Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Patrick1000]

Most professional astronomers say observers would be able to see stars

David Kornreich of Cornell for one;

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

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

Hogwash. Non sequitur, and based on unproven premise.

Pawn takes knight.

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

Total hogwash, and again based on faulty premise. They CAN see stars, if their eyes adjust to the lighting conditions. They did so during cislunar flight but not on the moon -- it takes about 20 minutes for the eyes to dark adapt, and the entire surface of the moon was awash with unclouded sunshine.

Bishop takes the other knight.

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.

These guys were test pilots. Mission control was faced with a possible error condition. Test protocol for anything is to attempt to replicate the error. Do you know how many identical crashes happened to test pilots trying to replicate conditions of a previous crash?

Bishop takes pawn. Check.

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.

Unsupported assertions. The things "parked on the moon" are well known, highly documented, were seen by hundreds if not thousands of technicians during manufacturing, testing, assembly, further testing, vehicle integration and launch preparation.

Contrarywise, your idiotic assertion that some completely unknown and unspecified Sooper Seekrit package was delivered to the moon with Sooper Seekrit unmanned equipment INSTEAD has ZERO foundation in reality.

Bishop takes queen. Checkmate.

This is all very simple really.

Dumbass. Perhaps your ideas are based on both faulty data and incorrect analysis.

 

[Patrick1000]

NASA's own Super Scientist Eric Christian Knows one can see stars

From NASA's own public website for the curious, "COSMOCOPIA"

 

[Patrick1000]

Remember it is about seeing stars, not about photographing them

Often times, there is confusion on this issue. What is important to the HB claims is not the fact that there are no stars in the photos, we understand that is perfectly reasonable. we wouldn't expect stars in the photos either. what we object to is the fact that astronuats claimed to have not seen any stars, the whole ride to the moon, except when navigating, sighting. They said they first saw stars when they reached the back side of the moon and tried to photograph the solar corona when the moon was said to have occulted/eclipsed the sun.

According to Christian here, not so.

 

[Patrick1000]

Then they changed their story

Once they realized the story was so very dumb, the lie was so insanely unbelievable and "risky", they tried to change it, change their story and say one could see stars after all. Pretty sorry I would say.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Why do you keep insisting they "couldn't see stars" and then say "that astronuats claimed to have not seen any stars, the whole ride to the moon, except when navigating, sighting."

You know they were inside a LIT vehicle, right? With lights? So in order to "see stars" they turned off lights? Then looked out the very few, very small windows?

They weren't flying the Millennium Falcon, ya know. Or maybe you don't.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

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.

At the risk of wasting even more bits on the interwebz than you already have, can you please explain your problem with the above quoted piece?

 

[SezMe]

While lurking to keep up with this thread, I notice now that P1K almost never answers any questions any more. He just keep blithely going along, having a monologue with himself. I am reminded of Christophera of 911 debate days. I think the same strategy should be employed, namely, ignore him. Let the thread die. There is absolutely nothing being provided here, including entertainment value.

 

[Patrick1000]

Even little kids know you can see stars

And so do the astronomers that maintain the web sites that the children frequent to learn about star visibility from the surface of the moon.





From A NASA web site, "Lunar Science for Kids".

 

[Patrick1000]

Not easy for me, am doing the best I can.

While lurking to keep up with this thread, I notice now that P1K almost never answers any questions any more. He just keep blithely going along, having a monologue with himself. I am reminded of Christophera of 911 debate days. I think the same strategy should be employed, namely, ignore him. Let the thread die. There is absolutely nothing being provided here, including entertainment value.

It is not easy for me carrying on the debate from where I am located. I have somewhat limited resources. I have to rely on friends to do things for me.

Please note, I did get that reference for mrbusdriver about the "moon relay", and I do try to answer as many questions as I can. However, my internet access is very limited, and I have to rely on memory and what I have stored in a hard drive for data/references.

Friends occasionally bring me books, mags, or make a contact with a friend that can answer a question for me, but for the next few weeks, maybe as long as 3 months, I am limited. If I need to read to answer a question, if I do not have a ready answer from memory, or something stored, I am stuck for a while unless a friend can help.

I am posting a fair amount today, but for the most part, I am very busy, and cannot post like I did when I began the thread.

Answering questions directly is the best part of this. One makes the most progress in doing so.

If you are curious what I think about the new lunar orbital shots, I have seen those, someone brought them to me. They show nothing. No flag, no ALSEP, no lander. I hope that is not a question I see again. I will give the same answer. I see no flag, no ALSEP, no lander.

When I return to the states, I can write much more. In addition to the astronomers at Lick, I made contact with some of the Apollo Lunar scientists as well. I have much to write about.

 

[332nd]

Still running from the photos & lying about being in a different country.

 

[Patrick1000]

Don't mind being ignored

While lurking to keep up with this thread, I notice now that P1K almost never answers any questions any more. He just keep blithely going along, having a monologue with himself. I am reminded of Christophera of 911 debate days. I think the same strategy should be employed, namely, ignore him. Let the thread die. There is absolutely nothing being provided here, including entertainment value.

Also, if you are frustrated by my inability to engage as well as i could previously, when home, it is OK to ignore me. Obviously that is your choice SezMe and any others of a like mind. Actually, I would understand in a sense.

Depending on what goes on for me where I am at, how much time i have and how motivated I am, I may or may not be able to respond very directly to questions, almost impossible to say. I do try and try hard when there is opportunity though.

Anyhoo, I am in the sticks, and enjoying it.

 

[Patrick1000]

What am I running from?

Still running from the photos & lying about being in a different country.

I see no flag, no ALSEP and no lander. Do you see those things Redtail? That is all I can say. Sorry if that disappoints you.

 

[Giordano]

It is not easy for me carrying on the debate from where I am located. I have somewhat limited resources. I have to rely on friends to do things for me.

Please note, I did get that reference for mrbusdriver about the "moon relay", and I do try to answer as many questions as I can. However, my internet access is very limited, and I have to rely on memory and what I have stored in a hard drive for data/references.

Friends occasionally bring me books, mags, or make a contact with a friend that can answer a question for me, but for the next few weeks, maybe as long as 3 months, I am limited. If I need to read to answer a question, if I do not have a ready answer from memory, or something stored, I am stuck for a while unless a friend can help.

I am posting a fair amount today, but for the most part, I am very busy, and cannot post like I did when I began the thread.

Answering questions directly is the best part of this. One makes the most progress in doing so.

If you are curious what I think about the new lunar orbital shots, I have seen those, someone brought them to me. They show nothing. No flag, no ALSEP, no lander. I hope that is not a question I see again. I will give the same answer. I see no flag, no ALSEP, no lander.

When I return to the states, I can write much more. In addition to the astronomers at Lick, I made contact with some of the Apollo Lunar scientists as well. I have much to write about.

Patrick,

Judging by the sheer number and frequency of your posts, you have better Internet access than the friends I know with Internet 2 connectivity. How can you possibly plead plead otherwise??

 

[fess]

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.

You do realize that your “big fat rocket” didn’t even make it out of low earth orbit… right? Not the first stage, the second stage, or the third stage. The only part of the rocket that made it to the moon was the very tip of the rocket, the three modules. And that is where the reflector was carried.

Try again.

 

[Patrick1000]

Good question

Patrick,

Judging by the sheer number and frequency of your posts, you have better Internet access than the friends I know with Internet 2 connectivity. How can you possibly plead plead otherwise??

I am north of Dehli now, in the home of a wealthy man. I am using his computer. He has internet access. Most of the time I do not. I have other friends with computers/net access here. I can also connect to a line in the states through a phone, but that is difficult.

But I have fun with this and so do it when I can, such as I can.

 

[Patrick1000]

My view is the Saturn Vs launched a big unmanned packages

You do realize that your “big fat rocket” didn’t even make it out of low earth orbit… right? Not the first stage, the second stage, or the third stage. The only part of the rocket that made it to the moon was the very tip of the rocket, the three modules. And that is where the reflector was carried.

Try again.

I think the Saturn Vs launched big unmanned packages fess. This is why the "cover" is so good. Everybody is working to land the "Eagle" on the lunar surface. So everyone buys in. It is all real, except the astronauts are not inside the machine and it is modified, maybe it is not the "Eagle" per se, but you get the point.

Apollo 11, is Apollo 11, just no astronauts in the ship/craft/whatever, and whatever they land, modified LM, whatever, has significant, ranging/locating/listening/etc. capabilities.

Apollo is Apollo, they just don't have astronauts in the ships and they land sophisticated unmanned sensing/emiiting craft.

99.99% of everybody buys in because they are just doing their jobs as planned all along. No need to overtly dupe/con anyone, it is subtle. The Mission Control guys are launching and landing the unmanned craft in a very real sense. The only thing they are really fooled with regard to is the fact that there are no astronauts in the "ship".

 

[SUSpilot]

Um, how is it no one's ever noticed a carrier beacon or some such from the vicinity of the Moon?

Speaking of the Moon, I don't know about where you are, but it's gorgeous here...

 

[Patrick1000]

Lots of stuff is "bouncing off the moon"

Um, how is it no one's ever noticed a carrier beacon or some such from the vicinity of the Moon?

Speaking of the Moon, I don't know about where you are, but it's gorgeous here...

Lots of stuff is "bouncing off the moon". We don't know what may or may not be originating from there. Apparently, plenty of stuff that hits it comes right back to us.

 

[Patrick1000]

If one emits far red coherent laser light from the moon, no one will see it

Um, how is it no one's ever noticed a carrier beacon or some such from the vicinity of the Moon?

Speaking of the Moon, I don't know about where you are, but it's gorgeous here...

If one emits far red coherent laser light from the moon, no one will see it. That's not necessarily to say that was done. But laser light is narrow, unless you know where it is going, you are not going to pick it up.

Remember, the 1 watt argon laser that Surveor VII imaged was as bight as Sirius, yet all of LA, right next to that laser, breathing in and pumping out millions of watts, was literally invisible.