Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[geni]

NASA was and has always been a civilian agency. There was never any weapon development or placement by them,

I think it's generally assumed that things like the X-48 and X-54 are projects of primarily interest to the military.

that is the purview of the Air Force.

Mix of agencies. Airforce. Navy. NRO.

 

[Patrick1000]

By weapons, I mean everything. In my book, reconnaissance satellites are weapons

Total weapons currently in space consist of one handgun in a russian survival kit. So weaponisation not so much.

The kind of heavy lift rockets that Apollo used have limited millitary applications.

That NASA is involved with millitary technology isn't secret. Just look at the X-planes. It's noticable that stuff the US really wants to keep secret doesn't involve NASA.

Oh and project mercury came from NACA.

By weapons, I mean everything. In my book, reconnaissance satellites are weapons. The Apollo LRRR is a weapon. It was used to measure the distance across the oceans, used to study gravity. These applications were then employed in ICBM targeting.

The moon was/is used in many other ways for "military reasons".

 

[Patrick1000]

My point is Apollo is Military

Total weapons currently in space consist of one handgun in a russian survival kit. So weaponisation not so much.

The kind of heavy lift rockets that Apollo used have limited millitary applications.

That NASA is involved with millitary technology isn't secret. Just look at the X-planes. It's noticable that stuff the US really wants to keep secret doesn't involve NASA.

Oh and project mercury came from NACA.

My point is Apollo is Military, from the ground up. It is the intentional instrumentation of the moon for military purposes.

 

[Patrick1000]

I would suggest the Saturn V lifted an unmanned LM to the moon for military reasons

Total weapons currently in space consist of one handgun in a russian survival kit. So weaponisation not so much.

The kind of heavy lift rockets that Apollo used have limited millitary applications.

That NASA is involved with millitary technology isn't secret. Just look at the X-planes. It's noticable that stuff the US really wants to keep secret doesn't involve NASA.

Oh and project mercury came from NACA.

I would suggest the Apollo Saturn Vs lifted a unmanned LMs to the moon for military reasons alone.

 

[Patrick1000]

Sputnik had plenty to do with a functional ICBM

So much wrong...where to begin
1.)Project Vanguard was severely underfunded under Eisenhower, which is why Sputnik gets off the ground first...In fact, NRL used the Viking series of rockets (which were not Ballistic missiles, unlike the Redstone) In short, for a military op, they tried to do too much with next to zero funding...That doesn't sound like a military project to me, esp. when you consider what they were dumping into ICBM development at the time
2.)Sputnik had nothing to do with a functional ICBM, it was for scientific purposes & re-entered after like 3 months...a pretty short term project...
NASA was and has always been a civilian agency. There was never any weapon development or placement by them, that is the purview of the Air Force. Once again, lots of accusations, no hard evidence on your part...

Sputnik had plenty to do with a functional ICBM. If the Ruskies could toss a satellite over our head, they could drop one, a big fat one, in the White House Rose Garden(figuratively speaking of course, would not have been that accurate). Sure it meant a functional ICBM. It was more than an implied threat sending that thing our way. BEEP BEEP BEEP. Oh MY!!!!!

 

[Greedo]

Well we know for a fact Apollo was fraudulent. What the heck else where they doing with those big Saturn Vs, playing tiddlywinks????

While I should be asking whether you are bloody kidding me, I am going to ask you if you even have a shred of evidence for that ludicrous claim.
Also, how did NASA keep all those thousands involved in the project silent?

 

[geni]

By weapons, I mean everything. In my book, reconnaissance satellites are weapons.

Thats NRO not NASA.

The moon was/is used in many other ways for "military reasons".

At the present time there are no active man made artificats on the moon of any type millitary or otherwise.

 

[geni]

My point is Apollo is Military, from the ground up.

Not really. Background is Military of course. Who else knew about rockets but there is a lot of stuff there that makes no sense in a millitary context.

It is the intentional instrumentation of the moon for military purposes.

Moon is too far away to make a worthwhile observing position.

 

[Ravenwood]

By weapons, I mean everything. In my book, reconnaissance satellites are weapons. The Apollo LRRR is a weapon. It was used to measure the distance across the oceans, used to study gravity. These applications were then employed in ICBM targeting.

The moon was/is used in many other ways for "military reasons".

Then I suggest you find a better book, in this reality the LRRR is not a weapon system or a weapon. Your understanding of weapon systems and the Apollo program are as non existent as your imaginary medical degrees or whatever qualifications you are imagining this week. You realize that by your misguided logic, my iPad is a weapons system, right?

 

[geni]

I would suggest the Apollo Saturn Vs lifted a unmanned LMs to the moon for military reasons alone.

The LM makes no sense from a millitary perspective. It provides short term life support for lunar operations. Too small too limited and too vulnerable.

 

[Patrick1000]

Essentially everybody thinks the thing is real

While I should be asking whether you are bloody kidding me, I am going to ask you if you even have a shred of evidence for that ludicrous claim.
Also, how did NASA keep all those thousands involved in the project silent?

Essentially everybody thinks the thing is real Greedo, because for the most part, it is real. Apollo is about landing military equipment on the moon. Sure the equipment is unmanned, but apart from that, Apollo is indeed Apollo. Essentially all of those people working on the project buy in, as they should. They are really doing the job they believe themselves to be doing, from FIDO H. David Reed, to LM design wizzard, the late great aerospace engineer, Thomas Kelly, the man who designed the LM.

You can spot a few of the bad space apples at places I refer to as "phony decision points". Places where the Apollo narrative seems to reach a true point of "this way or that". Because it is script, it can only go "that way". It is not/was not, a true decision point as it turns out. So the person responsible for making the decision there is a bad space apple, in on the fraud.

The classic example of a bad space apple is Steve Bales, the guy that says "GO!" for the 1202 program alarm on the Apollo 11/Eagle lunar descent. As they are gonna' land no matter what, the whole thing being scripted, Bales and/or his superior/Jack Garman, they are in on the fix.

Emil Schiesser, the trajectory specialist and mathematician, he is in on it. I say that because he is privy to so much trajectiory fraud. Matter of fact, he probably created it. For that reason, I call him Shyster.

Apollo Program Director Samuel Phillips is in on this, the fraud. One can see such to be the case as he was the one who made the "phony decision" to continue with the apollo 8 mission when Frank Borman had the fake bout of diarrhea in space. As Phillips decision is not a real decision, we see he is a bad space apple and a fraud insider.

When Apollo 12 gets hit by phony lightening and Alan Bean has a spaz attack telling everyone this is out and that is out and so forth and so on, John Aaron, the environmental/electrical systems specialist, saves the day, knows exactly what to do. No abort necessary. So John Aaron is a bad space apple. He makes a decision that is not a real decision. He does the same thing by the way with phony Apollo 13.

So you are talking here about a handful of people Greedo, relatively speaking. Most everyone is duped, very sad I must say.

By the way Greedo, this is the essence of this type of fraud. This is how one makes it "work". High level people like Thomas Kelly, fully believing it is all real. "OF COURSE THE THING IS REAL", says Kelly, "I DESIGNED THE LM MYSELF!!!!!"

 

[Ravenwood]

Sputnik had plenty to do with a functional ICBM. If the Ruskies could toss a satellite over our head, they could drop one, a big fat one, in the White House Rose Garden(figuratively speaking of course, would not have been that accurate). Sure it meant a functional ICBM. It was more than an implied threat sending that thing our way. BEEP BEEP BEEP. Oh MY!!!!!

You really have no idea of how Sputnik was designed, do you? it contained the bare minimum of equipment and the radio transmitter so that they could get it launched before project Vanguard. It had no guidance, no control systems, it was launched & tracked & burned up on re-entry. It had nothing to do with ICBMs, Heck, the V series of rockets at Peenamunde had more in common with ICBMs than Sputnik

 

[Greedo]

...

Congratulations, this landed you a leading position on my ignore list!

I'll let the others explain to you how silly the thought of transporting military equipment (for whatever reason) onto the moon, especially with the Apollo LM.


Hint:


You're wrong

 

[Patrick1000]

Well we know they were busy doing something.

Congratulations, this landed you a leading position on my ignore list!

I'll let the others explain to you how silly the thought of transporting military equipment (for whatever reason) onto the moon, especially with the Apollo LM.


Hint:


You're wrong

Well we know they were busy doing something, and since the astronauts were not there at Tranquility Base, and since they had a functional LM they paid a zillion dollars for, and since the LM could carry out any instrumentation function they had devised, I think it is safe to assume they utilized the LM in their silly and oh so nefarious military games.

Makes perfect sense to me. If you need to plant a LRRR on the moon, why risk an astronaut's life? This is not about manned landings after all, the goals are altogether different.

 

[Garrison]

Is there any point in noting that the Soviet and US liquid fuelled rockets while great for space launches were night on useless as ICBMs? They couldn't be kept on standby fuelled up hence the shift to solid rocket for military applications. Put it another way the Saturn V was the exact opposite of what the military wanted for warhead delivery.

 

[Garrison]

"Lost Bird" proved Apollo fraudulent by way of revealing the "coordinate confusion scam", astronaut star phobia/laser fright, and the Frank Borman bogus diarrhea episode.

This thread promises to boldly move beyond proving Apollo's fraudulence. In this thread, I shall demonstrate NASA's occult militarism, its military function under civilian guise, and shall fully elucidate what it was they were up to in instrumenting the moon. It sure wasn't about planting seismometers now was it?

Yes indeed, the "Kennedy Knew All Along Thread" promises to be the biggest Apollo buster of all time. And my making good on that promise shall provide for the most interesting and in a sense fun, Apollo Hoax Exploration Ride of all time.

And an endless supply of stundies as you reveal you know less about history than you do cartography, medicine, and navigation.

 

[Patrick1000]

We are talking 1957, 1958 for openers. Atlas was liquid fueled.

Is there any point in noting that the Soviet and US liquid fuelled rockets while great for space launches were night on useless as ICBMs? They couldn't be kept on standby fuelled up hence the shift to solid rocket for military applications. Put it another way the Saturn V was the exact opposite of what the military wanted for warhead delivery.

We are talking 1957, 1958 for openers. Atlas, the first American ICBM, was liquid fueled. Solid fueled ICBMs were to come later.

The Saturn V/Apollo Rocket, was very much NOT an ICBM. The Saturn V was built to launch large hardware packages for the moon. Once the moon was so instrumented, this hardware was utilitzed in various ways, the ultimate outcome being, better ICBM targeting for us, and better detection of Russian activities as well.

 

[Cuddles]

Threads merged. Do not start new threads to try and avoid the moderation on this one.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[Garrison]

We are talking 1957, 1958 for openers. Atlas was liquid fueled.

The Saturn V was very much NOT an ICBM. The Saturn V was built to launch large hardware packages for the moon. Once the moon was so instrumented, this hardware was utilitzed in various ways, the ultimate outcome being, better ICBM targeting for us, and better detection of Russian activities as well.

And just as soon as you provide any evidence for the existence of such packages people here might stop laughing at you.
And I will say this again, the moon is a lousy observation platform, satellites beat it hands down.

 

[Patrick1000]

January 1958 Krushchev offered no Russian ICBMs if we would stop nuclear tests

You really have no idea of how Sputnik was designed, do you? it contained the bare minimum of equipment and the radio transmitter so that they could get it launched before project Vanguard. It had no guidance, no control systems, it was launched & tracked & burned up on re-entry. It had nothing to do with ICBMs, Heck, the V series of rockets at Peenamunde had more in common with ICBMs than Sputnik

January 1958 Krushchev offered no Russian ICBMs if we would stop nuclear tests. they had a delivery system, we did not. Simple as that. The Ruskies were ahead. A functional Atlas was a ways off.