• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
Patrick1000 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Anyone can bounce a laser of the LRRR to this very day. Anyone.
Three were left at different locations by Apollo 11, 14 and 15.
 
But the question is, where they bouncing them in the 60s, 70s, 80s

abaddon said:
Anyone can bounce a laser of the LRRR to this very day. Anyone.
Three were left at different locations by Apollo 11, 14 and 15.
Click to expand...

So abaddon, can you show me they were bouncing photons off the Apollo 11 LRRR way back in 1969, 1970, and so on? I doubt it. I believe we will find this to not be the case. It is researchable. we will find restricted access in those days and that will mean, military use and Apollo fraud to plant them there. We shall see. It will be interesting. Again , the point is, if Wampler is correct, there is zero chance we would put a passive device up there. So Apollo authenticity is utterly dependent on Wampler being wrong about the military applications of LRRR ranging. If Wampler is correct, WE MUST FIND THE LRRR TO NOT BE PASSIVE. ITS ACCESS WILL HAVE BEEN RESTRICTED.
 
Last edited:
Why would he even have suggested it would be a problem if it was an active device?

Flail.
 
Patrick1000 said:
WE MUST FIND THE LRRR TO NOT BE PASSIVE. ITS ACCESS WILL HAVE BEEN RESTRICTED.
Click to expand...

You quoted the scientists involved yourself. You can't simply cherry pick some quotation as fact while simultaneously dismissing the rest.

Typing in all caps does not an argument make. In fact it makes you appear even more delusional, if that were possible.
 
Patrick1000 said:
So, do you care?
Click to expand...

No, it's a moronic theory that makes absolutely no sense. I could probably aim a salvo of nuclear missiles well enough with the aid of an abacus to take out NYC. Why on earth would I need to use something on the Moon? Not to mention that the logistics and calculations needed to put a freaking mirror on the Moon far exceed what is required to aim an ICBM.
 
Last edited:
What makes this Cherry picked ?

abaddon said:
You quoted the scientists involved yourself. You can't simply cherry pick some quotation as fact while simultaneously dismissing the rest.

Typing in all caps does not an argument make. In fact it makes you appear even more delusional, if that were possible.
Click to expand...

This quote is totally relevant. First of all, it speaks to the point of the Tranquility Base coordinates not bing publicized. This may be totally innocent, but perhaps not. AND the business about moon ranging having military applications with regard to terrestrial targeting is incredibly relevant and very much not cherry picked AND I think it may be debunkable , but since I haven't heard anything from your side I will sit tight because i am still studying the problem. At this point, Wampler's point stands. He knows more about it than you and me combined abaddon and until you can show me how he is wrong, why he is wrong, we'll have to accept his argument. Bring a hot shot astronmomer on board, see what he/she says. I will email the Lick University people today and see how they respond.
 
Last edited:
Patrick1000 said:
WE MUST FIND THE LRRR TO NOT BE PASSIVE.
Click to expand...

No, "we" must get a grip on reality.

You can't fantasize about the nature of the reflector and then use that as "evidence" to support your other imaginings. That makes no sense.
 
I am not going to make anything up.

Oji said:
No, "we" must get a grip on reality.

You can't fantasize about the nature of the reflector and then use that as "evidence" to support your other imaginings. That makes no sense.
Click to expand...



I am not going to make any statements without support. We can email the Lick Observatory and McDonald Observatory as well and simply ask them if/how/under what circumstances others did or did not access the LRRR. It may even be in some of the papers I have. If we find nothing, then we can assume it is/was passive. My point is that if Wampler turns out to be correct, it is very unlikely that thye LRRR was a passive device in 1969, otherwise it could be used tio range an ICBM against us. we simply would not have placed it under those circumstances. So Wampler being right or wrong is huge here. More so for your side I think. If he is correct, the Apollo 11 LRRR must be a piece of military hardware, at least part time.
 
Last edited:
Patrick1000 said:
I am not going to make any statenments without support. We can email the Lick Observatory and McDonald OBservatory as well and simply ask them if/how/under what circumstances others did or did not access the LRRR.
Click to expand...

Dude. It's a mirror.
 
OK let's leave it until we find some good support either way.

excaza said:
Dude. It's a mirror.
Click to expand...

Let's leave it. So far, none of us have come up with anything for certain. I have ideas. I imagine nomuse does as well. It is no use going round and round because at this point Wampler is the highest authority. We need more in the way of corroboration, though I believe I understand his logic.
 
Patrick1000 said:
I am not going to make any statements without support. We can email the Lick Observatory and McDonald Observatory as well and simply ask them if/how/under what circumstances others did or did not access the LRRR. It may even be in some of the papers I have. If we find nothing, then we can assume it is/was passive. My point is that if Wampler turns out to be correct, it is very unlikely that thye LRRR was a passive device in 1969, otherwise it could be used tio range an ICBM against us. we simply would not have placed it under those circumstances. So Wampler being right or wrong is huge here. More so for your side I think. If he is correct, the Apollo 11 LRRR must be a piece of military hardware, at least part time.
Click to expand...

Read the link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
 
Patrick1000 said:
Let's leave it. So far, none of us have come up with anything for certain. I have ideas. I imagine nomuse does as well. It is no use going round and round because at this point Wampler is the highest authority. We need more in the way of corroboration, though I believe I understand his logic.
Click to expand...

So once again you run away.

You never did answer the question: If all those scientists and engineers built a working spacecraft, why did they not use it?
 
You are funny!

abaddon said:
So once again you run away.

You never did answer the question: If all those scientists and engineers built a working spacecraft, why did they not use it?
Click to expand...

Of all the things, you cannot accuse me of that, especially today. Gave you lots of my time. Tried my best to answer your questions and even clearly spelled out my claims 1-7. So no abaddon, I believe you are wrong there, but as I said earlier, we do tease one another for whatever reason. I presume it is to distract the other party from actually engaging. Though i am not sure why the teasing seems so spontaneous at times to be honest. At any rate, it was fun but I do have to go, and will be signing off for good for a while soon. It was fun, Pat
 
Last edited:
abaddon said:
So once again you run away.

You never did answer the question: If all those scientists and engineers built a working spacecraft, why did they not use it?
Click to expand...

I gave up trying to get an answer out of this guy pages ago. I wish we had an "answer the question" rule at JREF like they do over at Apollo Hoax -- it might prevent our forum being hijacked by the insane as a place to post verbal diarrhea with no accountability.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom