Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Tomblvd]

My late Mother used to say that a liar needs a good memory. Young Pat has a terrible memory.

When you're really sick, and constantly running to the bathroom to take care of your needs, you often can't keep track of the number of squirts.

Heh, more diarrhea references. What goes around comes around, I guess.

 

[dafydd]

When you're really sick, and constantly running to the bathroom to take care of your needs, you often can't keep track of the number of squirts.

Heh, more diarrhea references. What goes around comes around, I guess.

That's what happens when you swallow a lot of conspiracy theories.

 

[Patrick1000]

Again, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty Moon Use Prohibition

The 1967 OUTER SPACE TREATY, to which both the US and Russia were/are signatories explicitly prohibits the establishment of military bases or installations, the testing of "any type of weapons," or the conduction of any type of military exercises or activities whatsoever on the moon and other celestial bodies.

 

[little grey rabbit]

That's what happens when you swallow a lot of conspiracy theories.

Better to swallow conspiracy theories than the things that debunkers swallow.




Like the Apollo landings.

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

I just saw apollo 18, The aliens appear to have taken over the earth disquised as moon rocks. It was very bad. The movie I mean.

 

[Patrick1000]

The Fantastic and Scientific World of Apollo

That's what happens when you swallow a lot of conspiracy theories.

We have gone beyond theory my friend dafydd. There is no question as to the fact of trajectory fraud and its significance. Bird hiding can mean only one thing, and this one thing most certainly does not have anything to do with manned moon landings.



"I willingly combine the tactical with the strategic, the fantastic with the scientific, the combinative with the positional, and I aim to respond to the demands of each given position … "

 

[fess]

The 1967 OUTER SPACE TREATY, to which both the US and Russia were/are signatories explicitly prohibits the establishment of military bases or installations, the testing of "any type of weapons," or the conduction of any type of military exercises or activities whatsoever on the moon and other celestial bodies.

Why is it that you are the only one claiming that the Apollo missions were military exercises?

 

[R.A.F.]

There is no question as to the fact of trajectory fraud and its significance.

You really can't help yourself can you...

As usual, you are "pulling" these comments out of your "hiney".

Yes there is a question...one of "can you discuss this topic rationally"?

The answer is no, you are incapable.

 

[fess]

Better to swallow conspiracy theories than the things that debunkers swallow.




Like the Apollo landings.

I just love reading your knowledge filled posts.

 

[R.A.F.]

The 1967 OUTER SPACE TREATY, to which both the US and Russia were/are signatories explicitly prohibits the establishment of military bases or installations, the testing of "any type of weapons," or the conduction of any type of military exercises or activities whatsoever on the moon and other celestial bodies.

Posting more irrelevancies?

Address the images coward.

 

[R.A.F.]

Better to swallow...

You like to swallow...good information to know.

 

[R.A.F.]

ii

 

[SUSpilot]

We have gone beyond theory my friend dafydd. There is no question as to the fact of trajectory fraud and its significance. Bird hiding can mean only one thing, and this one thing most certainly does not have anything to do with manned moon landings.

Seems to be a lot of questions, none of which you answer. But, then, you can't without obviating your own theory.

 

[mercatormac]

Pat doesn't remember the 1980's for some reason

The 1967 OUTER SPACE TREATY, to which both the US and Russia were/are signatories explicitly prohibits the establishment of military bases or installations, the testing of "any type of weapons," or the conduction of any type of military exercises or activities whatsoever on the moon and other celestial bodies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defence_Initiative

 

[drewid]

Just for kicks, take a look at what you'd get if you drifted 20 feet per second for 13 minutes from the targeted north coordinate. That so calculated north coordinate turns out to be not too far from the AOT Mission Report solution. Now, off the top of my head that is about 0.523 north give or take. To that you add the cross range, 17, which cannot be 17 degrees, so must be .17 degrees. That gives roughly the targeted north coordinate, something like 0.691. I am doing this from memory. No Mission Report with me. But you will see the numbers square.

You shouldn't play fast and loose with the numbers Fattydash, Patrick. It does your side a great disservice. Now where did you get that 17 from? That one up there, where you can't decide whether it's 17 or 0.17 .
You see the last time you used that was in the Noun76 argument over on Apollohoax. You remember, it was the third number in the ascent pad, That's the ascent pad numbers that you said were landing coordinates.#


You were wrong.
I'm really not sure why you're bringing it up over here again.

I am just going through this to show you that I am not blowing you off and want to debate you, but cannot now. Way too busy. check my numbers, you will find my memory to be good.

Um, No and no.

Oh what a tangled web

 

[Patrick1000]

17 is the launch position "crossrange"

You shouldn't play fast and loose with the numbers Fattydash, Patrick. It does your side a great disservice. Now where did you get that 17 from? That one up there, where you can't decide whether it's 17 or 0.17 .
You see the last time you used that was in the Noun76 argument over on Apollohoax. You remember, it was the third number in the ascent pad, That's the ascent pad numbers that you said were landing coordinates.#


You were wrong.
I'm really not sure why you're bringing it up over here again.



Um, No and no.

17 is the "Eagle" launch position "crossrange". Go to the transcript just before the launch. Armstrong asks for the "crossrange" and they give it to him as "seventeen".

I actually haven't discussed it yet, at least what I think it is and what it is about. It will take a wall, and haven't got the energy today. Also, going swimming with my friends, so bigger fish to fry for now.

We'll get to the crossrange issue soon enough drewid. Brace yourself, you are gonna' need a lot a' medication to handle this one.

 

[drewid]

17 is the "Eagle" launch position "crossrange". Go to the transcript just before the launch. Armstrong asks for the "crossrange" and they give it to him as "seventeen".

I actually haven't discussed it yet, at least what I think it is and what it is about. It will take a wall, and haven't got the energy today. Also, going swimming with my friends, so bigger fish to fry for now.

We'll get to the crossrange issue soon enough drewid. Brace yourself, you are gonna' need a lot a' medication to handle this one.

You can do better than that. You can go to the transcript just after the landing. Amazing, the same number. How did they do that?

Anyhow you brought it up.
You brought it up in defence of post 1178, the post where you said that radial meant lateral and a instrumentation error was real velocity.


You were wrong.

Have you checked 2367 yet?

There's a pattern emerging.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

<much rambling snipped>
...Willy Wonka. That is what I think about when I think about "Apollo 13".

Perhaps this wandering mind exlains the overwhelming sense of disconnection from reality in your posts.

 

[excaza]

Awwwwwwh comm'on now SusPilot, don't you think they were fibbing?? Do you honestly think they flew that great big fat Saturn V into the air just to park a teensy weensy little ol' mirror on the moon? Don't ya' think they parked something a little bigger and fatter than that?

Of course they did. People, capsules, moon buggies....and then a space station.

Those were pretty big rockets they used.

Of course they did, do you know the delta V required to boost something that heavy to the Moon?

 

[excaza]

Also, as mentioned previously, the Gaussian Gravitational Constant, coefficients j and K were not known with any appreciable degree of precision in the late 1950s.

Also, as mentioned previously, this statement is a complete lie. These measurements were known to a high degree of accuracy by the late 1800s. They also do not require the Moon in any way, shape, or form for their derivation. Please stop repeating this lie, this is the last time I will ask nicely.