Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[R.A.F.]

This is why bumbling and stumbling Alan Bean...

Do you even think about this crap before you post it? Apparently you HAVE decided to just troll.

Captain Alan Bean got the astronaut "job" by beating out numerous other HIGHLY SKILLED TEST PILOTS.

The only reason for you to post this "bumbling, stumbling crap" is a very transparent attempt to get a "rise" out of the people here.

That might have worked in the beginning...before we knew what you were about, but now, we consider the source, and really don't give a damn what your opinion "is".

 

[R.A.F.]

In case you didn't understand, let me clarify...

You're posting to an opinion board on which no one cares what you opinion is.

Pretty sad, really.

 

[Michael Cook]

FattyFraud is one of the finest lorem ipsum / gibberish generators I have ever come across. He's a lost bird in a basement somewhere with an imaginary sooper sekrit LRRR to see himself in.

 

[fess]

I'll cover that, the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, very thoroughly in a future insanely long wall of post mercatormac.

Do us a favor, don’t bother. Perhaps you haven’t noticed that most of us have said we don’t really care about your opinion(s). Your walls of text could be summed up in very few words; Here is more ************.

For now, this should help you see my general view of things with respect to this particularly interesting and important feature of the Apollo fraud.

You certainly can’t believe that you have posted anything that would be considered interesting or important.
Now go do your homework before Mommy slips your dinner under the door.

 

[SUSpilot]

Um, hold on a second...

They are ranging the LRRR well before the launch.

This is from the Apollo 11 Voice Transcript with Public Address Commentary. Referring to a time well before the launch, the PAO is talking about them not having acquired the laser, but as we know, they have been trying, and trying for some time. The ONLY coordinates Wampler's team worked with were 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east, though on the first night they targeted 00 41 50 north, 945 feet from Tranquility. So if they did not have the timing gate problem, even with the "50 for 15" confusion, they would have successfully got a return.... <snip>

I'm lucky. My office is right across the street from the main branch of the Omaha public library. So I decided to eschew Google and do this the old fashioned way. I went to the reference room and asked for the issue of National Geographic that Patrick quoted (December 1969, Volume 136, No. 6, page 776). I expected microfilm, but, to my pleasant surprise, they brought me original bound copies. And that brought many wonderful memories, touching the actual published magazine. But I digress.

Since Patrick alleges that they'd been ranging the LRRR, based on the above quote, and the one from the NGS, I thought I'd provide the whole quote:

As soon as Neil Armstrong had put the laser reflector nlace and carefully aimed it earth, scientists began firing powerful pulses of ruby laser light at it. The second and third largest telescopes in the world [in Dec, 1969 - suspilot] (after Mount Palomar's)--the 120-inched at Lick Observatory, on Mount Hamilton, California, and a brand-new 107-incher at McDonald Observatory, Fort Davis, Texas--were used to concentrate the beams. Light passing backward through one of these telescopes spreads out to a spot only a few miles wide by the time it hits the Sea of Tranquility.

At first no detectable light returned; the brilliance of reflected sunlight obscured whatever laser light might be struggling back. But shortly before lunar night, the telescope at Lick began to pick up signals, and McDonald has since detected them repeatedly.

(emphasis added, suspilot)

So they weren't ranging the LRRR, as you claim. You cherry-picked two different quotes, added them together and presented a false conclusion. Sorry, that doesn't cut it.

Now it's my turn, although I can't prove this:

This morning, I started to think the same thing as some of the others have posed - you are a corporate personality made up of several high school students, located somewhere in the San Francisco Bay area. Here's why:

Things like the quote from the NGS magazine. I'm surprised that would be an easily available resource "north of New Delhi". Similar resources from people who "bring you things."
The adolescent, self-important posts with wildly different styles.
The posting times are remarkably in synch with school times and weekends in the Pacific time zone.
The remarkable delays you had flying to New Delhi, which look to me like you just couldn't pit the keyboard down.
Your claim you're from the Bay area (that one I believe).
Your incredible naïveté regarding the realpolitik of the Cold War.

I know you're all sitting around laughing and trying to figure out how to next yank the chain of people that know what theyre talking about. Or you're that subset of your generation that cannot believe that people as "backward" as those '60's dinosaurs could actually achieve something as great as landing men on the Moon.

Since you reverse the burden of proof process, I'll do the same with all of you: prove me wrong.

 

[Giordano]

A suggestion- let the thread die. Patrick only wants the feeling of playing us. He doesn't believe what he posts- any reaction (even this one) is the only thing he seeks. Why not starve him?

 

[Patrick1000]

Bird hiding and tranquility truancy, compelling because understandable and accessible

OK, cool. So why do you think the landings were faked? I don't mean the reason why someone would do it (although that's an interesting topic in and of itself), I mean what persuades you to believe they were faked? I tried to read your earlier posts, but kind of got bogged down. Do you have one particular reason, something that can be articulated in a sentence or two? (Of if you have many reasons, can you pick what you think is the most compelling one?)

BIRD HIDING AND TRANQUILITY TRUANCY, COMPELLING REASONS IN OUR RECOGNIZING APOLLO AS FRAUDULENT BECAUSE THEY ARE SO UNDERSTANDABLE AND ACCESSIBLE

Looking back over some of the earlier and better questions, I paused at Stellafane's #196, from back on August 13. He/she asked what was the most compelling reason for my recognition of the Apollo 11 Mission as being fraudulent.

Though I have strongly alluded to this question's answer, and have elaborated upon the "Bird Hiding Theme" extensively, I have yet to say directly and clearly why I believe this theme to be so compelling.

Quite simply, it is one that everyone can understand, and understand well. The 3 banditos, who made off with my mom's piece of the 130 BIL., are basically "on trial". In this case, they are not on trial for having done something wrong, they are on trial for not doing what they claimed to have done.

Buzz Aldrin says he urinated on the moon. I do not believe him. The best way to show he never took a lunar pee is hold him and the others accountable for their story, just as interrogators do with suspected criminals.

Aldrin says, "We didn't know where we were". I say, "OK, let's examine the record, NASA's own record, their telemetry, their Trajectory Report, their Voice Transcript. Let's see if that holds up".

Suspect #2, Michael Collins, also accused of never urinating where he claims to have urinated, namely, in cislunar space. Collins says you cannot find a spaceship like the Eagle on the surface of the moon except very approximately, by looking at, in Collins own words, "crude maps" and trying to match map images up with descriptions of the lunar surface as given by the "astronauts". This claim was explicitly made by Collins in his book CARRYING THE FIRE.

I say, "OK Collins, let's examine the record, NASA's own record carefully, and let's see if it corroborates your story". If it does, fine. If not, we scream, "PHONY!"

The beauty of this approach is that one need only be an attentive reader and logical. So often, people are scared off from questioning Apollo because there is this bogus line from the official story side that one need be an expert in rocketry, or aerospace engineering, or some other such nonsense. Nothing could be further from the truth. Intelligent men and women sit in judgement as jurors every day, deciding important matters that involve the understanding of principles in physics, medicine, chemistry, forensics, mathematics, economics. Yet, these jurors are not physicists, doctors, chemists, coroners, mathematicians, MBAs or securities experts. They are intelligent people who can understand important general points made with respect to these various subjects and can ultimately come to educated decisions about how legal cases should be decided, and decided fairly, based on their understanding of the "problems" as presented.

So for me, examining contradictions, and in particular, with respect to the Apollo 11 Mission, understanding the "Bird Hiding Theme", is what is compelling. Compelling because;

A) Any intelligent person can understand that the astronauts' claiming to be one place and then shown in a sense to not be there, to be nowhere really, and this nowhere is very much somewhere other than Tranquility Base at lunar coordinates 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east, means the astronauts and those supporting this bogus story are lying. And additionally, it means that the telling of this outrageous lie demonstrates without any question whatsoever, that the Apollo 11 Mission was/is fraudulent. It is compelling because it is an ACCESSIBLE approach to one's understanding, ANYONE'S understanding. One can come to Apollo's truth by way of an educated, informed determination without being a rocketeer. AND, that truth will be the very same truth arrived at by any competent rocketeer, aerospace engineer or other professional who chooses to investigate Apollo on its own merits, with an open mind. AND…

B) NASA's own records are awash in contradictions, internal incoherencies, with respect to the issue of "Bird Hiding" and "Tranquility Truancy".

So Stellafane, "Hiding the Bird" stuff is the most compelling "reason" because the evidence is overwhelming and is accessible to all, understandable by everybody willing to simply read carefully and be logical about the impossibilities NASA and her astronauts present.

 

[Patrick1000]

Spaceflight experence versus treating urinary tract infections

fattydash/Patrick1000/etc., for your convenience, I've placed my questions all together here for you.

But of course, if one pauses, internal incoherence is precisely what one would expect from a bogus telling of an Apollo moon landing. Such would be a bogus telling's hallmark...

and

The narrative is inconsistent, internally incoherent and therefore necessarily untrue...

and so on.

1. Given the numerous contradictions in your claims across three different message boards now, e.g.
My claim as to why the lander could not perform a guided ascent is we have no evidence that Aldrin was able to determine lander coordinates for the Eagle

...I do not believe there was an ascent as I do not believe there was a landing.
-------------------
They did not have a LM that could land on the moon.

If one looks at the facts and concedes the lander works, and I do imagine the builders constructed the thing well. I am not trying to play games. I grant the lander works, fine.
-------------------
Yes we know there was most definitely no telemetric transmission of the coordinates.

This makes sense given the general features of Apollo guidance. It is for the most part telemetric.

what does that say about your story?

The only way one ever makes headway in coming to terms with any of this is to look at the narrative itself. Study the story.

I have studied various aspects of the story, and considered it as a whole, from the perspective of a practicing space engineer with an educational background in space physics. I also have spaceflight operations experience.

2. How many missions have you personally worked?

That said, retroreflector present or not, the exposure of of Apollo's fraudulence by LUNA's camera was nevertheless a major concern, retroreflector already "planted" at Tranquility Base or not. There were no astronauts for LUNA to photograph.

3. Exactly what evidence do you have for a retroreflector planted at the Apollo 11 landing site by anything other than the Apollo 11 crew?

4. Please describe, in reasonable detail, the ability of Luna 15 to conclusively image the A11 landing site from orbit. This includes the type of camera, its resolution, and the targeting/tracking capability while in orbit. As Luna 15 landed a considerable fraction of the Moon's circumeference away from A11, we know it did not image the site in proximity.

5. Given your repeated criticisms of NASA and the astronauts and engineers for allegedly lying, what does it say about you that you have repeatedly lied in agreeing to the TOSs for various boards in order to register sock-puppets?

5a. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that your "fattydash" story was actually true. What does it say about the honesty of you and this supposed group of people - lying in agreeing to the TOS in order to post content disguised as being from one person?

6. fattydash/Patrick1000/etc., you have previously said, if I recall correctly, that you believe all the Apollo missions were faked. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Does this mean only missions to/around the Moon, or does it include Earth orbit missions as well?

6a. What about Mercury and Gemini?

6b. What about Shuttle missions?

6c. What about Skylab, Salyut, Mir, and ISS?

6d. What about other Soviet/Russian and Chinese manned orbital missions?

7. You have already accepted the ability to fly vehicles to the Moon and soft-land them. What exactly prevented Apollo from going to the Moon as recorded? No handwaving, please.

7a. What exactly is different between Apollo lunar missions (and any other manned missions you may reject), and the manned missions cited above you accept (if any), which allows the latter to succeed but not the former?

--------------
So far, you've answered part of 6a (basically, that you don't have an opinion on Gemini). Looking forward to specific answers to the rest, thanks!

WORKING SPACE MISSIONS VERSUS TREATING URINARY TRACT INFECTIONS

Another old post I enjoyed reviewing oh so very immensely, was that of sts60, #206. sts60 wrote;

"I have studied various aspects of the story, and considered it as a whole, from the perspective of a practicing space engineer with an educational background in space physics. I also have spaceflight operations experience."

I like to call this the ol', "pulling rank on Patrick1000 routine". I am not a "space engineer" like sts60 is, and so sts60 is arguing that should disqualify me as one competent in pointing out simple inconsistencies, incoherencies in the Apollo 11 phony story.

One thing it does not disqualify me from doing however sts60 is pointing out fake astronaut medical evaluations.

I was watching the History Channel film, RACE TO THE MOON PART 1. It is a video/film version of Gene Kranz's book, FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION. This is a "serious documentary". In the film, "astronaut" Fred Haise claims they didn't have enough thermal blankets on board Apollo 13, and that is why he got a lower urinary tract infection which was associated with bad fever and chills. I don't think so Fred. Bugs wouldn't get in your prostate or bladder on the basis of your not having a blanket. Who writes this junk!?

Anyway, diagnosis right there, "FAKE MISSION"! So much for Apollo 13. Another one for the books Loss Leader, another phony one. So far we have 8(based on fake diarrhea), 11(Bird Hiding), 12(camera busting), 13(bogus UTI). Only four more to go. I do not care that much about 9 and 10, but perhaps we'll pick 'em up as fraudulent along the way.

Despite the Fred Haise jive, it was nevertheless interesting to watch the film though, I was able to spot another "little indian". Not a chief, but somebody in on the fraud.

John Aaron, the electrical and environmental flight officer. He is a fraud guy almost for sure.

How do I know? When Apollo 12 gets hit by lightening, the other flight officers are confused when the readouts are wildly unreadable. Aaron knows immediately how to fix this and tells the astronauts to flip some switch in their dressing room. So the guys that step in like this, when there is confusion and uncertainty, John Aaron in this case, they are almost certainly in on the fix. The reason is, an abort is contemplated here and all kinds of other stuff, way out of line with a realized flight to the moon. Aaron says flip the switch, and miraculously!, it all goes good. He is the hero. The other guys, hearts racing, are relieved and believe it to be all the more real given the intense drama, replete with a miraculous and INSTANTANEOUS solution by their colleague Aaron.

Aaron does the same with Apollo 13. He decides which electric circuits get what little juice the wounded ship allegedly has. Well if these were real decisions, who knows how it would go. Anytime someone makes "critical decisions", like what instruments get power when power is scarce inside Apollo 13, well these are no decisions at all. We know the mission is fake, simply because of Fred Haise's feigned inappropriate dysuria, urgency, and chills. So the decisions are not real. Who is making the non real decisions? John Aaron is making them.

So more likely than not we have Bales and Aaron up front, probably in on it. Most of the others, oblivious.

 

[drewid]

Dodges noted.

 

[drewid]

I like to call this the ol', "pulling rank on Patrick1000 routine". I am not a "space engineer" like sts60 is, and so sts60 is arguing that should disqualify me as one competent in pointing out simple inconsistencies, incoherencies in the Apollo 11 phony story.

Good grief no. What disqualifies you is the fact that you clearly don't understand the material.

Noun 76 is a landing coordinate - wrong.
Radial trajectory is crossrange - wrong.
AU is K and K is AU - wrong.

In other words, you are incompetent.
Dr PatTeaDash's greatest hits.

The serial lying and sockpuppetry is just a bonus.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

...One thing it does not disqualify me from doing however sts60 is pointing out fake astronaut medical evaluations.

I was watching the History Channel film, RACE TO THE MOON PART 1. It is a video/film version of Gene Kranz's book, FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION. This is a "serious documentary". In the film, "astronaut" Fred Haise claims they didn't have enough thermal blankets on board Apollo 13, and that is why he got a lower urinary tract infection which was associated with bad fever and chills. I don't think so Fred. Bugs wouldn't get in your prostate or bladder on the basis of your not having a blanket. Who writes this junk!?

Anyway, diagnosis right there, "FAKE MISSION"! So much for Apollo 13.

So whenever you have a patient opine to you that they got sick because they got cold, your professional diagnosis is that they are not ill at all and they're lying - the event which they claim caused their illness never happened.

Conclusion: You are not a doctor. Nor a logician.

 

[Erock]

So whenever you have a patient opine to you that they got sick because they got cold, your professional diagnosis is that they are not ill at all and they're lying - the event which they claim caused their illness never happened.

Conclusion: You are not a doctor. Nor a logician.

I noticed that one too. He seems to think that Fred Haise's opinion on how he got ill is being passed off by NASA as the actual cause. Doctor BS.


The barrel currently being scraped by pattydash1k, no longer has a bottom, it is now creating a tunnel of epic proportions down towards India.

 

[Tolls]

I noticed that one too. He seems to think that Fred Haise's opinion on how he got ill is being passed off by NASA as the actual cause. Doctor BS.


The barrel currently being scraped by pattydash1k, no longer has a bottom, it is now creating a tunnel of epic proportions down towards India.

Surely "from India".
He is, after all, working north of Delhi...

 

[phunk]

At first no detectable light returned; the brilliance of reflected sunlight obscured whatever laser light might be struggling back. But shortly before lunar night, the telescope at Lick began to pick up signals, and McDonald has since detected them repeatedly.

There's something else relevant about that quote. They picked up the signal "shortly before lunar night". Apollo 11 left the moon around lunar noon, night was several days later.

 

[GlennB]

The barrel currently being scraped by pattydash1k, no longer has a bottom, it is now creating a tunnel of epic proportions down towards India.

This map tunneling tool shows us he's headed for the S Indian ocean, well S.E. from S.Africa, if he's tunneling from San Francisco. Strikes me as rather difficult to visualise where 'the other side of the world' is from many places on earth, so you can have endless hours of amusement for yourselves, family and friends with that website

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

This map tunneling tool shows us he's headed for the S Indian ocean, well S.E. from S.Africa, if he's tunneling from San Francisco. Strikes me as rather difficult to visualise where 'the other side of the world' is from many places on earth, so you can have endless hours of amusement for yourselves, family and friends with that website

Millions of years of human evolution . . .
Thousands of years of technological development . . .
Hundreds of years of scientific progress . . .

. . . all leading to stupid, time-wasting crap like this??

Bookmarked. Thanks.

 

[SUSpilot]

How do I know? When Apollo 12 gets hit by lightening, the other flight officers are confused when the readouts are wildly unreadable. Aaron knows immediately how to fix this and tells the astronauts to flip some switch in their dressing room. So the guys that step in like this, when there is confusion and uncertainty, John Aaron in this case, they are almost certainly in on the fix. The reason is, an abort is contemplated here and all kinds of other stuff, way out of line with a realized flight to the moon. Aaron says flip the switch, and miraculously!, it all goes good. He is the hero. The other guys, hearts racing, are relieved and believe it to be all the more real given the intense drama, replete with a miraculous and INSTANTANEOUS solution by their colleague Aaron.

So? What are you kids* saying "Patrick"? I may not know a lot, but I do know a fair amount about flying and pilots (aviators, in this case, since it was an all-navy crew). The simple rule is that if it's still flying, don't abandon the aircraft. So, the bottom dropped out of the guidance platform in the command module, along with the electrical system. In the meantime, the booster's guidance package is still working, with the telemetry to back that up. This means you still have options. The most draconian option is to abort: they were still close to the ground, no one has ever done it, and the risk of injury is high. IIRC, NASA actually preferred abort scenarios where they could separate from the booster at a higher altitude to mitigate some of these factors, including an abort to orbit scenario. Since the boost was still going uphill and on trajectory and in the right direction, the most conservative decision was to keep going while retaining the option to abort.

In the meantime, then controllers are dealing with data that has gone to hash. Hasn't happened too often, and no one remembered the protocol from the sims. Bales, though, remembers going through that once. Why not? The electrical systems were his direct responsibility. Trying an obscure switch he remembers wasn't going to make anything worse at this point. So they do it and it brings the electrical system back. Why is this an issue? Did you want them to keep trying things? Do you keep looking for your keys after you've found them? And, remember, this wasn't a fix - I believe that the system was then in a back-up state. The electrical system still needed to be fully reset and the platform still needed to be aligned.

Using an analogy, if I'm flying a Cessna with a G1000 system in instrument meteorological conditions, and the alternator drops out, I don't bail out or make an emergency landing. I go to the 30 minute emergency battery, consider my options, and try to see if I can safely set the breaker for the alternator.
---------
*I still say you're a bunch of high school kids until you prove me wrong. Just using your methodology.

 

[Garrison]

What's amazing is that Patrick's Apollo 12 and 13 stupidity is even more ridiculous than his Apollo 11 nonsense. Fred Haise makes an inaccurate layman's guess about what caused his urinary infection so the whole mission was faked? Really?

 

[SUSpilot]

Error in post 2777: I should have said "Aaron", not "Bales" when referring to the Apollo 12 lightning incident. My apologies.

 

[Toke]

SUSpilot,
I am with you on the switch flipping, people can be remarkably awed when you solve a huge problem by knowing the system well.
(At one time the vessel were being pushed backwards* in the English channel traffic separation by a storm, I just opened the main switchboard and pushed the reset on the breakers for the engine auxiliary blowers.)

*That really pisses off traffic control, and gives some nasty radio calls.