Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
Patrick1000 said:
It is often asked, "if "Apollo" was fake, what really happened then?." As should be obvious, "Apollo happened". The whole project is real in the sense that this is the very equipment being used to land "satellites" and instrument the moon.

More likely than not, the LMs themselves are the satellites that land. When I say the "telemetry is fraudulent". I do not mean it has nothing to do with the "missions" in any sense. It is fraudulent in the sense that close examination of all the telemetry data proves the missions did not happened as advertised and were unmanned.

More likely than not, people in Houston, people in Mission Control, landed the very military/civilian satellites I am writing about here. This is why Apollo as manned space mission is such a great cover for this.

To land a satellite equipped as I have suggested would require a very large rocket. Presumably this is a satellite much bigger than Surveyor, and may well be the "Eagle" itself, a LM with modifications of course. You couldn't launch a package this big for the moon without a giant booster. If you said it was unmanned, people would get suspicious, "Why are the Americans launching so many giant satellites and landing them on the moon?" Well, not every body would get "suspicious". Russian intelligence knew what we were doing, but they were attempting to and presumably did the same with their landings.

This is why the Russians never say anything. They are doing it too. the scam is for the general public, the world at large. Intelligence people in all of the great nations know all about this, must be the case.
Click to expand...
Got any more fairy stories?
 
So.... More walls o text & barely a mention of the photos...

Just keep dodging.
 
Patrick1000 said:
It is often asked, "if "Apollo" was fake, what really happened then?." As should be obvious, "Apollo happened". The whole project is real in the sense that this is the very equipment, and these are the very unknowing personal, that are being used/employed to land "satellites" and instrument the moon.

More likely than not, the LMs themselves are the satellites that land. When I say the "telemetry is fraudulent". I do not mean it has nothing to do with the "missions" in any sense. It is fraudulent in the sense that close examination of all the Apollo 11 telemetry data proves the mission did not happened as advertised. Examination of the telemetry data shows Apollo 11 was unmanned and fraudulent. Fraudulent in the sense that the "mission" had an altogether different intention than that as presented by NASA in its conventional telling of the first moon landing narrative.

More likely than not, people in Houston, people in Mission Control, landed the very military/civilian satellites I am writing about here, and most of the people in Houston, the flight specialists included, like H. David Reed, they assumed this to be a real manned mission.This is why Apollo 11 as a "manned space mission" is such a great cover for this.

To land a satellite equipped as I have suggested would require a very large rocket. Presumably this is a satellite much bigger than Surveyor, and may well be the "Eagle" itself, a LM with modifications of course. You couldn't launch a package this big for the moon without a giant booster. If you said it was unmanned, people would get suspicious, "Why are the Americans launching so many giant satellites and landing them on the moon?" Well, not every body would get "suspicious". Russian intelligence knew what we were doing, but they were attempting to and presumably did the same with their landings.

This is why the Russians never say anything. They are doing it too. The scam is for the general public, the world at large. Intelligence people in all of the great nations know all about this, must be the case.
Click to expand...

So now your claim is that the US used robotic lunar vehicles to place LRRR's in order to obtain more precise targeting data for their ICBMs, while simultaneously, and conveniently, forgetting that the russians could use those very same LRRRs to precisely target their ICBMs?
 
Patrick1000 said:
Lasers are now used routinely in the measurement of wind speed and atmospheric density. These variables are among the most important in military rocketeers' arriving at the "correct" solutions for successful ICBM launches.

The LRRR placements and perhaps active laser placements upon Mother Earth's closest luminary almost certainly helped in making such determinations. Real-time targeting solutions for ICBMs were improved in this way.

ICBM launch parameters vary depending on wind strength and atmospheric density. Laser light measurements through the atmosphere would help in determining wind speeds and air densities.
Click to expand...

Kind of useless if you are going to provide your enemy with the same data.
 
Ok, Pat, let me see if I have this straight.

We develop, build and launch the largest successful booster in history to land reflectors and some ancillary equipment on the Moon when we could have continued the Surveyor program and hidden the project in plain sight, right?

The Soviets do the same thing, only not as grandly, without ever once complaining that we are militarizing space, right?

Both sides tacitly agree not to talk about this so, I don't know, we don't panic our populations, right? Even though there were (and still is) a lot of city-busting warheads available to both parties that were openly discussed.

In the 50 years since President Kennedy's speech (my best guess as to the start of your timeline), over 10 administrations, not one word leaked, not even a rumor of a rumor!. Right?

All this in the light of the U.S. essentially saying, when the U.S.S.R. fell, "We won the Cold War by outspending and out techno-ing those guys!" Have I got that one straight, too?

And, nothing from the former Soviet archives, when so much else has come out, saying "we knew that they knew that we knew what they were doing", even in the current chilled atmosphere under Putin's leadership?

Give us a break!

Forget my earlier allusion to Roxanne; you're starting to remind me of Sterling Hayden's character in Dr. Strangelove.

(note, I can't post links yet, but see IMDB's page for General Ripper's famous speech about fluoridation.)
 
abaddon said:
You will not sway P1K with logic or reason.
Click to expand...


Oh, I know that. Part of this is to relieve my own frustration at sheer foolishness. Another part of it is that people like him hate being refuted with simple facts, so I'm doing it to bug him. Even saying so overtly won't prevent him from being irritated with me.

I suppose I should stop - I don't want to be a pest here, but this guy is trying to negate one of the best achievements of mankind and this nation, something that occurred in my lifetime.

Thanks for posting the link for me. And thank you, too, matt.
 
The Russian's Won the "Space Race". It's the Only Reasonable Explanation.

The Russians were the first to have hard landed and also first to land softly on the lunar surface with a spacecraft. In 1970, they landed the first rover that could be effectively controlled from the planet Earth.

The Russians are not stupid, as good at this stuff as we are, as good as "NASA" is. Sooooooo, it is obvious that their unmanned craft carried cameras, listening devices, infrared sensors and so forth for the monitoring of planet Earth. I would imagine they probably placed a LRRR on the moon before we did. They could land an unmanned craft as well as we could. They understood the LRRR thing as well as the American team. They were faster than the American team with respect to satellite development, and we may therefore conclude with near certainty, the Russians began to instrument the moon and use it as a military satellite before the Americans did.

Our Apollo program was a response to the Russians in a sense actually having won the moon race. The moon race was about instrumenting the lunar surface with sensors and emitters, not about landing men. The Russians beat the US to the punch, Apollo was the US response and neither side talked or talks about it because arms in space were/are a "no no"..

Both countries were signatories to a no arms on the moon treaty in 1967. OF course the Russians were not going to blow the whistle on our/American antics with their own equipment up there.

The Russians actually won the "Space Race". It is obvious to me and I am sure obvious to many others now. Once one realizes the thing is all about instrumenting mother Earth's closest luminary, everything falls into place. It is the only explanation for the nuttiness of the space race that makes any sense at all. And it also explains why the astronauts would courageously do this, tell an unbelievable lie, out of interest for our national security and then be so quiet about it, ferociously guarding the big secret in the face of the ridiculous evidence that is trotted out before us as authentication of Apollo as a peaceful program of lunar exploration.
 
Last edited:
danburymint_pig_hogwash1.jpg
 
Patrick1000 said:
They could land an unmanned craft as well as we could.
Click to expand...


Luna E-6 No.2 Soft landing attempt failed.
Luna E-6 No.3 Soft landing attempt failed.
Luna E-6 No.6 Soft landing attempt failed.
Luna E-6 No.5 Soft landing attempt failed.
Kosmos 60 Soft landing attempt failed.
Luna E-6 No.8 Soft landing attempt failed.
Luna 5 Soft landing attempt failed.
Luna 6 Soft landing attempt failed.
Luna 9 Hey, they finally made it!

History. Who knew it could be so complicated?

Dude, you are so out of your depth.
 
matt.tansy said:
Luna E-6 No.2 Soft landing attempt failed.
Luna E-6 No.3 Soft landing attempt failed.
Luna E-6 No.6 Soft landing attempt failed.
Luna E-6 No.5 Soft landing attempt failed.
Kosmos 60 Soft landing attempt failed.
Luna E-6 No.8 Soft landing attempt failed.
Luna 5 Soft landing attempt failed.
Luna 6 Soft landing attempt failed.
Luna 9 Hey, they finally made it!

History. Who knew it could be so complicated?

Dude, you are so out of your depth.
Click to expand...


In former Soviet Union, Moon lands on you!
 
Patrick1000 said:
The Russians were the first to have hard landed and also first to land softly on the lunar surface with a spacecraft. In 1970, they landed the first rover that could be effectively controlled from the planet Earth.

The Russians are not stupid, as good at this stuff as we are, as good as "NASA" is. Sooooooo, it is obvious that their unmanned craft carried cameras, listening devices, infrared sensors and so forth for the monitoring of planet Earth. I would imagine they probably placed a LRRR on the moon before we did. They could land an unmanned craft as well as we could. They understood the LRRR thing as well as the American team. They were faster than the American team with respect to satellite development, and we may therefore conclude with near certainty, the Russians began to instrument the moon and use it as a military satellite before the Americans did.

Our Apollo program was a response to the Russians in a sense actually having won the moon race. The moon race was about instrumenting the lunar surface with sensors and emitters, not about landing men. The Russians beat the US to the punch, Apollo was the US response and neither side talked or talks about it because arms in space were/are a "no no"..

Both countries were signatories to a no arms on the moon treaty in 1967. OF course the Russians were not going to blow the whistle on our/American antics with their own equipment up there.

The Russians actually won the "Space Race". It is obvious to me and I am sure obvious to many others now. Once one realizes the thing is all about instrumenting mother Earth's closest luminary, everything falls into place. It is the only explanation for the nuttiness of the space race that makes any sense at all. And it also explains why the astronauts would courageously do this, tell an unbelievable lie, out of interest for our national security and then be so quiet about it, ferociously guarding the big secret in the face of the ridiculous evidence that is trotted out before us as authentication of Apollo as a peaceful program of lunar exploration.
Click to expand...

Yet another wall of text to avoid the pictures that prove him so very wrong.
 
First Moon Landings

1) First "successful" lunar crash landing, Soviet LUNA 2 September 13 1959
2) First "successful" American crash landing, Ranger 4 April 26th 1962
3) First successful lunar soft landing, first photos of the moon from its
surface, Soviet LUNA 9, February 3 1966.
4) First successful American soft landing, Surveyor I June 2 1966
 
Last edited:
Patrick, a challenge for you, one that someone of your amazing intellect, training, and literary skills can surely handle: if what you say is true, why is it still a secret, given that so much else has become open, and how, with all of the people involved, was that secret so perfectly kept?

Oh, that's not the main part of the challenge - this is: you can't answer that in a logical, believable way. Prove me wrong.
 
Patrick1000 said:
1) First "successful" lunar crash landing, Soviet LUNA 2 September 13 1959
2) First "successful" American crash landing, Ranger 4 April 26th 1962
3) First successful lunar soft landing, first photos of the moon from its
surface, Soviet LUNA 9, February 3 1966.
4) First successful American soft landing, Surveyor I June 2 1966
Click to expand...

Nope. The pictures prove you wrong, thus your fear of addressing them.
 
I do not have "Google" where I am at.
Click to expand...
I'd love to hear how you have internet access capable of blogging but not capable of Google?

The Russians are not stupid, as good at this stuff as we are, as good as "NASA" is. Sooooooo, it is obvious that their unmanned craft carried cameras, listening devices, infrared sensors and so forth for the monitoring of planet Earth.
Click to expand...
Logical fallacy. Do you need me to explain it?
 
Patrick1000 said:
1) First "successful" lunar crash landing, Soviet LUNA 2 September 13 1959
2) First "successful" American crash landing, Ranger 4 April 26th 1962
3) First successful lunar soft landing, first photos of the moon from its
surface, Soviet LUNA 9, February 3 1966.
4) First successful American soft landing, Surveyor I June 2 1966
Click to expand...



As always, Dr. Socks is so grossly ignorant of all things space he must try to shift the goalposts from "better" to "first". He said,

Patrick1000 said:
They could land an unmanned craft as well as we could.
Click to expand...

The US' first attempt at a soft landing on the Moon succeeded. The USSR took 9 tries. That hardly counts as "as well as" in any rational person's book.
 
Last edited:
First Lunar Rover Succeffully Operated from the Earth

Lunokhod 1 was the first from Earth remotely controlled lunar rover to land softly (November 17 1970) and then operate on the surface of the moon. It had 4 television cameras, an LRRR, multiple antennas, an X-ray spec.. This is the stuff people admit to. God only knows what it was/is capable of. The LRRR on Lunokhod 1 was laser ranged in 2010 by some American scientists.
 
Last edited:
Patrick1000 said:
It is obvious to me and I am sure obvious to many others now.
Click to expand...

Hey...LISTEN UP...You are entitled to believe any old ignorant thing ya want, but DON'T YOU DARE even imply that others here agree with your garbage.

Try making an actual argument without making stuff up...can you do that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom