Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Patrick1000]

Bird Hiding

MORE OF THE SAME ON BIRD HIDING, BUT IT REALLY IS SINKING IN NOW, THE TRUTH IN IT ALL, IS IT NOT?

From Craig Nelson's highly regarded Penguin publication Rocket Men, 2009. Collins and Aldrin themselves provided details to the author for this book. With regard to Collins' hunt for the Eagle and its status as a lost bird, from the book's page 290("pings" is PGNS, "aggs" refers to the AGS and Earth tracking stations are the powered flight processor/MSFN solutions for the Eagle's landing site coordinate determination sources);

"For the rest of the day Collins spent countless hours peering through the sextant, trying to pinpoint his crewmates landing spot. He never could determine where the Eagle was, exactly, nor could Houston. Eagle's pings reported that it was north of the originally intended site; aggs indicated that it had landed in the middle; and the tracking stations back on planet Earth insisted it was to the south."

GEEWHIZ!!!! For such a hot shot author, one would think Craig Nelson could have gotten his facts straight on this, especially having access to Collins and Aldrin as he did, not to mention pretty much everyone else of import involved in the Apollo 11 Simulated Mission to Land a Man on the Moon. And here we are, with simple dumb blind beginner researcher's luck, just opened up the Apollo 11 Mission Report and found all 3 solutions Craig Nelson referenced above; pings/PGNS, aggs/AGS and tracking from Earth/Powered Flight Processor were actually in agreement. Silly us, getting something so complicated right almost without even trying. All 3 solutions not more than 4 tenths of a mile from one another and ultimately found to be solutions all very very close to the Eagle's true simulated landing site at 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east. Should we call up Craig Nelson, email him, write him and tell him to fix his book? Guess he could for the next edition, say he was wrong in this one, that the Apollo 11 Mission Report actually showed the PGNS, AGS and Earth tracking all located the Eagle to the south and west of its simulated mission targeted landing site, and all 3 solutions actually did track it to having touched down close to the finally acknowledged official site at 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east. Shall we call the guy and help the poor dumb shmuck? Seems like we do a better job advising him than the astronauts themselves did with regard to this sort of thing. GEEEE! I wonder why?!

Naive authors like Nelson are not much to blame for this type of thing, as foolish as they do look. They are intentionally steered in the "wrong direction". This sort of finding emphasizes the importance of researching critical points on one's own and also the point about how popular authors are subtly manipulated, very indirectly, but very effectively nevertheless, to cover the holes in this bogus tale. There is no mystery about the PGNS, AGS and MSFN tracking of the Eagle. Craig could not have been more wrong, and he could have seen this by reading the Apollo 11 Mission Report for himself and checking with NASA to confirm the substance of the report's details as regards the Eagle's tracking. Instead, he wrote something somebody told him. Something that is obviously false, and intentionally so. It is a description of the Eagle's tracking issue/problem with respect to the PGNS, AGS, and MSFN solutions that is intended to deceive and support this absurd notion that no one knew where the Eagle was, that it was "lost".

Here is more from Craig Nelson's book that everyone will enjoy, though may also find to be more than a bit confusing. Also from page 290, just following the quote above. The "data" the author is referring to in the first sentence below is the very data referenced above, the landing site position as determined by PGNS, AGS and Earth tracking;


"Using this data, NASA mapping scientist Lou Wade and his team plotted fourteen possible landing points, while a band of geologists, using Armstrong's description of the terrain, insisted there was only one possible answer; West Crater. They sent NASA their reasoning, but it wasn't taken seriously at Mission Control. On July 21 at 8:30 a.m. CST, Collins radioed from Columbia, "You've given up looking for the the LM, right? and Houston replied, "Affirmative."

In fact, the geologist team would be off by a mere two hundred meters."

Boy sure is too bad no body was paying attention to the geologists. Never is good to give up on stuff is it? Especially giving up on looking for space ships, might strand your guys somewhere you know.

Guess it wouldn't matter though all that much if the manned landing part was all make believe so as they could park their military equipment and what not up there. Not like anyone's life was genuinely at risk you know.

My favorite quote, Michael Collins from the Apollo 11 Technical Crew Debriefing Report, Section 11.3, on Landmark Tracking. With reference here to the Eagle's location, Michael Collins;

"The problem was I didn't know where the LM was, and the ground didn't either. There is too much real estate down there within the intended landing zone to scan on one, two, three, or four passes. On each pass, I could do a decent job of scanning one or two grid squares on the expanded map. That map is the 1:100,000 map called LAM 2. The ground was giving me coordinates in the grid square coordinate system that were as much as 10 squares apart. This told me they didn't really have much of a handle at all on where the LM had landed."

Don't feel bad Mike. You didn't know where the Eagle was. The ground didn't know where the Eagle was. Matter of fact, nobody had "much of a handle at all on where the Eagle had landed" as you like to say Mike. But it is no matter Mike when it is all make believe, the manned landing part anyway. Is it not, not a matter of concern?

 

[abaddon]

and here we are, with simple dumb blind beginner researcher's luck poorly informed wild guess which unsurprisingly turns out to be flat out wrong

ftfy.

 

[SUSpilot]

"Patrick": as has been pointed out, you're still wrong.

Back to my questions: why would it be embarrassingand/or catastrophic, 42 years after the fact, if you were right? Why the crusade?

 

[Patrick1000]

More than Interesting Speculation, The Mysterious Blue Dot of the Apollo 11 Flown Map

It is interesting and worthwhile as well to speculate upon the significance of the Apollo 11 Flown Map Mysterious Blue Dot.

Recall that the Apollo 11 flown map of Michael Collins is gridded so that landmarks, and any sites on the map for that matter, are labeled with coordinates too east and too south. So Tranquility Base at latitude J .65 and longitude 7.52 would be read on the now infamous Apollo 11 flown map to be at latitude 00 40' 09" north and 23 29' 49" east. That does not mean that "Tranquility Base"(J .65 / 7.52) is not truly located at 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east, only that the INNUMERATI, the Apollo scam artists, "moved" the grid on the LAM 2 map so it sat north and west of where it should have. As such, everything read out coordinate wise south and east of the true coordinates, true with respect to state of the art lunar cartography of the 1960s and early 1970s.

So during the Apollo 11 Simulated Mission, one might imagine a LRRR being placed at a position on the moon corresponding to Apollo 11 LAM 2 flown map latitude J .65/ 7.52. Because during the actual simulated Apollo 11 mission activities, that site at J .65 / 7.52, with true radian coordinates 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00", would have been "hidden" temporarily as the Eagle's landing site as it mapped by virtue of false gridding to 00 40' 09" north and 23 29' 49" east. When the simulated mission was over, and it was safe to have the LRRR successfully targeted there at "Tranquility Base", then at that time, no one was any longer using/employing the false reference frame. The only time it was used was in the context of the Collins flown map machination period. So once that part of the simulated lunar mission was over, the part during which the Apollo 11 LAM 2 false map had been used as a prop search/locational/navigational tool, "Tranquility Base" at J .65 / 7.52 would then be free to revert back to its one and only true coordinate representation at 00 41' 15 north and 23 26' 00" east. (The coordinates of course today used to accurately represent the site of the LRRR are a bit different. But this is of no concern here. We want to understand how maps would be labeled appropriately or inappropriately in the
Apollo era, and what the ramifications would be had a map been intentionally mislabeled.)

In reference to the Apollo 11 flown Map of Collins, recall the previous quote from the Apollo 11 Image Library Web Page;

"Finally, there is a small, blue dot at about K.2/5.6, which may not have been purposefully drawn."

Also recall that I pointed out with the map as fraudulently gridded, 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east maps to K .2 and 5.549, for all intents and purposes close enough to 5.6 to call them the same in this context.

It is possible that the real "cargo" of the Apollo 11 Simulated Manned Landing Mission was landed here, at K .2 and 5.6 . Because with things set up logistically by the scam artists, the site at K .2 and LAM 2 longitude line 5.6 would be read per the LAM 2 flown map of Collins as 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east. So it is not crazy to suggest the real landing, the landing of the Apollo 11 Military hardware took place at K . 2 / 5.6. This site at true lunar coordinates 00 42' 35" north and 23 22' 15" would map during the lunar landing part of the simulated mission to 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east, "Tranquility Base", by way of the Michael Collins fraudulently gridded flown map. It is not inconceivable therefore that the Apollo 11 Mission staff, while believing they were parking Astronauts at J .65 / 7.52, were actually parking military hardware at K .2 / 5.6 .

Note again the blue dot at K .2 and 5.6.

http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/LAM2_CMP-flown.jpg

What's it doing right there, the mysterious blue dot? It cannot be a coincidence! There is no explanation for the mysterious blue dot in the context of the official narrative.

 

[drewid]

radian coordinates 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00",

Oi, Maths Genius. Some simple questions, so simple even you can answer them... possibly
(You can even cheat and google them up easily)

1) How many degrees in a radian?
2) How many radians in a circle?

Given the above answers:
3) Define a radian coordinate system where 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00 makes sense.

This is why people laugh at you.

 

[JayUtah]

...

The Apollo 11 chart/map is fake. That is now a simple established fact.

No. Repeatedly telling yourself something doesn't make it a fact. Repeatedly ignoring objections doesn't make them go away.

The intentional mislabeling of the Apollo 11 map is subtle.

No. You've been telling us it's obvious. It's either so obvious that your line of reasoning can't possibly be wrong, or so subtle that it takes a great genius like you to uncover it. Sorry, but it can't be both. You'll have to choose which hand you pat yourself on the back with.

It took 42 years, but the ruse is now obvious to us all, even to obviousman.

Really. So international legions of cartographers, lunar geologists, astronomers, and planetary scientists -- all of whom are experts at reading and making maps -- have been studying the Apollo maps for decades and failed to notice this obvious discrepancy. But along comes a guy who can't figure out why "I" isn't used on legends and who can't keep radians and degrees straight and who missed the part of the report that tells you how to keep the maps consistent, and makes so many other elementary errors -- and he's the only one in the universe who discovers NASA's massive fraud.

Wow, if I had a nickel for every time a conspiracy theorist told that same story. "I've made zillions of basic errors that you need to overlook, but I'm the greatest researcher on the face of the Earth because I've discovered what NASA has tried so diligently to hide!"

Parsimony tells us that the most likely reason for why your analysis shows the map to be in "error" is that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Kiwi9]

...having an accurate map for Michael Collins would be of paramount importance...

Well, if it really was that important to have accurate latitudes and longitudes on the CMP's chart, why did Collins and the Capcom so often discuss coordinates based on the squares on LAM-2, instead of degrees, minutes and seconds of latitude and longitude every time, and why did the Capcoms radio up shaft and trunnion settings for the auto optics at 105:19:59 and 110:18:56 and other times instead of, again, degrees, minutes and seconds of latitude and longitude?

Collins specifically said at 106:51:46 in regard to a call involving latitude and longitude: "But what I'm interested in is grid coordinates on that map we're using."

And Bruce McCandless replied at 106:56:28, "Your map coordinates (for the LM) are Papa decimal 2 and 6 decimal 3 on the LAM-2(G) chart."

It seems that neither Collins nor Mission Control thought the latitudes and longitudes on LAM-2 were as important as you do, and I have every confidence that they knew far more about what they were doing than you do.

Have you considered that the latitudes and longitudes on LAM-2 might have been set for how the P22 program was written? Probably not.

By the way, you have prattled on a few times about the size of the squares on LAM-2 in latitude and longitude. Have you actually read your own material properly and noted that it says, "The grid spacing is 1 km"?

This flight of Collins 'round and 'round the moon with sextant in hand...

Are you saying that Collins used a hand-held sextant and pointed it out the windows? Because I always thought the sextant was a fixed part of the equipment down in the command module's navigation bay below the seats, but I guess I should seek your superior knowledge on all things Apollo.

...one can only conclude the Apollo 11 flown map of Michael Collins is intentionally mislabeled, intentionally mislabeled to intentionally mislead.

Only if one is a nutcase or a conspiracy-theorist.


And finally Patrick1000, you haven't yet answered my simple questions from many posts back:

In your own words, Patrick1000, please tell us your understanding of the following:
1. How the rendezvous radar was turned on so that Reed could do what he claimed.
2. The length of time between Frank Borman becoming ill and Chuck Berry talking to the Apollo 8 crew.

Perhaps you could also say whether you think the Apollo 8 crew could have cleaned up the cabin before Berry spoke to them, and whether you think they had to clean up bucketsful that were splattered everywhere, or just a few relatively minor globs of goo.

Please also tell us what was said during that discussion between Berry and the crew, and give us all the information you have on what the medical people in Mission Control discussed, particularly their diagnosis of Borman's illness.

 

[matt.tansy]

only that the INNUMERATI

Dr. Socks insults people for what he perceives as their mathematical incompetence yet constantly refers to the degrees-minutes-seconds format as "radians" all the while claiming to have a degree in math. This is about the 10th time he has been told that "radians" is a unit of angular meaurement, equal to about 57.3^o, yet he keeps using it.

His claim of fraud in the maps are easily debunked by the simple fact that Apollo 11 is consistently plotted relative to the craters.

 

[drewid]

I'm thinking he's some sort of reverse troll. Instead of coming here to annoy and bait people, he's actually here to consistently make himself look like an idiot.

It's working so far.

 

[JayUtah]

...

Because I always thought the sextant was a fixed part of the equipment down in the command module's navigation bay below the seats...

Yes, that's where the sextant is, and it's fixed into the guidance platform. And by fixed I mean really fixed. The guidance platform is actually a very robust structure approximately the size of a newspaper vending machine, made to hold the various equipment packages in very strict alignment with each other.

No, Collins didn't hold a sextant in his hand. Just because the modern equivalent fulfills the same task as the romantic sector-and-arc handheld sextant doesn't mean it works the same way.

 

[Garrison]

Patrick I doubt anyone cares about your convoluted walls of text when you persist in making simple mistakes.

Not knowing the difference between degrees and radians
Not knowing about Military phonetic alphabet
Not knowing why 'I' and 'O' were left off the chart

And that's just in the last few pages.

You post a lot of material but it's clear you understand none of it.

 

[JayUtah]

Patrick I doubt anyone cares about your convoluted walls of text when you persist in making simple mistakes.

He wants the discussion to wallow in the gritty details of his lengthy computations and tortured lines of reasoning, because in that complexity is enough wiggle room to make it seem like he's onto something. If the question were found to be cut and dried -- which it is, against him -- then he'd have no ambiguity in which to dodge and weave.

Plus, the purpose of this exercise isn't to investigate the authenticity of Apollo, but rather to establish Patrick1000 as "ruthless" investigator, who single-handedly ferreted out the awful truth of Apollo, so that when the revised history books are written he'll be prominently mentioned as the champion who brought down NASA. It's a massive ego-stroking endeavor, and that naturally needs some apparently monumental work product that he can point to and say, "See, it was a long, difficult task, but I finally found the smoking gun in the NASA hoax." It has to be something only he could have found, otherwise he'd have to explain why it wasn't discovered sooner by someone else.

This is why he so vigorously ignores the many statements pointing to the simple error he made, which -- if corrected -- renders the entire map question consistent enough. He imagines that if there are any flaws in his claim, they must like somewhere in the bowels of the line of reasoning, not in the simple mistaken premise that he started with.

I'm reminded of the incomparable Gilda Radner as Emily Litella on Saturday Night Live. Her schtick revolved around delivering a lengthy rant on a subject she misheard (such as "deaf penalty" instead of "death penalty"), and then when someone corrects her, she pauses a beat and says, "Nevermind."

 

[Andy_Ross]

If everyone on the mission is using the same map it can be marked out in furlongs and chains with no problems.

What's the big deal here?

 

[Patrick1000]

This stuff is sorta' scary really

JUST THINKING ABOUT THIS PUTS THE SCARE TO ME A LITTLE, KNOW WHAT I MEAN?



When one really starts to make inroads into all this, all this Apollo inauthenticity business, it really does put the scare in you. Has to. Consider this simple statement by Neil Armstrong, a quote(Sept. 18, 2003) he provided to James R Hansen, the author of the Armstrong authorized biography FIRST MAN(Simon and Schuster 2005, paperback 2006). From page 480 and 481, with reference to the Mission Control people not being able to find the Eagle;

"One would have thought that their radar would have been good enough to pinpoint us more quickly than it did, " remarks Neil."

There's enough right there in that one line to sink Apollo. An analysis of that one line is enough to send the whole dang thang straight to the bottom of the abyss.

Fists of all, the Commander would have us believe in his typical Armstrongesque atomically measured diction that the Eagle was "pinpointed" by way of radar. No Neil, WRONG, radar never pinpointed you. Let's remind Neil of what FIDO H. David Reed had to say about the effectiveness of Earth based tracking. The Apollo 11 Simulated Moon Landing Mission Launch Flight Dynamics Officer, H. David Reed, informing us that when he walked on duty the morning of July 21 1969, no one had a good idea as to the Eagle's simulated location, certainly not good enough to carry out a simulated launch;

"He explained that we had five different sites. He said “we have MSFN(tracking radars), PNGS (primary LM guidance computer), AGS(backup LM guidance computer), the targeted landing site and, oh yes, the geologist have determined yet another site based upon the crew’s description of the landscape and correlating that with orbiter photos”. No two of these were even close to each other…..

Now we had the data we needed to run the problem (a rendezvous problem in reverse) and get the correct liftoff time*. And that’s what we used. Later we would find out just where were we on the surface. We were actually over 25,000 feet from the nearest of the other five choices we had! At 5,000-fps orbital velocity of the CSM that could have been up to a ten second error in liftoff. That would have meant we’d need a LOT of RCS (reaction control system fuel) to play catch up or slow down in a rather abnormal (I don’t recall training for this one) rendezvous situation. I was assigned the descent phase for Apollo XII and I wasn’t about to go through that again."

Maurice Kennedy; Charles Deiterich III; William Stoval; William Boone III; Glynn S. Lunney; H. David Reed; Jerry C. Bostick (2011-05-13). From The Trench of Mission Control to the Craters of The Moon (Kindle Locations 5644-5675). Kindle Edition.

First of all, as an aside, H. David Reed "wasn’t about to go through that again" and neither will we have to. As mentioned on several prior occasions, in the case of Apollo 12, Alan Bean simply breaks the simulated tv camera by pointing it into the simulated sun making the bird hiding business for the perpetrators an easier operation in the case of Apollo 12 than it was here with the first simulated manned lunar landing, Apollo 11. I am not sure, but believe this will make our analysis of the Apollo 12 fraud easier as well, less complicated, less complicated as opposed to what we have to go through with Apollo 11, the fake maps, the Shyster number hanky-panky and so forth. But back to the business at hand.

So we know from Reed that the Eagle never was pinpointed by any kind of tracking, unless one wants to call 25,000 feet from your target pinpoint. Guess Neil does, but we won't let our commander get away with that coy little ploy, will we guys? HECK NO!

BUSTED COMMANDER!!

Also, once the Eagle is down, out of the simulated lunar sky and settled in its simulated landing position, all the simulated time in the world won't make a simulated difference with respect to a simulated finding, a simulated radar pinpointing. If you don't know where it is at the point it comes down, you don't know where it is period. (Of course you can reexamine the data you do have. But that is not what Armstrong is referring to here, the study of an acquired and complete track.) You don't get any more data. It's a wrap at that point, over. The radar, powered flight processing by MSFN had had its chance. So when Neil says he "thought the radar would have been able to pinpoint us more quickly than it did", we can expose the commander's ruse in an instant simply by pointing out the term "more quickly" is meaningless here. A ship like the Eagle is pinpointed or not by radar more or less in real time. Once down, there is no more signal to be had. The simulated bird is no longer in simulated flight, and that's that. No more chances to "pinpoint" anything. Hours and hours go by. Sure they can look at what they had acquired in terms of data up to the time of touchdown, but this never turned up a "pinpoint" position. All we ever hear about, heard about, is that no one knew where the thing was, the fake space ship, period.

Now we see and understand Armstrong's reluctance to give interviews, do books, etc.. Anybody can pick this stuff apart. It's actually very easy and very scary.

They never did land on the moon. It's now obvious to us all. WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? WHAT DO WE SAY TO ONE ANOTHER ABOUT ALL THIS????

 

[Erock]

JUST THINKING ABOUT THIS PUTS THE SCARE TO ME A LITTLE, KNOW WHAT I MEAN?

I think you should seek medical help

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

We have a few choices, either we all ignore you, or keep pointing out your incredibly stupid errors.

WHAT DO WE SAY TO ONE ANOTHER ABOUT ALL THIS????

Radians is wrong. I and O are omitted intentionally. You are completely ignoring questions. You are completely ignoring corrections. You are not a doctor. You are not a scientist. You did not pass a mathS degree. You are probably not American. You have a fixation with JayUtah. You got the correction wrong on the LAM 2 map. You got the AGC vector facepalmingly wrong at apollohoax as fartydash. You are an obsessed sockpuppet.

They say pride comes before a fall, but how many people keep falling for so long without knowing it. Just you it appears.

You'll be talking with yourself soon, as everybody will have you on ignore.

 

[matt.tansy]

The radar, powered flight processing by MSFN had had its chance. So when Neil says he "thought the radar would have been able to pinpoint us more quickly than it did", we can expose the commander's ruse in an instant simply by pointing out the term "more quickly" is meaningless here. A ship like the Eagle is pinpointed or not by radar more or less in real time.

Reed determined the LM's position by using the rendezvous radar to track the CSM's position then using the CSM's state vectors to backplot the LM's position. If you think that is a simple task then you watch too much TV. You're no doubt imagining some rotating sweep on a radar screen and the LM's position popping up as a blip on the surface of the Moon!

The only radar that operated when Apollo was in the vicinity of the Moon was the radars on the LM. The CSM did not have radar.

The MSFN relied on ranging signals and the Doppler shift from the Unified S-Band (USB) transmissions to track the spacecraft in the vicinity of the Moon. The MSFN did not use radar to track the Apollo spacecraft at the Moon; MSFN only used radar when Apollo was in LEO and then only about half the tracking stations were equipped with radar and they were limited to about a 400 nm range.

 

[drewid]

WHAT DO WE SAY TO ONE ANOTHER ABOUT ALL THIS????

We say "Why should anyone take you seriously when you're such an obvious liar, and also incompetent. Why should anyone bother reading your rubbish wall'o'text posts? You have no credibility, therefore your arguments have no credibility"

Competent:Adjective:
Not having the necessary skills to do something successfully.

Credible Adjective:
1. Able to be believed; convincing.
2. Capable of persuading people that something will happen or has happened:

 

[JayUtah]

...

Now we see and understand Armstrong's reluctance to give interviews, do books, etc.

Actually Neil Armstrong maintains a very vigorous schedule of appearances and interviews. The notion that Armstrong is a recluse is a conspiracist myth.

Anybody can pick this stuff apart. It's actually very easy and very scary.

Then why do all suitably educated people believe Apollo was real? Why do the only ones who claim it's fake turn out to be people who never went beyond high school science?

And we're back on the old roller-coaster. On the one hand all this fakery is so obvious that anyone can pick it apart. But just to be safe, ask a qualified cartographer, whom you'll simply dismiss when he disputes your claim. And it's so very obvious, but at the same time no one noticed it until the Great Patrick1000 painstakingly teased it out of the historical record -- a feat worthy enough to enshrine his name forever in the history books.

This is really getting amusing.

 

[SUSpilot]

A clarification, a point, some questions, and an editorial comment, "Patrick".

First, I thought you were a group of pretentious high school kids in the SFO area. I'm starting do doubt this. There have been a couple of slips you've made - a couple of Anglicisms and the inadverdent reference to the BBC 4 radio play about Stalingrad are what do that. Almost no one in the US listens to radio plays anymore, let alone BBC 4 on the 'net. There are exceptions, im sure, but I think it's unlikely.

Also, the anachronistic reference to Bobby Fischer. I went to a high school in the Chicago suburbs famous for achievement. We had an unusually high number of geeks (meant positively here) per capita. The geekiest were in the chess club. None of them spoke glowingly of Fischer; most thought he was kind of a jerk.

Second, for crying out loud, it is the relative positions of the launch point and the orbiting vehicle or target, along with a known orbit that determine when you launch. That's why the radar solution was so elegant.

Third, my questions you won't answer, including one I'm putting back on the table:

Why, after all this time, and assuming you're right (you're not), it would be embarrassing for us to have used the Apollo program as a cover?

Why, after all this time, and assuming you're right (you're not), it would be catastrophic for us to have used the Apollo program as a cover?

Assuming that you're wrong (and you are), why are you on such a mission, bordering on obsession?

Finally, the editorial comment, strictly my opinion: you desperately need to be right about this, to the point that you will not accept reality. I don't know why, but you deny reality by forcing data to fit preconceived notions of what you think is correct. We see it over and over again here.

There's a phrase I use with my co-workers and flight students when they encounter an inconvenient reality: "You don't have to like it; you just have to deal with it." The Apollo program is historical fact with self-consistent evidence, "Patrick" - it may make you angry that the US did it, you may be filled with incredulity that my generation did it, whatever. In any case, you just have to cope with that fact.

 

[Patrick1000]

Fraud Insiders

PERPETRATORS, WHO'S ON THE INSIDE OF THE APOLLO FRAUD?


Well, we can cite a few names as probables.

1) Emil Schiesser the numbers Shyster for one. A brief description of Shyster by Harold Beck form the NASA Aeronautical Engineer's Oral History Transcript of 9 December 2004;

"Within MPAD we had a Mathematics and Physics Branch that was eventually headed by Emil [R.] Schiesser. He was a space navigation guru and still is, as a matter of fact. His group was responsible for the navigation computations and for the perfection of the math models used in simulating the Earth-Moon system. They were especially key in the definition of the lunar potential models."

Shyster was privy to all this number baloney, had to be. So in my estimation, he must be the guy that made it all up to begin with. If he was legit in his role, he would have spotted the fraud. Instead, he says nothing, so he must be near the top of the numbers gamers, the INUMMERATI, if not the top numbers fraud guy.

2) Major General Samuel Phillips, Apollo Program Director

Phillips is more likely than not a fraud perpetrator because he was the one to make the decision to continue the Apollo 8 Mission after it was learned Borman had gotten sick. These inauthentic decision points are places where one is able to identify, finger, perpetrators, because they really are not decisions. The mission is to go forward no matter what. It is pretended drama at these points, and the guys that say "GO" are most likely in on the fraud.

3) Speaking of saying GO!; Steve Bales and/or Jack Garman, guidance specialists that gave the "GO!!!" on the 1202 alarm during the Apollo 11 simulated Eagle landing. Since it was a simulation/fraudulent manned landing and therefore, given it was going to happen no matter what, when Bales and Garman say "GO!" instead of "CUT!", they are doing nothing more than adding a pinch of vocal drama to the inevitable playing out of the Apollo 11 charade. The 1202 alarm issue was not a real decision point and so these guys more likely than not have at least some knowledge of the truth behind the Apollo fraud.

4) John Aaron, EECOM flight officer, trained to deal with electrical and environmental issues. When Apollo 12 takes a simulated hit by simulated lightening, flight director Gerry Griffin thinks he'll have to abort the mission. But Aaron realizes he's seen this funny readout pattern all the flight officers are witnessing as well, a pattern coming from the malfunctioning Apollo 12 craft just after bogus lift off. Aaron recalls it from a year before and tells stumbling and bumbling Alan Bean to put the Signal Conditioning Equipment (SCE) system into auxiliary mode. Bean flips the switch and everything is hunky dory again. Since this again is no real emergency, the ship is going on a simulated moon trip no matter what, the guy with the answer, the guy supplying the drama's solution, must almost certainly be a perpetrator, a fraud insider, John Aaron.

As I spot more perpetrators I'll post who they are and why I think these people to be on the inside.