• 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.
Sure I am a researcher Jay and one of the very best.

JayUtah said:
I don't think I got so much wrong.

Hogwash. It would be easier to determine what, if anything, you may have gotten right. In every topic you bring up, you demonstrate a stunning level of incompetence, framed by an equally amusing level of arrogance. You seem to think you can gloss over amateur mistakes and still style yourself as the only person who is getting it right.

From "Julian" coordinates to the ignorance of plainly published coordinate conversion factors, from hand-held sextants to precision guidance requirements, you make not only an amount of mistakes that would embarrass even the poorest student, but the type of elementary mistake that makes your claims to authority and expertise only all the more entertaining.

I am the first Apollo researcher...

You're not a researcher, you're a warrior. Hence your obsession with being recognized, your "ruthless" self-characterization, your longing to get your name in the history books, and your frequent references to "taking down" NASA and the legitimate scholars who study the history of space exploration. Researchers seek truth; warriors seek glory.

I ask this question at least once a day, and you explicitly keep ignoring it: why do you think everyone who is suitably educated believes Apollo was real?
Click to expand...

Sure I am a researcher Jay, and one of Apollo History's very very best already.

Check it out. I have been at this 5 months, and am already parsecs beyond the likes of Sibrel, not to mention the Apollo faithful who gallantly and with the greatest futility imaginable, post against me here.
 
Last edited:
Patrick1000 said:
The Apollo 11 map is a fake Jay, in that it is intentionally mislabeled to intentionally mislead, and you know it.
Click to expand...

Nope, sorry, you don't get to put words in my mouth. And I have no intention of wallowing with you in the contrived complexity and supposition of your claims. You've amply demonstrated that when you are confronted with a thorough refutation, you simply ignore it. So no refutation shall you have.

Instead I'll ask the same question again that I've been asking all week, which you've cowed away from every time: Why is it that suitably educated people believe Apollo is real?

Can you reconcile your fantasy world with the real world?
 
I didn't make the blue dot though, did I now Jay?

JayUtah said:
Irrelevant. You still made it, and it's still an elementary mistake. Which still undermines your claim to be the only one clever, intelligent, and astute enough to see the Apollo hoax. Admitted or not, basic errors make it more likely that the explanation for your "discrepancies" is that you don't know what you're talking about.

Which brings me back to the same question you've ignored a dozen times: Why do you think everyone who is suitably educated believes that Apollo is real?
Click to expand...

I didn't make the blue dot though, did I now Jay? Who do you think made that? Shyster?
 
Last edited:
Patrick1000 said:
Sure I am a researcher Jay, and one of Apollo History's very very best already.

Check it out. I have been at this 5 months, and am already parsecs beyond the likes of Sibrel, not to mention the Apollo faithful who gallantly and with the greatest futility imaginable, post against me here.
Click to expand...

Oh dear, D-K syndrome in spades.

Is the parsec measured in radians too?
 
Patrick1000 said:
I remember that game(those games)!. Very cool. Remember the guy with the missing teeth!?!? Coach Herb Brooks! Fantastic it was.

I did not see the relay race in Beijing, but did see many of the swimming events.

The coolest thing I ever saw live was the Phelps/Cavic 100 meter fly race in Rome 2009. INSANE! I THOUGHT I WOULD DIE WAITING FOR THE GUN TO GO OFF.

Still, Jason Lezak's last 100 in the race against the frogs in Beijing was without question in my mind, the best thing we ever pulled off.

I love those guys.
Click to expand...

"Remember the guy with the missing teeth!?"? Sure, that's how most Americans remember Herb Brooks.

"Fantastic it was!" and "...race against the frogs..."? What part of American idiomatic English are those from?

I'm bringing these up to illustrate just how credible you really are. You claim to be from the states and about 54 years old, but I'm finding that less and less believable.

I'm sorry you don't want or can't bring yourself to believe that we backward Americans could achieve during the sixties.

I am also amazed at the size of your ego. A really good researcher would never say they were good, one of the very best. Good researchers are actually concerned that they've made an error in their findings. And when they have and it's been pointed out, good researchers acknowledge their own error.

Along with you reminding me of someone deluding himself as to the real truth, you also remind me of a bad litigation attorney - the kind that turns green lights red in the minds of a jury.

ETA: catastopic how? Embarrassing how? We've taken defense projects out of the black in the past and it's never been a big deal. And I'm currently sitting at what is probably within the CEP of at least one Russian warhead, and I'm pretty calm, as is everyone else around me. My point is, even if by some cosmic shift, you're right (if that happens, I'm going to start breeding unicorns), no one would really care all that much.
 
Last edited:
SUSpilot said:
I am also amazed at the size of your ego. A really good researcher would never say they were good, one of the very best. Good researchers are actually concerned that they've made an error in their findings. And when they have and it's been pointed out, good researchers acknowledge their own error.
Click to expand...

Classic D-k
Let's wheel it out for our hero, just in case he can't quite manage to research it himself.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to recognize their mistakes.[1] The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their own abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority.
Click to expand...
 
Patrick1000 said:
By the way, I clearly admitted my mistake about the Julian dating issue.
Click to expand...

You didn't, you grudgingly mentioned it in passing. It was an absolute howler of a mistake! You went down a cul-de-sac with it, crowing about your 'genius', then backpeddled like a circus clown with St Vitus dance.:D

Now can you grudgingly mention in passing that you made another big howler with the I and O on the maps?

And what about those radians, ready to grudgingly mention that one in passing?

How does one reconcile a mathS degree with that basic error? Or indeed the use of plural from an American in describing how you got your 'degree' in maths from Berkley?

What about the stunning vertical (radial) and lateral (crossrange) error?

The blue dot. Almost certainly somebody has misapplied the correction to the map instead of the lattitude and longitude. It's not just you who makes mistakes you know.:rolleyes:
 
Patrick1000 said:
I am the first Apollo researcher...
Click to expand...

You are not a "researcher". If you were, you wouldn't get so many basic facts completely wrong.

No, you are an Apollo denier, who arrogantly "flaunts" his ignorance, in the face of overwhelming evidence.


Please try to remember that when posting, because we know what you are.
 
Patrick1000 said:
Sure I am a researcher Jay, and one of Apollo History's very very best already.
Click to expand...

If you are the "very very best", then why can't you see the equipment so clearly visible in the LRO images, that was left on the Moon.

Oh, that's right, because you are an Apollo denier, not an Apollo "researcher".
 
Patrick1000 said:
Say it's not fake as we all know it really to be now...
Click to expand...

What mental defect do you have that prevents you from understanding that NO ONE HERE AGREES WITH YOU.

Do you really think those lurking are so stupid that they don't see what you are doing?


I'd tell you for the upteenth time to stop it, but you just don't seem to learn from your mistakes until it has been POUNDED INTO YOU a few dozen times or more.

Prove me wrong and admit the OBVIOUS that no one here agrees with you...
 
Last edited:
patrick1000 said:
i don't think i got so much wrong right. I am the first apollo researcher hoax crackpot to point out the mysterious blue dot on the apollo 11 flown map corresponds precisely to tranquility base's position( 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east) given the labeling and scaling with 23 30' 00" at longitude line 7.6 . not bad poor even for a rank amateur, wouldn't ya' say drewid?
Click to expand...

ftfy
 
Patrick1000 said:
By the way, I clearly admitted my mistake about the Julian dating issue. I went and listened to the relevant Collins/CapCom conversation myself and indeed heard them both say "Juliet". I admitted my initial interpretation was in error. I have moved on and I learned from my mistake. I read NASA's entire coordinate manual. It was helpful, and I learned about the LAM 2 map as well. That map lead me to the mysterious blue dot about which I now ask you.
Click to expand...

You've never admitted that you got Radial mixed up with lateral
You've never admitted that residual errors are not always real velocity
You've never admitted that the J line isn't "bang on 40 degrees" )Mind you I didn't pick you up on that one yet so maybe you didn't realise).
You've never admitted that I and O are missing as labels for a good reason
You've also not admitted that Radians are not the correct name for the degree-minute-second format.
You probably won't admit that UC Berkley doesn't do a major in maths, therefore you can't have majored in maths there. (It does however do a major in math, which is what any American, especially anyone with education, would call it.

Wrong, wrong,wrong,wrong,wrong,wrong,wrong,wrong,wrong,wrong,wrong,wrong,wrong.




The thing about a researcher is that they take pains to understand the material they are reading. They don't just skim it for what they tink is some relevant term then just latch onto it without understanding. They especially don't go charging off down the dead-ends you've run into without actually checking things.

You're as much a researcher as you are a scientist.

Not at all.


That's why you have no credibility
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom