Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[excaza]

including the moon as a military satellite

Why the **** would they use the Moon as a satellite when they had satellites to use as a satellite? Why would they go through the effort of building a spacecraft capable of boosting something to the Moon in order to "fake" a landing, when they could send a much smaller and much cheaper booster into LEO or GEO that would accomplish the same ranging task? Do you not realize how monumentally stupid your theory is?

and what was then(1969) the new laser technology.

Lasers were not new 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.

Perhaps you should buy some glasses or up the resolution on whatever viewing device you're using. Your personal ineptitude is not a valid argument.

 

[Wolrab]

I am now putting it on ignore. That way I can learn fascinating real tidbits about the Apollo Missions without ridiculous drivel cluttering up the thread.

 

[dafydd]

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

Of course. What else did you expect?

 

[dafydd]

I am now putting it on ignore. That way I can learn fascinating real tidbits about the Apollo Missions without ridiculous drivel cluttering up the thread.

Good idea. Unlike young Pat,I am here to learn.

 

[matt.tansy]

Perhaps you should buy some glasses or up the resolution on whatever viewing device you're using. Your personal ineptitude is not a valid argument.

He's posting from his phone, hence the lack of proper quote tags. It was 8:32 AM PDT when he posted that. In other words, he's in school.

 

[dafydd]

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

He hasn't got that far in the English lessons at school.

 

[drewid]

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.

Translation: I've got nothing, so I'm hoping to keep the debate in the realm of unprovable fiction.


Come on Pat, Man up.

 

[abaddon]

He's posting from his phone, hence the lack of proper quote tags. It was 8:32 AM PDT when he posted that. In other words, he's in school.

What can I say except ROFL?

 

[332nd]

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.

No.

The debate is about whether or not man landed on the moon. The photos are yet another piece of evidence that yes, they in fact did. If you want to change the topic, then you need to admit you were wrong about them not landing on the moon. That's what adults do.

You were wrong pat... live with it.

 

[Oji]

Patrick, have you considered that the easiest way to deploy all this "advanced military hardware" on the moon (given the primitive state of robotics at the time) might have been to send a manned mission up there to do it...

 

[SUSpilot]

<snip>
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. <snip>

Those of us remaining recognize the world of debating Apollo has changed, and quite significantly so. <snip>

I've seen and heard more narcisstic statements in my life, but I can't remember when.

First, you came on to several boards with this theory of yours that you believed proved that Apollo was a hoax. That's the debate, and you have not convinced anyone of the merits of your arguments. That's your problem, not ours.

However, there is a point where the original conversation and your new world construct intersect, and you still haven't, and probably cannot, answer the questions I posed. So, I'll pare it down to one for you (and your study hall pals) to ponder: with everyone involved in the disinformation process, how is it possible that not one thing leaked about it for over 50 years (take your pick for a start date: 1959, the very beginnings of the program or President Kennedy's 1961 speech).

 

[abaddon]

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...

1. Learn to use the quote function, even a moron could do it.
2. Stop with the delusions of grandeur. The community as a whole decides the direction of a thread. Normally, this means sticking to the topic at hand, yet you have been all over the place, contradicting yourself, switching topics, and so forth.

It is like a kind of internet based Brownian motion.

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.

Wrong. And then some.

Everyone can now see that is what the "debate" is about.

Yup. It has become about whether you are a bot, a troll or a schoolkid.

The debate is not about rocks and photos,

Yes, you avoid those like the plague.

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.

In 1969 it was already over a decade old.

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.

Should have gone to specsavers.

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.

So you will continue to ignore physical evidence in favour of fantasy? why does this not surprise?

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

Times can and do change, facts do not.

 

[SUSpilot]

He's posting from his phone, hence the lack of proper quote tags. It was 8:32 AM PDT when he posted that. In other words, he's in school.

No, no. It was 9:12 PM in New Delhi when he posted. Probably enjoying his after dinner tea, he was. After a spirited discussion with his 50-ish colleagues and a busy day of "de-tersing" important UN documents.

Nah, he was sneaking in a post after homeroom. Probably bumping into other kids as he was walking to class and keying at the same time.

 

[dafydd]

No, no. It was 9:12 PM in New Delhi when he posted. Probably enjoying his after dinner tea, he was. After a spirited discussion with his 50-ish colleagues and a busy day of "de-tersing" important UN documents.

Nah, he was sneaking in a post after homeroom. Probably bumping into other kids as he was walking to class and keying at the same time.

I think that he posted it from the back of a dog sleigh somewhere in the Yukon,while dictating important missives to his secretary. It's a hard and busy life being a Renaissance man.

 

[Erock]

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.

I PM'd him the link, so he has no excuse. Then again, he knows the game is up, so with nowhere to go he diverts the debate.

 

[dafydd]

I PM'd him the link, so he has no excuse. Then again, he knows the game is up, so with nowhere to go he diverts the debate.

Typical CT addict behaviour. When trashed,changed the subject.

 

[drewid]

yep

I am a scientist of not insignificant abilities.

Also, we note as a consequence, not only has a downrange error/adjustment become an issue, but a radial error of 20 feet per second must be taken into account. So the Eagle will not only land long, but also land left

Oh what a tangled web.........

Think I'll leave it at that.

 

[R.A.F.]

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

Keep believing that...

Address the images, coward.

 

[R.A.F.]

So, RAF, I shall leave your photos.

No...either you will address the images, or you will be CONSTANTLY reminded of what an intellectual coward you are...

Go and play with your rocks if you so choose. I care not.

Of course you don't...that would require you to actually learn something.

Such as I have opportunity, I shall continue to discuss missiles, lasers, satellites and so forth.

Intellectual coward can't discuss anything but garbage.

You are welcome to join in such as you can find the time.

...an invitation to post on a public board...what an idiot you are...

If you find the terms of the Apollo debate no longer to your liking, fine, we all wish you well.

Just who is this "we"??

Those of us remaining recognize the world of debating Apollo has changed, and quite significantly so.

Again...just who is this "us"?


Have you seen ANYONE who agrees with you here?

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

Address the new images, coward.


Get used to seeing that last sentence, coward, as you will be reading it a lot.



Address the images, coward.

 

[drewid]

The thing is I'm genuinly puzzled as to why Patsy is avoiding Kiwi9's question. I would have thought he'd been keen to expand on Reed's role during the day.