Multivac
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2011
- Messages
- 2,121
Of course it works, and continues to work, it is simply a reflector. It is a passive device that reflects light.
These photos show the LRRRs from Apollo 11 and Apollo 15.
Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga
- Thread starter Patrick1000
- Start date
- Status
Of course it works, and continues to work, it is simply a reflector. It is a passive device that reflects light.
These photos show the LRRRs from Apollo 11 and Apollo 15.
Multivac
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2011
- Messages
- 2,121
No, you don't.
You keep saying this, but have NOT proved it!
No. YOU assume this, but WE don't as it is based on a false premise and absolutely no evidence.
No. The goal was to land men on the moon and try to do a bit of simple science.
No, we don't and no it isn't.
No. You ahven't proven anything, you just continue to post the same claims that have been refuted already.
Once again you have scored 0/6 but I must thank you for playing as I have learned a lot from this thread (from other posters obviously)
Here's one case of Earth-Moon-Earth communications:
Still patiently waiting for Patrick1000 to reply sensibly to post 2079. I think he's scared of giving a truthful answer because doing so will show how nonsensical one of his claims is -- how his own key witness proves he's talking through a hole in something.
Is that right, Patrick1000? Your claim goes something like this:
"There was never a manned lunar module on the moon, nor a command module orbiting it, and the manned lunar module that was on the moon and the command module that was orbiting it proved it."
Pretty stupid, huh? Coward.
Last edited:
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
You could not be more wrong Fess
Many many people claim Apollo was military. I am one of the first to begin pointing out specifics. Measuring the great oceans, calculating k, j and K, ranging/locating/targeting objectives on earth whether friendly or adversarial. Using the moon as a base for communications.
We'll find many things as we go along with this and details will be revealed.
Many many people claim Apollo was military. I am one of the first to begin pointing out specifics. Measuring the great oceans, calculating k, j and K, ranging/locating/targeting objectives on earth whether friendly or adversarial. Using the moon as a base for communications.
We'll find many things as we go along with this and details will be revealed.
Examples of whom and with which organizations/governments are they associated?
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,324
Fixed that for you.
There, fixed that for you.
Erock
Muse
Patrick1000 - dodge watch
Another day, what is this day 6?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7548561&postcount=2281
Answer please. I PM'd you, but I guess those two posts tear your argument up don't they???
I suggest everybody refers him to that post until he answers it.
Another day, what is this day 6?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7548561&postcount=2281
Answer please. I PM'd you, but I guess those two posts tear your argument up don't they???
I suggest everybody refers him to that post until he answers it.
Why should we "go along" with someone as ignorant about the space program as you are??
Thank goodness for little "favors".
Don't bother...it is already painfully obvious you lack the understanding to discuss anything, Apollo related.
Why is self-admitted troll allowed to continue posting??
He, personally wouldn't notice it, so he assumes the rest of us are that ignorant.
Common HB mistake...they simply don't understand how rational people think.
Name one that isn't one of your sockpuppets. The actual USAF plans for spaceflight in the 60's are a matter of public record, as is the fact that they were squeezed out by Apollo and the increasing utility of satellites.
Specific, detailed, nonsense is still nonsense, as anyone who has read the ATM forum at BAUT can testify.
It's been repeatedly pointed out that these values were already known to high accuracy, and that using the moon as a communications relay requires no hardware on the moon. Your failure to acknowledge these facts is your problem.
And this notion that this is some sort of collective process is simply a rather sad conceit on your part.
I think I finally "get it"...this whole Apollo hoax thing for you is a means of feeling "important".
Too, too bad that all your "doing" is displaying your ignorance...
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
Rationale for bird hiding.
Why hide the bird? Telling big lies like the astronauts did, like the Apollo Program directors did, such as the lie about one not being able to see stars from cislunar space and from the surface of the moon, or the lie about not being able to find spacecraft, once landed on the surface of the moon, with any appreciable degree of accuracy, betrays a very strong motivation. The lies are so patently just that "lies", the payoff must be astronomical.
Here was one of the bigger payoffs. In the 1960s, one of the ways we would detect Russian missile launches was by way of picking up electromagnetic echos associated with those missile launches, echos that had bounced off the surface of the moon and were picked up by large antennae on the surface of the earth. Here is a quote from Pat Norris' book, SPIES IN THE SKY which makes reference to that;
Three main forms of verification of any agreement were available to both the Soviets and the USA. The first was ground-based radars to detect the launch of a missile. The detection could be achieved over long distances, due to the use of so-called over-the-horizon radar. The second was radio-listening stations on land, ship, aircraft, and even satellite that could monitor the radio transmissions between a missile and the ground. This telemetry information is used by the country undertaking the tests to alert the ground controllers as to the status of the missile-- detection of unintended echoes from the moon's surface by giant antennas on earth were also used.87 The third was satellite images primarily to count the number of deployed missiles and aircraft and their nuclear payloads, and monitor their manufacture and transportation, and also to detect the launch of a missile by its tell-tale bright rocket plume.
Pat Norris. Spies in the Sky: Surveillance Satellites in War and Peace (Springer Praxis Books / Space Exploration) (ebook 1342-1347).
87) Richelson J. T. (2002) The Wizards of Langley: Inside the CIA '.s Directory of Science and Technology (Boulder, CO: Westview Books).
So one of the things Apollo sought to do, and presumably succeeded in, was to plant antennae on the surface of the moon to directly pick up these signals. No "bounce" required.
Why hide the bird? Telling big lies like the astronauts did, like the Apollo Program directors did, such as the lie about one not being able to see stars from cislunar space and from the surface of the moon, or the lie about not being able to find spacecraft, once landed on the surface of the moon, with any appreciable degree of accuracy, betrays a very strong motivation. The lies are so patently just that "lies", the payoff must be astronomical.
Here was one of the bigger payoffs. In the 1960s, one of the ways we would detect Russian missile launches was by way of picking up electromagnetic echos associated with those missile launches, echos that had bounced off the surface of the moon and were picked up by large antennae on the surface of the earth. Here is a quote from Pat Norris' book, SPIES IN THE SKY which makes reference to that;
Three main forms of verification of any agreement were available to both the Soviets and the USA. The first was ground-based radars to detect the launch of a missile. The detection could be achieved over long distances, due to the use of so-called over-the-horizon radar. The second was radio-listening stations on land, ship, aircraft, and even satellite that could monitor the radio transmissions between a missile and the ground. This telemetry information is used by the country undertaking the tests to alert the ground controllers as to the status of the missile-- detection of unintended echoes from the moon's surface by giant antennas on earth were also used.87 The third was satellite images primarily to count the number of deployed missiles and aircraft and their nuclear payloads, and monitor their manufacture and transportation, and also to detect the launch of a missile by its tell-tale bright rocket plume.
Pat Norris. Spies in the Sky: Surveillance Satellites in War and Peace (Springer Praxis Books / Space Exploration) (ebook 1342-1347).
87) Richelson J. T. (2002) The Wizards of Langley: Inside the CIA '.s Directory of Science and Technology (Boulder, CO: Westview Books).
So one of the things Apollo sought to do, and presumably succeeded in, was to plant antennae on the surface of the moon to directly pick up these signals. No "bounce" required.
Last edited:
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
That's a pretty teensey weensey reflector for such a big fat rocket.
Come on now Multivac, that's a pretty teensey weensey reflector for such a big fat rocket. Don't you think they brought up somptin' a bit bigger than that? Going all that way with such a big "spaceship", the unmanned craft must have been packing more than a midget LRRR. Let your imagination go a little buddy. It's the only way to get at the truth here with so many lies floating about in this zero G ungrounded world of Apollo.
Come on now Multivac, that's a pretty teensey weensey reflector for such a big fat rocket. Don't you think they brought up somptin' a bit bigger than that? Going all that way with such a big "spaceship", the unmanned craft must have been packing more than a midget LRRR. Let your imagination go a little buddy. It's the only way to get at the truth here with so many lies floating about in this zero G ungrounded world of Apollo.
Last edited:
Other posters please forgive me for this:
NONE OF WHICH REQUIRES ANY HARDWARE ON THE MOON!!
Errant nonsense, practically entering 'Moonraker' levels of space lunacy.
Yes on the landing missions the Saturn V launched:
A CSM, an LM(with or without rover attached), 3 astronauts and a selection of scientific equipment. Nothing in your childish trolling is going to change that basic truth.
excaza
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2007
- Messages
- 3,593
Yes. 3 astronauts, a lander, a mission capsule, a re-entry capsule, and later a rover. Then it was used to launch a space station.
That 'big' spaceship was almost entirely full of fuel. Did you figure out what the delta V requirement is to boost a spacecraft to the Moon yet? You can use a Hohmann transfer to make it easy on yourself.
This is about reality, not imagination. It's a shame you can't tell the difference.
Last edited:
grmcdorman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2007
- Messages
- 1,458
Something I think that has not been pointed out - and is one of many fatal flaws in Patrick's arguments - is that, for Apollo, like most other historical events it is not sufficient to prove one item fake in order to invalidate the record.
The reality, the evidence, is not a house of cards, where removing one card can bring the whole edifice tumbling down.
Each fact, each artifact, add to lines of evidence rather than creating them.
For example, in the specific case of the U.S. space program, in Michael Collins' book Carrying The Fire the frontspiece is an image of Mr. Collins in a Gemini spacesuit apparently in space. This image has been demonstrated to have been created by the publisher; in a sense, a "fake" (although no one has attempted to pass it off as genuine). This has in no way invalidated Collins' spacewalk, as the other evidence does not depend on it, despite Ralph Rene's attempt to use that way.
Likewise, even if one generously allows Patrick's two principal claims to be true, they do not invalidate the other evidence. All he would have done is to prove that single incident (or pair of incidents) to be questionable, or at best faked. The lunar samples don't need the transcripts to be true in order to be samples returned by Apollo; nor does the hardware, or the record of amateur radio operators listening to the communications, or numerous other lines of evidence.
In order to prove Apollo faked, Patrick must independently provide a solid framework where each line of evidence is explained as well as, or better, than the accepted history. A scientist, as he claims to be, should know this.
So far, not only has he failed to do this, but he has assiduously avoided addressing independent evidence, as exemplified by the LRO images.
At the risk of Godwining the thread, Patrick's methodology is equivalent to declaring Hitler faked because the Hitler DiariesWP were proved to be faked.
In composing this post, I at first wrote dairies instead of diaries, which is a completely different thing, and would of course prove Hitler faked if shown to be invalid.
The reality, the evidence, is not a house of cards, where removing one card can bring the whole edifice tumbling down.
Each fact, each artifact, add to lines of evidence rather than creating them.
For example, in the specific case of the U.S. space program, in Michael Collins' book Carrying The Fire the frontspiece is an image of Mr. Collins in a Gemini spacesuit apparently in space. This image has been demonstrated to have been created by the publisher; in a sense, a "fake" (although no one has attempted to pass it off as genuine). This has in no way invalidated Collins' spacewalk, as the other evidence does not depend on it, despite Ralph Rene's attempt to use that way.
Likewise, even if one generously allows Patrick's two principal claims to be true, they do not invalidate the other evidence. All he would have done is to prove that single incident (or pair of incidents) to be questionable, or at best faked. The lunar samples don't need the transcripts to be true in order to be samples returned by Apollo; nor does the hardware, or the record of amateur radio operators listening to the communications, or numerous other lines of evidence.
In order to prove Apollo faked, Patrick must independently provide a solid framework where each line of evidence is explained as well as, or better, than the accepted history. A scientist, as he claims to be, should know this.
So far, not only has he failed to do this, but he has assiduously avoided addressing independent evidence, as exemplified by the LRO images.
At the risk of Godwining the thread, Patrick's methodology is equivalent to declaring Hitler faked because the Hitler DiariesWP were proved to be faked.
In composing this post, I at first wrote dairies instead of diaries, which is a completely different thing, and would of course prove Hitler faked if shown to be invalid.
- Status