Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[R.A.F.]

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.

Why do you keep posting irrelevancies??

When will you address the new LRO images?

 

[Patrick1000]

You cannot possibly be serious.

Why do you keep posting irrelevancies??

When will you address the new LRO images?

Think I'll leave it at that. The photos and context speak for themselves. Our focus, my focus, is somewhere else entirely, as it should be. The Apollo debate has evolved RAF, live with it.

 

[332nd]

Think I'll leave it at that. The photos and context speak for themselves. Our focus, my focus, is somewhere else entirely, as it should be. The Apollo debate has evolved RAF, live with it.

Why are you so afraid to address the photos pat? Well, besides the fact they so clearly demolish your "theory".

 

[drewid]

So despite having previously stated that no Apollo craft landed on the moon, you're now saying that it all went as advertised, except for a different, (and unprovable) reason?

Cool story bro.

anyhow
And it's day five of DodgeWatch

Patrick is still not addressing his enduring wrongness

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=2079

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=2090

Fail.
Fail fail fail.
Fail.

 

[nomuse]

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 concept of guidance systems seems to have escaped you.

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.

Sure...all you need is the power supply, and a nice collimeter like that used at the Godard laser ranging facility. How large were these spacecraft of yours, again?

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.

At launch. You seriously think the point of impact of an ICBM is determined by the wind speed at the moment of firing?

 

[nomuse]

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.

Later Surveyors did all that and more. The only exception was roving...all they could do was hop.

Better narrow the goalposts a little more. Someone might get a ball through.

 

[Oji]

The Apollo debate has evolved

Yep. It has turned into a blind and sterile cave newt.

 

[drewid]

Apollo 11 telemetry data proves the mission did not happened as advertised. Examination of the telemetry data shows Apollo 11 was unmanned and fraudulent.

Oh yeah. the telemetry you proved was fraudulent in post 1178

oh....
wait

 

[abaddon]

So despite having previously stated that no Apollo craft landed on the moon, you're now saying that it all went as advertised, except for a different, (and unprovable) reason?

Odd, is it not, how the story changes to suit the claim du jour.

Good ole P1K making it up on the fly again.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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.

So you have changed your story completely. The Apollo landings happened exactly as claimed except you assert there were no crews on board. I predict you will never supply any (non-hilarious) evidence for that.

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. .

This makes no sense. I predict you will never demonstrate anything that shows Apollo was unmanned. Your objection to the landing locations has never had any bearing on its being a manned or unmanned mission. It has focussed solely on when the landing location was pinpointed and when that information was passed on.

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 very same thing 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.

You will never show a scrap of evidence for this. The various parts of Apollo were carefully designed built, tested and delivered. They were designed to do very specific jobs in very specific ways. Their form followed their function. This is exhaustively documented and staggeringly well-evidenced. You have now decided that todays version of your fantasy is that, after delivery, NASA rapidly ripped out the insides of the LM and CM and stuffed them full of sooper seekrit equipment to turn them instead into an unmanned delivery vehicle for military sensors.

Just to pick one objection at random off the top of the pile: if NASA had the know-how to do that, why did they pay contractors a vast amount of money to do the job for them, and why go through the enormously complex task of making them build something NASA didn't want, but had to extensively modify and re-engineer?

Also, if you imagine that the Soviet Union would not scream "foul" if they had any evidence the US was breaking a treaty, merely because they themselves were doing exactly the same thing, then it appears you really aren't old enough to remember the cold war.

I presume since you now claim the Apollo 11 mission was indeed real except for its payload being equipment instead of people, you have now abandoned your fantasy about the landing site data being given to Lick observatory before it could have been known. As these two fantasies conflict with each other, one of them must be abandoned and I'll assume it's the old set of goalposts you are discarding unless you say otherwise.

 

[Multivac]

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.

So the Russians won by landing an unmanned vehicle a year after the Americans landed people on the moon?

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.

Do you have any links? Citation? Proof?

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"..

No. The race was to land men on the moon.

What arms did the Americans take to the moon? An unpowered, passive reflector cannot be called an armament. Nor is it a sensor or emmitter, it is simply a reflector.

Both countries were signatories to a no arms on the moon treaty in 1967.

True, but irrelevant.

OF course the Russians were not going to blow the whistle on our/American antics with their own equipment up there.

There was no whistle to blow.

The Russians actually won the "Space Race". It is obvious to me and I am sure obvious to many others now.

It might be obvious to you, but is still untrue. The Russians initially led the race, but NASA landed men on the moon and the Russsians still haven't.

 

[Tolls]

So the Russians won by landing an unmanned vehicle a year after the Americans landed people on the moon?

I love the idea that somehow, landing a remote controlled vehicle on the moon after 4 people had already walked on the moon, and less than a year before people were driving on the moon in their own vehicle, is a BIG WIN!

I sense some flailing...

 

[dafydd]

It might be obvious to you, but is still untrue. The Russians initially led the race, but NASA landed men on the moon and the Russsians still haven't.

The Americans quickly took over the lead. Remember the Apollo/Soyuz linkup in 1975? The American craft was sleek and beautiful,the Russian craft looked like a floating trashcan.

 

[excaza]

Laser light measurements through the atmosphere would help in determining wind speeds and air densities.

No. We can barely do that with current technology for onboard parachute guidance. They sure as **** couldn't do it in the 60s.

 

[SUSpilot]

Hellooooo, Patrick. Didja see this?

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.

After I posted that, you posted a couple more silly statements about the Soviet program. Then R.A.F. asked you a darn good question and you responded:

Why do you keep posting irrelevancies??

When will you address the new LRO images?

Think I'll leave it at that. The photos and context speak for themselves. Our focus, my focus, is somewhere else entirely, as it should be. The Apollo debate has evolved RAF, live with it.

So, my conclusion is that I'm right: you can't come up with an answer to my question (along with others' even more pointed questions along the same lines) that would fit your construct and make any sense at all. Further, you don't even have the courage, if you won't abandon your position, of saying "I don't know".

No, like so many intellectual cowards, you take a lofty, holier-than-thou attitude of "I've moved on".

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

OK, Patrick1000... the word is "personnel", not "personal". You've screwed that up more than once and haven't caught it.

 

[drewid]

 

[tsig]

Think I'll leave it at that. The photos and context speak for themselves. Our focus, my focus, is somewhere else entirely, as it should be. The Apollo debate has evolved RAF, live with it.

Yes, you seem to have left the Moon entirely and now want to focus on the Earth.


ETA: don't look at that man behind the curtain.

 

[R.A.F.]

Think I'll leave it at that. The photos and context speak for themselves.

Yes they do...ignoring those images only reflects ON YOU.

Our focus, my focus, is somewhere else entirely, as it should be.

For one thing, YOU DON'T GET TO DECIDE what the "focus" of this thread
is".

The Apollo debate has evolved RAF, live with it.

The intellectual coward wants to change the subject...very well...

Address the new LRO images.

 

[Patrick1000]

Sure I do get to decide, and indeed do now dictate the terms of the debate.

Yes they do...ignoring those images only reflects ON YOU.



For one thing, YOU DON'T GET TO DECIDE what the "focus" of this thread
is".



The intellectual coward wants to change the subject...very well...

Sure I get to decide RAF, and do indeed now dictate the terms of the debate. Not because I am a debate bully, but simply because that is only right and fair. Everyone can now see that is what the "debate" is about. The debate is not about rocks and photos, but rather is about missiles and satellites, military satellites, including the moon as a military satellite, and what was then(1969) the new laser technology.

I took a look at the LRO images. I see arrows pointing to spots on the moon's surface with labels, for example "flag" or "ALSEP equipment". I see no flag, no ALSEP equipment. This is proof of nothing except that a LRO satellite took a better photo of this spot than it had before. I do not clearly see the "Challenger descent stage" where there is an arrow pointing. I see absolutely nothing discernible there.

So, RAF, I shall leave your photos. Go and play with your rocks if you so choose. I care not. Such as I have opportunity, I shall continue to discuss missiles, lasers, satellites and so forth. You are welcome to join in such as you can find the time. If you find the terms of the Apollo debate no longer to your liking, fine, we all wish you well. Those of us remaining recognize the world of debating Apollo has changed, and quite significantly so.

You have identified yourself as an anachronism, a 20th century Apollo debater RAF. Times have changed.