to position identified AFTERWARDS, which would be morning of 21st, in line with Reed/CSM/Radar, then the mistake with the 'Texas drawl' corrected morning of 22nd.


NEXT.

So what I presented in 1178 and will do again using both the Mission report and the descent trajectory analysis are the REAL-TIME coordinate values available.

My claim is that we don't know for sure what coordinates were given to Lick Observatory. I have seen the Remington Stone numbers, Alley says in one place the coordinates were the best trajectory coordinates I believe from the flight processor which is essentially MSFN data.

Reagrdless what they were exactly, we know they were withing 2 miles of Tranquility Base 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east because the Lick Staff successfully targeted the LRRR using these coordinates and the only reason it was not successfully targeted sooner was because there was a JPL software problem/error.

Now because none of the coordinates were within 2 miles of Tranquility Base per Reed/my analysis at 1178, we see there was coordinate foreknowldge and also Mission report fraud. The coordinates in the report, PNGS, AGS, powered flight processor are close to Tranquility Base. The flight processor coordinates are 0.64 miles away. These are real-time numbers. And what is more, they agree with one another well. So these numbers are made up in the sense that Reed worked with different numbers entirely on the morning of 07/21/1969 as did the staff on the evening of 07/20/1969. Coordinate fraud equals hoax.

I am dealing with numbers from the evening of 07/20/1969 and from the am 07/21/1969 as reported in the Mission Report and the descent Trajectory Analysis.

 

[Patrick1000]

you take a shot

This is quite possibly the dumbest and most pointless idea I've ever seen.

Professor Wampler doesn't think it is dumb. He is saying if the Russians had successfully targeted the Apollo 11 LRRR, they could have done a better job of planting one on our houses, yours and mine. Take a shot at debunking him. Do not make the mistake of trivializing this point. Much is at stake for both sides. If you do relax here, you do so at great peril. If Wampler is correct, Apollo is fraudulent.

 

[dafydd]

Professor Wampler doesn't think it is dumb. He is saying if the Russians had successfully targeted the Apollo 11 LRRR, they could have done a better job of planting one on our houses, yours and mine. Take a shot at debunking him. Do not make the mistake of trivializing this point. Much is at stake for both sides. If you do relax here, you do so at great peril. If Wampler is correct, Apollo is fraudulent.

I can spot the flaw there. Wampler is dumb.

 

[excaza]

Professor Wampler doesn't think it is dumb. He is saying if the Russians had successfully targeted the Apollo 11 LRRR, they could have done a better job of planting one on our houses, yours and mine. Take a shot at debunking him. Do not make the mistake of trivializing this point. Much is at stake for both sides. If you do relax here, you do so at great peril. If Wampler is correct, Apollo is fraudulent.

You seem to be under the impression that every ridiculous theory requires debunking. If I were to say lime green llamas with laser eyes started WWII, and then challenge you to debunk this and crow about how your lack of a debunking proves it's true, would you actually take me seriously?

 

[Patrick1000]

It is not a ridiculous theory

You seem to be under the impression that every ridiculous theory requires debunking. If I were to say lime green llamas with laser eyes started WWII, and then challenge you to debunk this and crow about how your lack of a debunking proves it's true, would you actually take me seriously?

This is not a ridiculous theory. We have a world class astronomy professor giving testimony here, and not just any world class astronomer. Wampler is a man who was present at Lick Observatory on the evening of 07/20/1969. In fact, he is the person that took the phone call from Houston that evening at which time the coordinataes of Tranquiltiy Base were pasessed to the Lick Observatory staff.

This man, a man who was an intergral member of the team that first successfully targeted a lunar LRRR, states as a matter of fact, not fantasy, that were the Russians aware of the LRRR's coordinates and able to range it in real time, they could do a better job of putting a nuke on my house and on your house than they could without the LRRR data. They could do a better job of taking out NYC, Washington DC, the naval base at San Diego, the ICBM sites in the midwest.

He states this as a matter of fact. Perhaps he is wrong, but I tend to have more respect for his opinion than yours at this point. Professor Wampler definitely gives us the impression this had nothing to do with fantasy.

So, do you care?

 

[abaddon]

This is not a ridiculous theory. We have a world class astronomy professor giving testimony here, and not just any world class astronomer. Wampler is a man who was present at Lick Observatory on the evening of 07/20/1969. In fact, he is the person that took the phone call from Houston that evening at which time the coordinataes of Tranquiltiy Base were pasessed to the Lick Observatory staff.

This man, a man who was an intergral member of the team that first successfully targeted a lunar LRRR, states as a matter of fact, not fantasy, that were the Russians aware of the LRRR's coordinates and able to range it in real time, they could do a better job of putting a nuke on my house and on your house than they could without the LRRR data. They could do a better job of taking out NYC, Washington DC, the naval base at San Diego, the ICBM sites in the midwest.

He states this as a matter of fact. Perhaps he is wrong, but I tend to have more respect for his opinion than yours at this point. Professor Wampler definitely gives us the impression this had nothing to do with fantasy.

So, do you care?

The LRRR is simply a reflector, sitting on the moon. What's stopping the Russians, or anyone else for that matter, reflecting a laser off it?

 

[drewid]

The French did. As far as I can tell so far, not the Russians, no unfriendlies, at least not early on. We can check with Lick Observatory/McDonald Observatory on this stuff. Obviously a huge point and worth learning about in great detail.


Still, if we went to the trouble of putting an LRRR on the moon, whether by way of a manned OR unmanned spaceship, and assuming Professor Miller is correct in his assertion that such LRRRs are indeed employable as a part of a weapons system given that ranging allows for more accurate targeting of terrestrial objectives, it is hardly credible that we would place said device up on the moon and allow the Russians any access to it, "whether we came in peace or in war".

I suspect this is why "the secret", which is no secret really, is so strongly denied, because the occult irony is that we went in war, well an unmanned craft brought a piece of a weapon up to the moon, and of course if the LRRs are still being successfully targeted, they REMAIN tools of both the military and civilian/scientific sectors of our community.

How on earth do you think that Lick would know? If the Russians targeted the LRRR why would they feel the need to tell anyone about it?

 

[Patrick1000]

My point exactly!!!!!

The LRRR is simply a reflector, sitting on the moon. What's stopping the Russians, or anyone else for that matter, reflecting a laser off it?

My point exactly!!!!! Obviously that was not the case!!!!!! All we need to do in terms of demonstrating Apollo's inauthenticity is to show to ourselves that it was not a targeting free for all. Do this, and we will have demonstrated, contrary to that which was advertised/publicised, this was NOT a passive device, but rather, access to it was and perhaps still is selective/restricted, though the latter seems unlikely. By that I mean it seems unlikely that access would still be restricted.

If it was/is a passive device, and Wampler at the same time is correct, it makes zero sense to have put it up there and helped the Russians get a bead on President Nixon. So, much more likely than not, we will find the Russians could not access the reflector. We will find the LRRR is indeed NOT PASSIVE, and we'll conclude its placement was done with military intent, at least in part so.

As I said, a lot is at stake, especially for your side abaddon. If the reflector is passive, Apollo still may be fraudulent. However, if access is restricted, then the device is a piece of military hardware, at least part time it is and we may conclude Apollo to be fraudulent.

 

[Patrick1000]

see my note to abaddon

How on earth do you think that Lick would know? If the Russians targeted the LRRR why would they feel the need to tell anyone about it?

Would not make sense to put a passive device up there if Wampler is correct. I believe we are going to find the LRRR was not passive and anyone at all COULD NOT ACCESS IT.

 

[drewid]

Bwahhahhaahaaahahahhaahhahahhahahahaahahhhahahahahahahahhahahahahah

proof?

hahhhAHHHHAHhhhahahahHAHHAHHAH