• 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:
Sorry, you lost me. I am out. See you all later, maybe much later. Not sure if I have anything additional to share. May or may not be back. Best, Patrick.
Click to expand...

Translation: Darning new socks now, will be back under a new name if I can sneak it through the registration system.
 
little grey rabbit said:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

You haven't met many real scientists have you?
Click to expand...

No, just the one I'm married to.

And the ones I'm related to by birth.

And the one I'm related to by marriage

Oh, yeah, and the one I'm descended from.

And the ones I studied under in college.

So I guess your preconceived notions trump any ignorant "education and experience" I might bring to the table

Have a day, LGR.
 
Last edited:
Patrick1000 said:
Not a chance. Do your own research and confirm mine yourself. That is what science is all about is it not? After all, to quote one of your colleagues, you guys have been studying this for 40 years and I have been studying only 4 months. Have at it. I am going swimming.
Click to expand...

What you do when you are not posting here is of profound disinterest to me so you can stop with the itinerary.

Or is that some lame attempt to give your persona a glimmer of verisimilitude.
 
ApolloGnomon said:
No, just the one I'm married to.

And the ones I'm related to by birth.

And the one I'm related to by marriage

Oh, yeah, and the one I'm descended from.

And the ones I studied under in college.

So I guess your preconceived notions trump any ignorant "education and experience" I might bring to the table

Have a day, LGR.
Click to expand...

Sniff. All I know personally are engineers. Who are also dead serious about getting things right (as Jay might say, when you screw up, the Universe grades your work. And it doesn't grade on a curve.)
 
ApolloGnomon said:
No, just the one I'm married to.

And the ones I'm related to by birth.

And the one I'm related to by marriage

Oh, yeah, and the one I'm descended from.

And the ones I studied under in college.

So I guess your preconceived notions trump any ignorant "education and experience" I might bring to the table

Have a day, LGR.
Click to expand...

Well why don't you try that line on your wife and see if she does burst out into derisive laughter. Even the most straight-laced of scientists would probably give a bit of a smirk in response.
 
EEEEE! GADDDSSSS!!! Polite words only!!!! By all means!!!

nomuse said:
Patrick -- those all come from you without a reputable cite.

In addition, if you are using them to advance an argument, you are standing behind them and must be therefor willing to defend them and explain them.

"I'm not a racist, but I have a friend who says the Irish are all drunks. Don't attack me...that's my friend saying that." That's exactly what you are attempting to get away with.

Patrick, I have no polite words for what you are doing here.
Click to expand...


EEEEEEE GADDDSSSS! nomuse, get a grip! Talk about a poor sport. Sure I out-researched you guys, but at least we got to the bottom of it all.

In the University of Santa Cruz News Letter of July 2009 we learned from Joe Wampler, here again are his words;

""The Russians knew very accurately the distance between Russian cities and between cities within the United States, but they didn't know the distance between the U.S. and Russia," explained Joe Wampler, professor emeritus of astronomy, who coordinated the experiment for the observatory. "Having an accurate measure of the distance to the moon at a moment in time would've given them that information. I was kind of upset about that, because we went into this as a scientific experiment. We weren't doing it for national security."


And some of us, myself, you, included, were't exactly sure what Wampler meant by this, though we suspected it had to do with taking measurements from both sides of the Atlantic, and then we find out that is in fact the case.

It turned out, surprisingly really at first, and then not surprisingly when one paused to think about it and considered the times, the distances across the great oceans were not known, and ranging satellites, all kinds of satellites, whether artificial or natural, such as the moon, could help one determine with great precision terrestrial distances. And that has a lot of practical value if one is thinking about parking a big fat 20 megaton birthday present in Mao's backyard there at the Forbidden City, or in Nikita's garden there in the Kremlin.

So we didn't go in peace nomuse. Once the LRRR was up there, we got the French and others to do some ranging for us too, simultaneous ranging I would imagine, connecting the dots kind of stuff, and we figured out how best to blow up Moscow. Only makes perfect sense.

I am comfortable with that. Nikita Khrushchev was trying to slip one or two by us from Cuba. Now we understand a little better the rationale for the Jupiter missiles in Turkey, even though they weren't that good I guess.

Back in those days, they couldn't aim ICBMs so well, that is until we "landed on the moon".
 
Last edited:
excaza said:
Citation needed.
Click to expand...

From his Little Grey Buttocks, I'm sure.

LGR seems to have the usual naive misconception of science many people have who are only exposed to science via popular media "Bwahaha! They laughed at my idea, but I'll PROVE it, then I'll show them all!!"

Unlike pseudoscience, proper scientific methodology requires rigorous investigation to eliminate errors such as preconceived notions, over-reliance on limited data sets, correlation/causation errors and confirmation bias.

If a scientist doesn't try every possible method to falsify their own hypothesis, guaranteed someone else will. The peer review process is brutal to poor methods. Corporate science such as pharmaceutical research is even more brutal, because people can die and the company can lose craploads of money if a researcher's "pet theory" turns out to be false.

I wouldn't expect someone who spends recreational brain-power imagining Holocaust hoaxes to understand the scientific process, so I'll drop it now.
 
Last edited:
What did I make up!?

nomuse said:
Patrick -- those all come from you without a reputable cite.

In addition, if you are using them to advance an argument, you are standing behind them and must be therefor willing to defend them and explain them.

"I'm not a racist, but I have a friend who says the Irish are all drunks. Don't attack me...that's my friend saying that." That's exactly what you are attempting to get away with.

Patrick, I have no polite words for what you are doing here.
Click to expand...

I did not make up the Joe Wampler quote nomuse. He wrote to me and said, and I quote;


"Unfortunately, I misunderstood the lander's coordinates which were relayed by telephone and not by a printed medium, such as by fax.** I thought that NASA said 00 41 50, not 00 41 15, and so at first I aimed the telescope at the wrong position."


So we know for a fact there was foreknowledge of the Tranquility Base coordinates and Apollo 11 fraud.

Motivation for the fraud? Blow up the commies. The other quotes I gave because they articulate the rationale for the LRRRs so well. But knowing the LRRRs were used to make transoceanic measurements in order to more accurately target ICBMs, hardy requires anyone to rely on quotes. Sure I used them, but both you and I can see the truth in all of this now. Quote me nomuse if it suits you better.

"The LRRRs were placed on the lunar surface not only to range the moon for "peaceful" scientific purposes in experiments designed to precisely measure earth-moon distances and study gravity, but also to precisely measure distances across the great oceans, distances theretofore not known with any accuracy. These latter, highly accurate transoceanic distances could be employed by United States military personal in the targeting of high value objectives in the Soviet Union and Asia/China."

How is that nomuse? It is all mine.
 
Last edited:
On Tuesday, NASA will be releasing even more detailed views of 3 Apollo sites.

I'm interested in what kind of "argument" Patrick will use to discredit the new images.

I'm betting he'll ignore the whole thing....and continue spouting garbage about coordinates.
 
Patrick1000 said:
I did not make up the Joe Wampler quote nomuse. He wrote to me and said, and I quote;


"Unfortunately, I misunderstood the lander's coordinates which were relayed by telephone and not by a printed medium, such as by fax.** I thought that NASA said 00 41 50, not 00 41 15, and so at first I aimed the telescope at the wrong position."


So we know for a fact there was foreknowledge of the Tranquility Base coordinates and Apollo 11 fraud.

Motivation for the fraud? Blow up the commies. The other quotes I gave because they articulate the rationale for the LRRRs so well. But knowing the LRRRs were used to make transoceanic measurements in order to more accurately target ICBMs, hardy requires anyone to rely on quotes. Sure I used them, but both you and I can see the truth in all of this now. Quote me nomuse if it suits you better.

"The LRRRs were placed on the lunar surface not only to range the moon for "peaceful" scientific purposes in experiments designed to precisely measure earth-moon distances and study gravity, but also to precisely measure distances across the great oceans, distances theretofore not known with any accuracy. These latter, highly accurate transoceanic distances could be employed by United States military personal in the targeting of high value objectives in the Soviet Union and Asia/China."

How is that nomuse? It is all mine.
Click to expand...

What date did he quote? Screenprint it.
 
green> garden

Patrick1000 said:
EEEEEEE GADDDSSSS! nomuse, get a grip! Talk about a poor sport. Sure I out-researched you guys, but at least we got to the bottom of it all.

In the University of Santa Cruz News Letter of July 2009 we learned from Joe Wampler, here again are his words;

""The Russians knew very accurately the distance between Russian cities and between cities within the United States, but they didn't know the distance between the U.S. and Russia," explained Joe Wampler, professor emeritus of astronomy, who coordinated the experiment for the observatory. "Having an accurate measure of the distance to the moon at a moment in time would've given them that information. I was kind of upset about that, because we went into this as a scientific experiment. We weren't doing it for national security."


And some of us, myself, you, included, were't exactly sure what Wampler meant by this, though we suspected it had to do with taking measurements from both sides of the Atlantic, and then we find out that is in fact the case.

It turned out, surprisingly really at first, and then not surprisingly when one paused to think about it and considered the times, the distances across the great oceans were not known, and ranging satellites, all kinds of satellites, whether artificial or natural, such as the moon, could help one determine with great precision terrestrial distances. And that has a lot of practical value if one is thinking about parking a big fat 20 megaton birthday present in Mao's backyard there at the Forbidden City, or in Nikita's garden there in the Kremlin.

So we didn't go in peace nomuse. Once the LRRR was up there, we got the French and others to do some ranging for us too, simultaneous ranging I would imagine, connecting the dots kind of stuff, and we figured out how best to blow up Moscow. Only makes perfect sense.

I am comfortable with that. Nikita Khrushchev was trying to slip one or two by us from Cuba. Now we understand a little better the rationale for the Jupiter missiles in Turkey, even though they weren't that good I guess.

Back in those days, they couldn't aim ICBMs so well, that is until we "landed on the moon".
Click to expand...
 
ApolloGnomon said:
From his Little Grey Buttocks, I'm sure.
Click to expand...
Epic quote.

Patrick1000 said:
EEEEEEE GADDDSSSS! nomuse, get a grip! Talk about a poor sport. Sure I out-researched you guys, but at least we got to the bottom of it all.
Click to expand...

Sure, yet the correct use of the quote function eludes you. Even a six fingered lump-head could work it out, yet you can't.
 
Patrick1000 said:
Patrick1000 said:
EEEEEEE GADDDSSSS! nomuse, get a grip! Talk about a poor sport. Sure I out-researched you guys, but at least we got to the bottom of it all.

In the University of Santa Cruz News Letter of July 2009 we learned from Joe Wampler, here again are his words;

""The Russians knew very accurately the distance between Russian cities and between cities within the United States, but they didn't know the distance between the U.S. and Russia," explained Joe Wampler, professor emeritus of astronomy, who coordinated the experiment for the observatory. "Having an accurate measure of the distance to the moon at a moment in time would've given them that information. I was kind of upset about that, because we went into this as a scientific experiment. We weren't doing it for national security."


And some of us, myself, you, included, were't exactly sure what Wampler meant by this, though we suspected it had to do with taking measurements from both sides of the Atlantic, and then we find out that is in fact the case.

It turned out, surprisingly really at first, and then not surprisingly when one paused to think about it and considered the times, the distances across the great oceans were not known, and ranging satellites, all kinds of satellites, whether artificial or natural, such as the moon, could help one determine with great precision terrestrial distances. And that has a lot of practical value if one is thinking about parking a big fat 20 megaton birthday present in Mao's backyard there at the Forbidden City, or in Nikita's garden there in the Kremlin.

So we didn't go in peace nomuse. Once the LRRR was up there, we got the French and others to do some ranging for us too, simultaneous ranging I would imagine, connecting the dots kind of stuff, and we figured out how best to blow up Moscow. Only makes perfect sense.

I am comfortable with that. Nikita Khrushchev was trying to slip one or two by us from Cuba. Now we understand a little better the rationale for the Jupiter missiles in Turkey, even though they weren't that good I guess.

Back in those days, they couldn't aim ICBMs so well, that is until we "landed on the moon".
Click to expand...

And it still has nothing to do with Apollo being hoaxed or not.
Click to expand...
 
Patrick1000 said:
I did not make up the Joe Wampler quote nomuse. He wrote to me and said, and I quote;


"Unfortunately, I misunderstood the lander's coordinates which were relayed by telephone and not by a printed medium, such as by fax.** I thought that NASA said 00 41 50, not 00 41 15, and so at first I aimed the telescope at the wrong position."


So we know for a fact there was foreknowledge of the Tranquility Base coordinates and Apollo 11 fraud.

Motivation for the fraud? Blow up the commies. The other quotes I gave because they articulate the rationale for the LRRRs so well. But knowing the LRRRs were used to make transoceanic measurements in order to more accurately target ICBMs, hardy requires anyone to rely on quotes. Sure I used them, but both you and I can see the truth in all of this now. Quote me nomuse if it suits you better.

"The LRRRs were placed on the lunar surface not only to range the moon for "peaceful" scientific purposes in experiments designed to precisely measure earth-moon distances and study gravity, but also to precisely measure distances across the great oceans, distances theretofore not known with any accuracy. These latter, highly accurate transoceanic distances could be employed by United States military personal in the targeting of high value objectives in the Soviet Union and Asia/China."

How is that nomuse? It is all mine.
Click to expand...

(empahsis mine)

All yours including the "quotes".

But if they are real, how can you use a quote as evidence if it is from someone who you then accuse of lying?

Unless Wampler has come clean and admitted that Apollo was faked, has he done that? If not, how do you know what you can and cannot believe?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom