Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[CptColumbo]

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...

I don't remember which book I read this in, but IIRC Eisenhower also wanted the first satellite to be launched by an American designed rocket, rather than Von Braun and the other German's rocket.

 

[twinstead]

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.

Even I remember earlier in this thread where it was explained to you that putting instruments on the moon to target the Russians was an idiotic idea, one of them being the Russians could use them against us.

Do you even bother reading the responses to your posts? Do you even realize you're debating people who have forgotten more about the Apollo missions, and space travel in general than you will ever know?

It's what makes reading your posts both humorous and tedious at the same time.

 

[R.A.F.]

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

I think we can "count" that as not at all.

 

[R.A.F.]

By weapons, I mean everything. In my book, reconnaissance satellites are weapons. The Apollo LRRR is a weapon.

See, that's YOUR problem...If we were to allow you to redefine words, then anything becomes possible...think is...we are not going to allow that.

It was used to measure the distance across the oceans....

Nope...you can continue repeating your errors, but they are remain errors. Therefore, repetition is pointless.

 

[R.A.F.]

This is not about manned landings after all...

Huh?? Of course this is about manned landings...that you want to deny those manned landings, without evidence, is the reason people are telling you how wrong you are.

 

[R.A.F.]

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

...and our "point" is that all you do is talk about it...when will you be presenting evidence??

 

[R.A.F.]

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

Your "suggestion" is not validated by any evidence...

 

[R.A.F.]

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...

...and you were doing so well.

The "phony lightning" is documented...as was Bean's "concern". (if you continue to refer to astronauts in derogatory terms, people might not believe you are looking at this "question", dispassionately.

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.

Less name calling please...and yes he did "save the day".

He makes a decision that is not a real decision. He does the same thing by the way with phony Apollo 13.

A double liar??? Oh no...

Most everyone is duped, very sad I must say.

Perfect example of "because I say it, it is real".

...this is the essence of this type of fraud. This is how one makes it "work".

"This type of fraud"???? assumes as factual, your ignorant ramblings.


You really need to learn the difference.

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!!!!!"

So they designed a LM that was fully operational, yet didn't use it?

That's irrational.

 

[R.A.F.]

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.

You "forgot" finding the distance across the ocean.

 

[PetersCreek]

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.

Following your assertion to its absurd end, this is also a weapon:

NSN: 8540-01-554-7678
GSA Contract No.: GS-14F-0039L
Contractor: WECsys LLC​

It (or a suitable substitute available on the GS Schedule or through COTS) is used daily by all personnel assigned to ICBM operations, maintenance, and other support activities. Without it, they'd have a real mess on their hands.

If you're going to use a word like "weapon" you should probably stick to the commonly accepted definition.

 

[JayUtah]

Apollo is about landing military equipment on the moon.

Direct proof, please? That's affirmative proof, not indirect proof. All you've ever provided for any of these claims is indirect: "They certainly weren't doing what they said, so they must have been doing something else."

Sure the equipment is unmanned...
to LM design wizzard, the late great aerospace engineer, Thomas Kelly, the man who designed the LM.

You mean the man who designed the LM to be flown by two very experienced human pilots, and who asserted to his dying day that he had done just that.

You seem to say he was not part of the alleged fraud. Yet if he was honest in what he was doing, then how would the real LM land without a human crew?

You can spot a few of the bad space apples...

Calling them "bad space apples" doesn't change your argument. The substance of your argument is to measure their behavior against your expectations and then cry fraud when your expectations are violated.

But since your expectations are poorly informed, none of that matters. It boils down to you simply deciding that it was all fake, and then trying to backfill a pseudo-intellectual argument in favor of that.

The classic example of a bad space apple is Steve Bales, the guy that says "GO!" for the 1202 program alarm...

Bales is very approachable. I can put you in contact with him, if you'd like, so that you can accuse him to his face of being a liar. Are you willing to present your theory to him for his comment?

How do you reconcile your claims regarding Bales with context in which Bales initially makes the wrong decision during training? You seem to think Bales made the "wrong" decision.

I'm pretty much as good an expert as you're going to find on this particular part of the mission. In fact it was my inaugural post in this thread. So if you'd like to defend your expectations at the technical level, by all means state your case for this being the wrong decision. And no, I don't consider you an expert on space engineering or operations, so your argument of "Because I said so," is summarily rejected.

[Phillips] 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.

Asked and answered. You have demonstrated no expertise or qualification in medicine or spaceflight operations. Hence your expectations here do not constitute an unquestionable standard. You've tried for months to argue this point, and you've been shot down every time. Your expectations are uninformed and therefore worthless as a standard of authenticity.

No abort necessary. So John Aaron is a bad space apple. He makes a decision that is not a real decision.

Asked and answered. You have demonstrated no expertise in space flight management, and fairly admitted that you have none. Hence your expectations are not a valid standard by which to evaluate the actions of others who do have demonstrable expertise.

So you are talking here about a handful of people Greedo, relatively speaking. Most everyone is duped...

No. You still labor under the delusion that hundreds of thousands of highly skilled engineers -- who came from illustrious projects and went on to additional illustrious projects -- simply don't know their jobs. You aren't an engineer, so your assessment of what levels of awareness and information need to prevail in that industry are worthless as a standard of authenticity.

You have the audacity to say that Tom Kelly simply didn't know what he was really building, but you have absolutely no demonstrable education or expertise in the field in which he worked. Do you really expect that argument to be convincing?

 

[JayUtah]

Once the moon was so instrumented, this hardware was utilitzed in various ways

Please describe this hardware in as much detail as you can. I mean such things as what specifically these instruments were, what they were designed to detect, who built them, who operated them?

I want to know if you have any actual knowledge of any of this hardware, or whether it's entirely speculation.

...the ultimate outcome being, better ICBM targeting for us

How do instrument packages on the lunar surface provide better ICBM targeting that other equipment on Earth's surface, in Earth's atmosphere, or in Earth orbit?

Please be specific. Remember, I'm an engineer and I love technical detail.

...and better detection of Russian activities as well.

How do instrument packages on the lunar surface provide better surveillance of Soviet activity than methods deployed on Earth's surface, in the atmosphere, or in Earth orbit? And again, please be specific.

You're by no means the first to suggest space-based surveillance and control. Most other proponents, however, drop the idea once they see how impractical it is. I wonder why you still think that putting those things on the lunar surface is cost effective. Or effective at all.

 

[Patrick1000]

Doesn't have to be the LM

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

Doesn't have to be the LM. But would seem to work the best all considered.

 

[Patrick1000]

We should simply be discussing the facts

You want to talk credentials? You have been making a lot of academic claims with zero evidence...Let's see some verifiable evidence of your claims first. I'm pretty sure I've said more than enough in my previous post to give you a clue that you may be in over your head when it comes to optics & lasers (in fact observant readers may already be aware of where I'm at)

We should simply be discussing the facts. I believe every last claim of mine was well substantiated by facts, that is authoritative references to the primary papers of Alley on the LRRR work and Charles Townes book on his own great work.

 

[Patrick1000]

Actually, if our eyes worked the way Collins claims, they'd have seen lots of stars

Hooray for self-debunking posts.
There you go LGR, even the Pat admits it.

Kight to Queen 7*

You should ask U C Berkley for your money back. Imagine them teaching you maths but not including the difference between degrees and radians, that's really basic stuff. Really...basic.

Unless that Berkley thing was just a lie of course.


*(Even funnier because it's a direct quote from the Pat)

Actually, if our eyes worked the way Collins claims, they'd have seen lots of stars drewid.

 

[drewid]

At any moment the guy could turn into a zombie, and then what!!!!?????? but looks like Mike, Neil and the big sweaty headed, glassy eyed, heavy breathing, naked zombie disagree with you.

The Ph.D Zombie couldn't cipher his way across town,

I don't see how the Boy Scout, Ph.D Zombie and Cislunar Bafoon would together have lasted 5 minutes against me were we to have "debated" .

the Big Headed Sweaty Glassy Eyed Ph.D Zombie with a metal slide rule. The Zombie breathing quite heavily the whole time.

one to pretend to "fly" the simulator, and one to really turn into a Ph.D Zombie.

So must be the case that Shyster did use the map. To be honest now, I don't think Shyster would understand that manual of NASA's, the Guidance/Flight Mechanics/Trajectory Manual, very complicated stuff. Easier just to have Neil and the Glassy Eyed Ph.D Zombie look out of the window there at Space Mountain in Orlando

Sally Ride and the Glassy Eyed Ph.D Zombie must play spin the bottle Ruskie roulette, one spin sudden death.

If it was standard operating proceedure Kiwi9, then why doesn't Aldrin the Ph.D Zombie know about it? He has a Ph.D after all in this very specific area of JIVE!!!!!

From the book MAGNIFICENT DESOLATION, The Glassy Eyed Ph.D Zombie himself, reporting from cislunar space

The Ph.D Zombie is a total Dufus. No way this guy is a real astronaut.

Are you suggesting that Aldrin had ingested tetrodotoxin prior to the mission? I hope you have a citation for that? Please remember that Dr Ward's work is non-proven, and is considered very shaky by serious scientists

 

[TjW]

Following your assertion to its absurd end, this is also a weapon:

NSN: 8540-01-554-7678
GSA Contract No.: GS-14F-0039L
Contractor: WECsys LLC​

It (or a suitable substitute available on the GS Schedule or through COTS) is used daily by all personnel assigned to ICBM operations, maintenance, and other support activities. Without it, they'd have a real mess on their hands.

If you're going to use a word like "weapon" you should probably stick to the commonly accepted definition.

How can you say that's not a weapon? Given enough, you could wipe out the entire Russian population!

 

[Patrick1000]

Essentially everything landed on the moon is military

Thats NRO not NASA.




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

Essentially everything landed on the moon is military.

 

[Garrison]

Doesn't have to be the LM. But would seem to work the best all considered.

The only thing the LM was designed for was landing two people on the moon's surface and bringing them back to lunar orbit for rendezvous with the CSM. You appear to be proposing a radically different vehicle with radically different abilities. Do you have statements from engineers who worked on this alternate craft? Photos? Blueprints? Anything barring your own opinion, discredited as it is by endless mistakes and misrepresentation's?

 

[JayUtah]

We should simply be discussing the facts.

We are doing just that. However, your pattern of argumentation has been to compare the reported facts to your personal expectations. On those grounds alone, you declare the facts to be suspicious or in error.

Your expectations could potentially serve as a reasonable standard if you could demonstrate that they were informed by anything more substantial than your personal belief, especially since many of the disciplines from which the facts arise are considered far outside general knowledge.

You understood this previously, because at one point you claimed credentials when discussing Frank Borman. Those credentials were later determined to be fabricated. You further suggested we consult a cartographer regarding your map claims. You clearly recognize that demonstrable expertise has legitimate value in discussions such as these. Then when the cartographer showed up and disputed your claim, you railed up him.

The problem is not with the facts. The legitimate experts all have access to the same facts as you. And right down to the individual, they all believe Apollo was real. The problem is with your level of understanding. You seem to concede that a certain level of understanding is required to put these facts into an appropriate context and to interpret their meaning -- and thereby develop defensible expectations. Yet you don't seem to be able to demonstrate that appropriate level of understanding, and you bristle when we ask you about it, and about why the experts unanimously disagree with you.

Clearly the problem is with your own expectations. They simply don't appear to be properly informed. Your argument is not an objective appeal to the facts. It is a misinterpretation of them.