Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
Patrick1000 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Fantastic, indeed incredible.
I look forward to seeing your proof.
 
Patrick1000 said:
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.
Click to expand...

A 3000 ton rocket, mostly fuel, to send 45 tons to the moon. It's not a secret. You don't have to let your imagination go at all. The details of the payload are out there if you want to find them.

Of course if you just prefer to make stuff up, then knock yourself out - it's a free world - but don't expect anyone to take you seriously, because we already know you're just making it up as you go along.
 
Patrick1000 said:
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.
Click to expand...

OK...in the 60s we had BMEWS (Radar), DSP (IR), and ELINT/COMINT satellites/ground stations(EM/Comms). I would like (but am not expecting) some details on this "Moon-bounce" stuff we were supposedly "depending" on. It sound's like some strange form of ELINT collection, but I've never heard of it.
I think you're fabricating this, P1K...prove me wrong...show us what this "bounce" system could do that outperformed the existing systems, and made them obsolete. Are we using it today? Was/is the Moon critical to our missile detection?

And using photo satellites to detect/photograph a missile launch??!?!! :jaw-dropp Do you know anything about photo recon satellite mission design? Or how they work? or what their limitations are? I am thinking not.
 
Communication Moon Relay

mmon>moon
mrbusdriver said:
OK...in the 60s we had BMEWS (Radar), DSP (IR), and ELINT/COMINT satellites/ground stations(EM/Comms). I would like (but am not expecting) some details on this "Moon-bounce" stuff we were supposedly "depending" on. It sound's like some strange form of ELINT collection, but I've never heard of it.
I think you're fabricating this, P1K...prove me wrong...show us what this "bounce" system could do that outperformed the existing systems, and made them obsolete. Are we using it today? Was/is the Moon critical to our missile detection?

And using photo satellites to detect/photograph a missile launch??!?!! :jaw-dropp Do you know anything about photo recon satellite mission design? Or how they work? or what their limitations are? I am thinking not.
Click to expand...




Not the best article mrbusdriver, but this will get your motor running. Here is the Wikipedia link with background as to how the Navy regularly employed the moon in a passive communication link from the east coast to Hawaii and I woulod presume other places as well.

\
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_Moon_Relay
 
Last edited:
Patrick1000 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do you know how mirrors work?
 
You could be presuming much...look at a globe and see what the Earth looks like from the Moon, can you see much of the US and USSR at the same time? Considering atmospheric attenuation of the bounced signals and all...and where does missile launch detection fit in? Was this system effective enough to listen in to realtime Soviet secure communications?

...and a passive cube reflector for reflecting lasers from Earth would relate to this how...?? That's what Apollo 11 left up there.
 
Patrick1000 said:
mmon>moon


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_516144e6eaac197c1d.jpg[/qimg]

Not the best article mrbusdriver, but this will get your motor running. Here is the Wikipedia link with background as to how the Navy regularly employed the moon in a passive communication link from the east coast to Hawaii and I woulod presume other places as well.

\
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_Moon_Relay
Click to expand...


The Moon Relay system became obsolete in the later 1960s as the Navy implemented its artificial satellite communication system.

 
The SR-71, operational in 1964, 5 years before the Moon landings, used a combo stellar and inertial navigation system. Position of stars and reference from start were all that was necessary. No Moon bounce needed. No major errors when it flew over large oceans on nearly every mission. The idea that the distances across the oceans were unknown by more than a few feet at most is pure fantasy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sr-71#Astro-Inertial_Navigation_System_.28ANS.29
 
We can be positive they left a great deal more than a little ol' LRRRR.

mrbusdriver said:
You could be presuming much...look at a globe and see what the Earth looks like from the Moon, can you see much of the US and USSR at the same time? Considering atmospheric attenuation of the bounced signals and all...and where does missile launch detection fit in? Was this system effective enough to listen in to realtime Soviet secure communications?

...and a passive cube reflector for reflecting lasers from Earth would relate to this how...?? That's what Apollo 11 left up there.
Click to expand...

We can be positive they left more than a little ol' LRRR because they lied about it. The trajectory data is fraudulent.

We know from the Lick Observatory staff, very accurate landing site data was available BEFORE it was calculated by the trajectory specialists, by the flight dynamics officers. No reason to lie like this, and it is a huge huge risky risky lie, easy to spot, unless you are up to something pretty spectacular. So sure they have a mirror there. But you don't launch a rocket that big just to put a mirror on the moon. If you go all that way, with that much capability payload wise, and you are telling such big big big easily spotable lies, somethieng else, well something in addition is going on. At the very least, the unmanned craft are like Surveyor VII, with cameras and antennae. But I imagine they have much much much more capability than sSurveyor VII, or the Soviet rover with the LRRR. Why go all that way and tell such big lies to cover your fanny unless you have some big fat NARLY packaqge to plop down on the green cheese?
 
Last edited:
We also know from Donald Beattie and the other Apollo scientists NASA lied

We also know from Donald Beattie and the other Apollo lunar scientists that NASA lied, and lied big time. They had Beattie and colleagues looking for the Eagle days after the astronauts returned from the moon. And here, all along, the Lick Observatory staff had the Eagle's exact coordinates. And that comes from the man who was given the coordinates. Joseph Wampler said people in Houston told him the Eagle was at 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east many hours before the astronuats took off. And many days, 11 to be exact, before the coordinates were known by NASA trajectory specialists to in fact be 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east.

So they left more than a reflector. Too much at stake here. Wouldn't tell dumb lies like this unless there was a huge gain, huge up side.
 
Last edited:
Danger!

"Where dangers threaten from every side and the smallest slackening of attention might be fatal; in a position which requires a nerve of steel and intense concentration"



 
Predictable; my post about what Patrick needs to prove was ignored.
  1. You have not proved anything except in your own fantasies (why do you think you have failed to convince anyone anywhere)?
  2. Even had you proved your "coordinate lie", this does automatically not invalidate the reality of the other evidence.
 
Patrick1000 said:
Why hide the bird?
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;
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about where you live, but where I live there is a considerable portion of the day (from "Moon set" until "Moon rise" when Luna is not visible, due to being below the horizon.
What if the dastardly Soviets chose to launch when the Moon wasn't in a position to reflect radio signals?

I'm not a general, nor do I play one on TV, but I can tell you that if a subordinate came to me with a plan to spend twenty billion dollars on a critical early warning system that only had sixty percent availability, his opportunities for advancement after that would be extremely limited.
 
Be bold, do what you have to do, lie even, and above all, don"t blink

It is important that you don’t let your opponent impose his style of play on you. A part of that begins mentally. At the chessboard if you start blinking every time he challenges you then in a certain sense you are withdrawing. That is very important to avoid.





ABOVE ALL, DON'T BLINK!!!

 
Last edited:
Take a shot at my trajectory analyses

grmcdorman said:
Predictable; my post about what Patrick needs to prove was ignored.
  1. You have not proved anything except in your own fantasies (why do you think you have failed to convince anyone anywhere)?
  2. Even had you proved your "coordinate lie", this does automatically not invalidate the reality of the other evidence.
Click to expand...

Take a shot at my trajectory analyses. Debunk my fraud claim. I would like to see it.
 
Last edited:
Invalidates eveything

Patrick1000 said:
Take a shot at my trajectory analyses. Debunk my fraud claim. I would like to see it.
Click to expand...

If they are lying about where they parked the thing, and when and why they parked it, they are lying about everything.

If they cannot see stars, they are lying about everything.

If they get diarrhea in space and then take the very same pill they said was making them sick to begin with, they are lying about everything.

And they are lying, because they wanted to park things on the moon, and did park things on the moon, that they promised they would not not park there.

This is all very simple really.
 
Last edited:
Patrick1000 said:
Take a shot at my trajectory analyses. Debunk my fraud claim. I would like to see it.
Click to expand...

Well, first of all your "analysis" is full of crap because you have never told us what TIME it was when the "accurate" coordinates were received by Lick Observatory.

Go on. Commit. Tell us what time it was when the "exact coordinates" of Eagle were transmitted to Lick.
 
Star phobia and laser fright

The astrounauts lie lie lie. They consistantly claimed that they could not see stars from cislunar space or the surface of the moon. Then, 25 years later, well after the insanely bogus line, the insanely bogus lie, had served its purpose, they try to "undo it" in variouss ways. I shall remind everyone again of the idiotic attempt at same, made in the book, MOON SHOT, allegedly written by Deke Slayton, Alan shepard and Jay Barbree, and endorsed to high heaven by, none other thatn the first fake moon walker himself, commander Neil Armstrong. Here's the infamously incriminating bad lie and quote from the MOON SHOT booK;


"Myth believers claimed that Neil and Buzz could have only left such firm, defined boot prints in soil with moisture. But close examination of the lunar soil brought back to Earth showed it to be virgin. The grains still had their sharp edges. They had not been rounded off by wind and erosion in an atmosphere. In their vacuum the sharp edges of lunar soil cling together, leaving a smooth surface much as moist sand does on a beach. “Where were the stars?” the myth believers then asked. The cameras that NASA sent to the moon had to use short-exposure times to take pictures of the bright lunar surface and the moonwalkers’ white spacesuits. Stars’ images, easily seen by the moonwalkers, were too faint and underexposed to be seen as they are in photographs taken from space shuttles and the International Space Station."

Barbree, Jay; Alan Shepard; Deke Slayton (2011-05-03). Moon Shot: The Inside Story of America's Apollo Moon LandingS. (EBOOK Locations 3604-3609). Open Road E-riginal.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom