• 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.
Kid Eager said:
well hasn't this thread progressed well?

I've learned a bucketload more about Apollo 11 from the posts here - the diversity of careers and experience in this forum is frankly amazing. Thanks to all who contributed.

Alas, the OP continues to post misdirection and lies, judging from the responses. At least with him on "ignore" I don't have to wade through it.
Click to expand...

Same here. I can learn facts about the Moon landings without having to be exposed to young Pat's drivel.
 
Patrick1000 said:
The point being, it is a simple fact that the correction factors being added or subtrated is not discussed. Look at the records for yourself nomuse.
Click to expand...

Because they knew what they were doing. It would be like having to explicitly mention the GM angle for the map you are using during the course of an orienteering session. It is simply assumed when you say "Take a heading of 181 degrees" that they know enough to apply the grid/magnetic correction as they do.

Patrick1000 said:
Do you see the correction factors discussed anywhere at all, even in the Trajectory Report, published March 16 1970? No, one does not find such a discussion anywhere.
Click to expand...

I haven't had the time to read the full report, or even to search if a copy is available to me.

Patrick1000 said:
One never reads in the first hand accounts given by flight people, the astronomers, the lunar scientists like Beattie, one never reads anywhere about this stuff. Just a tiny footnote in the Mission Report and most would miss it.
Click to expand...

That's the problem with reading "accounts," as opposed to reports, or discussions made with other professionals. When writing for the public they don't feel a need to describe how you do addition. They simply present the figure they were using within the context that they are using it. It might be the raw data or a derived figure they are bandying about at any moment in the ongoing conversation, and either is just as likely to be the one given in a later account. They had no more intention than does someone writing an Instructable of making sure there is no place where a willful idiot might see an apparent contradiction and try to capitalize on it.

Patrick1000 said:
So, yes nomuse, that is exactly what I mean. Reed wasn't working with correction factors, nor the others. I see no evidence for that anywhere and I have read everything they have written publicly.

So if a flight officer is not told correction factors are or are not being used, he will think "2 different numbers" are truly different numbers, when in reality, such is not the case. They are the same numbers, simply with 2' 25' added north and 4' 17 " subtracted east. If the correction factors are not being openly discussed, then they are unknowns being added/subtracted "ad lib", when/as convienient. This is obviously what is going on, a prominent feature of the coordinate confusion scam.
Click to expand...

Again you are requiring them to be incompetent. This is like pointing at a place where I said "I soldered the wire to the contact" and declared that since I didn't state I heated the wire with the iron and applied the solder to the joint, I must have been doing it wrong.

Or pointing at my orienteering group in the example above and assuming they are all lost because they didn't bother mentioning that they all knew that grid North is not magnetic North!


Patrick1000 said:
What some of them were doing privately is obviously another matter. At least one person "effectively", perhaps not literally as there was foreknowledge and the numbers were known, added/subtrated the correction factors on to the flight officers' calculations to feed Wampler 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east.

Clearly some of the trajectory people are involved in the fraud. As we look at this more closely, the perpetrators will declare themselves through their inconsistencies as our friends the astronauts already have.

The story's internal incoherence provides our clues in terms of understanding the real "plot" and identifying some of the perps, albethey low level operators.
Click to expand...

The incoherence is in your understanding of the material, abetted by your overwhelming desire to find "anomaly" somewhere, anywhere, in order to arrive at your foregone conclusion.
 
Patrick1000 said:
We shall quibble about rocks and pictures/photos later. Given the telemetry fraudulence and therefore Apollo 11 Mission fraudulence, we know...
Click to expand...

What does it take...mod intervention for you to STOP USING "WE"...NO one here agrees with you so stop saying WE.

...the rocks were not brought back to the earth from the moon by astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin...
Click to expand...

Coward posts garbage.


Address the images, coward.
 
Last edited:
Bravo nomuse!

nomuse said:
Because they knew what they were doing. It would be like having to explicitly mention the GM angle for the map you are using during the course of an orienteering session. It is simply assumed when you say "Take a heading of 181 degrees" that they know enough to apply the grid/magnetic correction as they do.



I haven't had the time to read the full report, or even to search if a copy is available to me.



That's the problem with reading "accounts," as opposed to reports, or discussions made with other professionals. When writing for the public they don't feel a need to describe how you do addition. They simply present the figure they were using within the context that they are using it. It might be the raw data or a derived figure they are bandying about at any moment in the ongoing conversation, and either is just as likely to be the one given in a later account. They had no more intention than does someone writing an Instructable of making sure there is no place where a willful idiot might see an apparent contradiction and try to capitalize on it.



Again you are requiring them to be incompetent. This is like pointing at a place where I said "I soldered the wire to the contact" and declared that since I didn't state I heated the wire with the iron and applied the solder to the joint, I must have been doing it wrong.

Or pointing at my orienteering group in the example above and assuming they are all lost because they didn't bother mentioning that they all knew that grid North is not magnetic North!




The incoherence is in your understanding of the material, abetted by your overwhelming desire to find "anomaly" somewhere, anywhere, in order to arrive at your foregone conclusion.
Click to expand...

Nomuse, BRAVO!! I must say I am impressed. You are so very literary when you want to be. Please! We all would like to hear more.

Love that last sentence construction of yours. We all need to see more of this. Good writing, a demonstration of literary prowess among those who shout over the top of that great grey and cold rock's truth.
 
See if you can get RAF to go to the library with you nomuse.

Nomuse, a suggestion, my most literate and noble of adversaries. Perhaps you could persuade RAF to accompany you to the library some day. A bit of Chaucer, Proust, Joyce, Pirandello, would do the sterile boy well.

Yes! Pirandello! That would be the ticket! Just the writer for our friend RAF. Won't you help him nomuse?



 
Last edited:
Patrick1000 said:
Nomuse, BRAVO!! I must say I am impressed. You are so very literary when you want to be. Please! We all would like to hear more.

Love that last sentence construction of yours. We all need to see more of this. Good writing, a demonstration of literary prowess among those who shout over the top of that great grey and cold rock's truth.
Click to expand...

Stop dodging the photos. Granted, they prove your "theory" wrong, but that's just something you have to live with.
 
Patrick1000 said:
Nomuse, a suggestion, my most literate and noble of adversaries. Perhaps you could persuade RAF to accompany you to the library some day. A bit of Chaucer, Proust, Joyce, Pirandello, would do the sterile boy well.

Yes! Pirandello! That would be the ticket! Just the writer for our friend RAF. Won't you help him nomuse?
Click to expand...


Coward posts irrelevancies...

Address the images, coward.
 
Patrick1000 said:
...would do the sterile boy well.
Click to expand...

Just noticed this...have no idea what it means...certainly doesn't apply to me (or I imagine nomuse as well) since I have 2 grown children...Daughter just graduated from college.


Care to explain this, Patrick??
 
Last edited:
And please tell me how this grand conspiracy has held together so well over 50 years when:

A) There were so many involved, and
B) There's no need for it any more, even if it were true.

One more thing: don't presume to lecture people on their writing styles. You manage to squeeze into a thousand words what you could have said in 100. You have the densest (in all senses of the word) writing style I've ever seen.

I thought I was verbose, but I'm positively terse compared to you.
 
One more thing about writing styles - I have to agree with the others regarding your use of the royal "we". It is presumptuous, patronizing, and self-aggrandizing.

Since I don't quote Chaucer, I'll say it this way: knock it off!
 
I on the other hand will quote Chaucer.

SUSpilot said:
One more thing about writing styles - I have to agree with the others regarding your use of the royal "we". It is presumptuous, patronizing, and self-aggrandizing.

Since I don't quote Chaucer, I'll say it this way: knock it off!
Click to expand...




"Forbid us something, and that thing we desire."



Like listening devices on the surface of the moon.


 
Last edited:
<lurk>Mister 1000, you're not holding up your side of this debate well.</lurk>
 
Patrick1000 said:
"Forbid us something, and that thing we desire."



Like listening devices on the surface of the moon.
Click to expand...

Fine, whatever.

But you still haven't come up with a plausible answer to my objections.

Btw, who exactly would've come up with this grand plan? In what agency or service branch? Surely, you must have some idea. Share your exhalted vision so all of us participating here may be convinced of the error of our ways.
 
Patrick1000 said:
Do you see the correction factors discussed anywhere at all, even in the Trajectory Report, published March 16 1970?
Click to expand...

The correction is nothing to do with trajectory.

Patrick1000 said:
One never reads in the first hand accounts given by flight people, the astronomers, the lunar scientists like Beattie, one never reads anywhere about this stuff. Just a tiny footnote in the Mission Report and most would miss it.
Click to expand...

A public document which you seem to be suggesting that flight people, the astronomers, the lunar scientists like Beattie , the very people who would be most interested, never read.

Patrick1000 said:
At least one person "effectively", perhaps not literally as there was foreknowledge and the numbers were known, added/subtrated the correction factors on to the flight officers' calculations to feed Wampler 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east.

Clearly some of the trajectory people are involved in the fraud. As we look at this more closely, the perpetrators will declare themselves through their inconsistencies as our friends the astronauts already have.

The story's internal incoherence provides our clues in terms of understanding the real "plot" and identifying some of the perps, albethey low level operators.
Click to expand...

So "they" hid the corrections from the flight officers (who were reading coordinates out live on air), the correction that applies to one particular map and had been noted after apollo 10 some months previously, and sent it to a civilian astronomer with a room full of press.

And you have the nerve to talk about incoherence?

Yes folks that's the core of the argument, and it really is that daft.
 
Unlike a certain poster, I am actually traveling and may not be back to this thread for a couple of weeks. I say this just in case a certain poster decides to declare he has "run me off" and proclaims victory with each day that goes by without a new reply.

May get one or two more posts in before the flight. Which does have an actual gate time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom