• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jay: I would like to formally and publicly apologize for asserting on the Icke forum that you are a chatbot, and withdraw all claims in that direction. It was an experiment in information dispersion, as well as a way to poke rocky and jarrah in the ribs. I told rocky that all your posts in the IMDB thread were written by the 'bot, but jarrah still went sulking off with his tail between his legs.

I also suggested that Ultima1 was a rogue instance of the code that had not been deleted from a surplus workstation. That might actually be true.
 
Sibrel is more likely than not a pro Apollo official story "plant"

Bart "BS" Sibrel was my introduction to the entire notion of moon hoax conspiracy. I was rocket crazy at the time and looking for movies about the moon to watch with my kids.

BS floated to the top of the search heap.

At the time he had a "top 20" on his web page. I debunked all 20 of them off the top of my head. His email response was very unpleasant.

Sibrel is more likely than not a pro Apollo official story "plant". I say this because as I pointed out before, he brings up this lame notion that we faked the moon landings to one up the Ruskies. The fraud's dynamic was a prestige driven one. Why would you take all of these ridiculous risks for that? Doesn't add up. So I view Sibrel as a guy who maintains the debate in the "tame range", rocks, photos, videos, one upping the Ruskies. No danger to the Apollo legacy there.

He may be sincerely an HBer, but in that case, his perspective and vision are so very limited. He is almost of no help to us.

HERE'S A LITTLE MORE ON K .2 AND J .65 COORDINATE CONFUSION


I got to thinking about the Emil Shyster numbers game, thinking about it in the context of the Apollo 11 LAM 2 Flown Map’s “mysterious blue dot". As mentioned in a previous post, well prior to my encounter with the Apollo 11 Image Library web page;

http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/images11.html

a NASA sponsored web page maintained by Apollo Lunar Surface Journal mavens Eric Jones and Ken Glover, I had determined that given the Apollo 11 LAM 2 flown Map of Michael Collins featured small grid squares of a little less than 2 minutes of arc on each side(latitude 1.97 X longitude 1.95) and also given that “Tranquility Base” was at latitude J .65 / longitude 7.52, the officially determined post flight coordinates of Tranquility Base ( 00 41‘ 15” north and 23 26‘ 00” east) would be found at LAM 2 map latitude K .2 / longitude 5.549 .

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

As covered in previous posts, the reason for this anomaly, with two coordinate sets for one “Tranquility Base” had to do with the map’s being relabeled, its grid being shifted roughly 1.3 miles to the west and a bit to the north as well.

I had suggested given this intentional mislabeling/deception, that it may have been the case the unmanned Apollo 11 military package which landed on the moon 07/20//1969 may have been landed at K .2 and 5.6. This, given the fact that a mysterious and altogether unexplained blue dot could be found on the Apollo 11 LAM 2 flown map of Michael Collins. Indeed, the unexplained and mysterious dot is referenced in the Apollo 11 Image Library text by authors Jones and Glover. Again that fascinating quote/reference;


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


Most certainly, the mysterious blue dot is no accident as it marks 00 41’ 15” north and 23 26’ 00” east, the radian coordinates of “Tranquility Base” on the Apollo 11 flown map given its labeling and scaling. The dot at the very least references the reference frame shift itself. That is, by moving on a well marked accurate map grid site 00 41’ 15 “ north and 23 26’ 00” east from its rightful place at J .65 and longitude 7.52 to K .2 and longitude 5.6, one then has the LAM 2 map exactly as it appears in the history books, with 23 30’ 00 east at longitude 7.6 and 00 30’ 00” north at roughly latitude D .5 . So we see at the very least this blue dot served as a reference marker indicating the exact reference frame shift that was employed in the Apollo 11 Mission scam.

Thinking about this more, I thought to myself that my initial suggestion, that equipment was landed at K .2 / 5.6 under the cover of this appearing to be 00 41’ 15 “ north and 23 26’ 00 “ given the reference shift scam, though reasonable, might not have been what the fraudsters actually set out to do and ultimately achieved. Perhaps even more probable, devious and effective would be to land the unmanned equipment, the unmanned LM most likely, right at J .65 and longitude 7.52.

The rationale for this would be, first of all during the real-time “landing”, given the map set up and Shyster’s shenanigans, people may well have thought that Tranquility Base was at K .2 and longitude 5.6 . That after all is exactly how the map was labeled. So with that as a “dummy site”, activity could have gone on, unscrutinized at J .65 and longitude 7.52 . By unscrutinized, I mean unscrutinized by some of NASA's own key personal. People not in on the scam. People duped by all of this.

My best guess is that what was landed was/is a modified, military sensor equipped LM. Doesn’t have to be this, but makes the most sense. So that is parked there (J .65 and longitude 7.52) with its LRRR and all the other stuff it has, sensors and what not. Because the real-time "landing map" has K .2 and longitude 5.6 as 00 41‘ 15” north and 23 26‘ 00” east, the astronauts, though they are not on the moon, still are in a very real sense hidden with regard to where they are supposed to be there on the lunar surface. Additionally, once the real-time “landing event” is concluded, then the perps have a well placed military instrumented LM, replete with LRRR and God only knows what else at true coordinates 00 41’ 15” north and 23 26’ 00” east. Now if somebody takes a picture, they see what they are supposed to see, an innocent enough looking LM. But during the actual real-time simulated and very fake landing, the astronauts would not be “caught there” at J 0.65 / 7.52(or better said, not be caught , not being there where and when they are supposed to be), because the map’s grid had been shifted, and Tranquility Base was for that one day, and for that one day only, when the LM was on the lunar surface during the simulated mission, at K .2 /5.6

There are lots of possibilities. I like this scenario because it puts an instrumented LM right at the landing site. Photograph it, image it, and you see what you are supposed to see, the LM that Armstrong allegedly landed. But during the actual Apollo 11 Mission, at least per the LAM 2 map, Tranquility Base was not there, not there in the sense that 00 41’ 15” north and 23 26” 00” east would graph to K .2 and 5.6 given the fraudulent gridding scheme transiently employed for that one day.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah,

Your arrival on this Forum reminded me of "That Mitchell and Webb Look,"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I

I forget- did Patrick ever claim to be a brain surgeon, among his other talents?

It's been great to have your highly informed commentary and inside insights joined with those of the other knowledgeable posters here.
 
Last edited:
Jay: precisely! In that earlier post, I think I pointed out to the good "Doctor" that the launch abort scenario was a transient 20G event or some such. It had never been done with a manned capsule and there were very serious concerns about the event. In my own case, I'd be concerned that I'm now trying accelerate away from what would be the equivalent of a small tactical nuclear weapon as it broke up behind me. It's a last-ditch effort, similar to using the CAPS on a Cirrus aircraft.

The booster's telemetry was telling ground that everything was going the right direction. As we say in my CFI life, altitude and airspeed are your friends. That was not the time to bail out.
 
Last edited:
Yo, "doc", couple of things:

1) Wouldja, couldja answer my questions?
2) People have real names. Even if you believe that that Emil Schiesser was party to fraud (he wasn't), seeing your nickname for him is, at best, annoying. At worst, it may be saying some very bad things about you.
 
The major concern everybody had was if the lightning had damaged the CSM's heat shield. If that was damaged the astronaut would die on re-entry. This was discussed in NASA headquarters, the MOCR, and onboard the spacecraft. The general consensus was that if the heat shield was damaged they were gonna die anyway so they might as well head for the Moon.

To the same point, I seem to recall that there was great concern over the possibility that the pyros for deploying the recovery chutes had been triggered. It couldn't be verified by telemetry, so all bringing them back early would do is prove the problem one way or the other; there really was nothing to be gained by aborting the mission. It actually makes more sense to continue.
 
To the same point, I seem to recall that there was great concern over the possibility that the pyros for deploying the recovery chutes had been triggered. It couldn't be verified by telemetry, so all bringing them back early would do is prove the problem one way or the other; there really was nothing to be gained by aborting the mission. It actually makes more sense to continue.

Now that would have been an interesting abort discussion!

"We think the recovery chutes may have been disabled, resulting in a firey death upon reentry. If it's alright with you guys up there, we'd like to test that theory now."

"Actually, Houston, we took a vote, and it's 3-0 in favor of doing the mission first, and testing the firey death theory after we've been to the moon and back. Would you mind?"
 
Now that would have been an interesting abort discussion!

"We think the recovery chutes may have been disabled, resulting in a firey death upon reentry. If it's alright with you guys up there, we'd like to test that theory now."

"Actually, Houston, we took a vote, and it's 3-0 in favor of doing the mission first, and testing the firey death theory after we've been to the moon and back. Would you mind?"

After thinking about that for a second, and recalling Alan Bean's encounter with Sibrel and his film crew at Bean's studio, it would have been great if the crew had made him the spokesman in that situation.

And that got me to thinking about our OP's cherished notion of asking his pointed questions at a news conference. About one second after he asked Captain Bean about how the mission was faked because they didn't immediately abort, I suspect Walter Cronkite/Frank McGhee/Jules Bergman would all be saying, "We'll be back with a summary of Alan Bean's comments after this short break."
 
Embarrassing? You Betcha!

"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?

Well, embarrassing because next to the U.S. Men's 4 X 100 meter freestyle relay team beating the French at the Beijing 2008 Olympics, our claim of landing on the moon is our claim to the coolest thing we have ever done. Again, next to the relay race win, which of course was not hoaxed.

So then we'd have to fess up to it. Very very very hard to deal with publicly. We were supposed to go to the moon "in peace", and instead, we planted part of a weapons system there. I call that embarrassing, very embarrassing.

In addition SUSpilot, I suspect much of Apollo is still active. That is, we still must be using the moon as a platform for military operations in some capacity. That scares people, including me. If I have trouble dealing with it, the fear, the psychological ramifications, imagine what would go on for John Q. Public, if he only knew. The dude would flat out freak.

By the way, as far as I can see, nobody has shown me, demonstrated to me, that the Apollo 11 Flown Map of Michael Collins is not labeled with 23 30' 00" at LAM 2 Map longitude line 7.6. You guys are full of hot air. And a hot air balloon ain't gonna' take ya' to the moon my friend.

Check the map, see the mark there between longitude lines 7 and 8, roughly there at 7.6? It reads 23 30' 00". See that? It is roughly 4 radians west of where it should be and don't say you cannot see it SUSpilot. It is marked plain as day.

You guys are scrambling. I have more bombs for you too. If Neil is eavesdropping in on this thread, hope he has got a fresh Official Apollo 11 Astronaut Endorsed Depends strapped on. He is gonna' need it.
 
Last edited:
Check the map, see the mark there between longitude lines 7 and 8, roughly there at 7.6? It reads 23 30' 00". See that? It is roughly 4 radians west of where it should be and don't say you cannot see it SUSpilot. It is marked plain as day.

That's 4 degrees 17 minutes west, exactly where it should be according to the footnote.

Do you have problems reading the footnote? Do you want someone to help you with that?

Why do you keep insisting that degrees are radians?
You're obviously doing it to try to be annoying, but actually you just make yourself look like an uneducated fool.

Is you looking an uneducated fool somehow helping the presentation of your case?
I admit it's very entertaining, but I can't see how it helps you.

edit - Thinking about it, I suppose you may actually be an uneducated fool, it's something I hadn't seriously considered before. Congratulations.
 
Last edited:
Then why are you hanging around?

Welcome to "ignore mode," Patrick. I find your posts to be an annoying, repetitive waste of bits.

Then why are you hanging around?

Riddle me this ApolloGnomon, the man who is so indifferent to this all that he keeps showing up every day to have the thrilling experience of finding himself to be so very indifferent, why would NASA grid the Apollo 10 and Apollo 11 flown maps differently, especially given that the grid on the Apollo 10 map matches Maurice Glover's important USGS map from 1970? Why is that ApolloGnomon? Why is the Apollo 11 map gridded differently, with different coordinates mapping to every single key landmark when compared with the same cordinate/landmark pairings on the USGS and the Apollo 10 flown map?
 
Last edited:
That's it!

I've sussed Patrick's strategy, he's playing the long game.
This strategy is now known by the acronym LLAUF.

He's deliberately posting things that make him Look Like An Uneducated Fool (hence the acronym). Radians, poop, AU and K, the whole shebang.

People will gradually get bored of the unending wall of stupidity and stop watching the thread / put him on ignore / stop reading his actual posts.
Once enough people have done this he will post a well written and stunning diatribe, full of insight and well crafted maths.

He can then say he posted on JREF unopposed and no one had an answer.

He's going to lay that final stroke on us any day now... really... very soon.
 

...Emil Shyster...

Is there any chance of you behaving a little like a grown-up and cutting out your childish name-calling? You have been repeatedly asked by a few posters to desist, but you continue doing it. It makes you look like a fool.

...LAM 2 flown Map of Michael Collins featured small grid squares of a little less than 2 minutes of arc on each side(latitude 1.97 X longitude 1.95)...

Sigh! I already pointed out your error regarding this back in post No. 3987. Did I waste my time telling you something, as usual? Would you like me to repeat the real situation for you or will you go back and figure it out yourself? (Hint: You only need to read and comprehend your own material.)

...the radian coordinates of “Tranquility Base”...

Again, you have been repeatedly told that using radians is completely wrong but you again ignore the advice you are given. Are you really a fool?

...NASA's own key personal...

Why do you regularly write "personal" and "lightening" when you mean "personnel" and "lightning"? With your multiple degrees you should know better.

My best guess is that what was landed was/is a modified, military sensor equipped LM... makes the most sense.

And who or what landed this LM? If it was landed by robotics, are you sure it wouldn't have destroyed itself on the boulders in West Crater?



Again, Patrick1000 blunders on, repeating his mistakes and ignoring most of the advice we give him or the questions we ask. It is fairly clear that he ignores most of the posts after his last visit and usually only answers one or two that were written close to his next visit.
 
Last edited:
Where's my buddie nomuse?

I could hardly care any less whether you post or not Jay.

False. You specifically asked where I had gone. Not anyone else; just me.

Your input is irrelevant as Apollo is Kaput.

So you post a tedious wall of garbage in which you give us step-by-step instructions for reproducing your errors, calling me an others out by name. Then you try to tell the world that whether I respond to your claims is irrelevant. Which is it?

If Apollo is so obviously false, why do all the suitably educated people still believe in it? You still haven't explained this.

It's pretty obvious you're just playing games now.

And RAF, where's he?
 
Wasn't catastrophic then, is now.

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.


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.



Wasn't catastrophic then, is now.

I have been consistent in presenting my view SUSpilot as one in which I suspect I would support Apollo's military objectives, instrumenting the moon so the Ruskies wouldn't blow me up before I made it to college.

I just think it is counterproductive now, very counterproductive. The thing is so obviously fake, the astronauts look dumb as all get out, why don't they get those guys some acting lessons?, couldn't Ronald Reagan help 'em out with that? and so forth.

As mentioned many times before, telling children silly things about starlight, telling geologists silly things about where "the moon rocks" came from, pretending that this big historic event occurred when now it is obvious that it did not, this all hurts us very much.

If the rendezvous radar solution was so elegant SUSpilot, why did they only pretend(Reed of course, more likely than not, wasn't pretending) to solve for the landing coordinates by way of the rendezvous radar method, and then turn around and not use those very coordinates? This, from the Apollo 11 Simulated Mission Report, page 7-7;


"The coordinates used for ascent targeting were the best preflight estimate of landing site radius and the onboard-guidance estimate of latitude and longitude at touchdown (corrected for initial state vector errors from ground tracking). The estimated errors in targeting coordinates were a radius 1500 feet less than desired and a longitude 4400 feet to the west."

So there you have it SUSpilot, this is the most insanely convoluted story ever invented, and it was invented, never happened. Poor little H. David Reed goes to all of that trouble, and what do they do? Use a different source for the landing site coordinates in the simulated lunar launch solution. So much for elegance. Doesn't it just break your heart?

The Bobby Fischer of my youth is a hero to me. He got weird as an older person, but the early stuff was beyond magical. US chess champion at the age of 14! Just saying the sentence sends shivers down your spine, back up, and then down again and again and again. Now THAT!!!!! was how to kick the Ruskies rumps. SO BEAUTIFUL!!!!, mopping the floor with Spasky's commie head!
 
Last edited:
The Bobby Fischer of my youth is a hero to me. He got weird as an older person, but the early stuff was beyond magical. US chess champion at the age of 14! Just saying the sentence sends shivers down your spine, back up, and then down again and again and again. Now THAT!!!!! was how to kick the Ruskies rumps. SO BEAUTIFUL!!!!, mopping the floor with Spasky's commie head!


I wonder what Fischer would make of a chess player who kept referring to the Sillian opening, got rows and columns the wrong way round and couldn't remember which orientation the numbers were, called the knight "the horsey" , got the queen and king the wrong way round when setting up.
These are exactly equivalent to the errors you are making in your posts, the same sort of basic schoolboy errors.
Do you think Fischer would take that player seriously?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom