Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Jrrarglblarg]

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

I agree. That is a mission-critical systems maintenance material. Further, it has intrinsically dangerous characteristics that render it harmful to the user even when used correctly.

Frankly, I'm amazed the military doesn't train personnel how to operate it correctly.

 

[Patrick1000]

I am suggesting that he is not an 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

I am suggesting that he is not an astronaut. Not the best satire I admit, but such nonetheless. The point is Aldrin is other than whom he claims to be.

 

[Patrick1000]

Lots of evidence Greedo

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?

Lots of evidence Greedo. I like to focus on demonstrating inconsistencies in the official Apollo narrative.

 

[Patrick1000]

No I mean NASA, the NRO was established August 25 1960

Thats NRO not NASA.




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

No I mean NASA, the NRO was established August 25 1960. NASA was established July 29 1958.

Sure the NRO is military too, but NASA, military NASA, came well before the NRO.

 

[R.A.F.]

We should simply be discussing the facts. I believe every last claim of mine was well substantiated by facts...

You're belief is irrelevant...and your conclusions do not reflect reality.

 

[R.A.F.]

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

There is no evidence for what you say, so please do not post your "uneducated" opinions as if they were factual...you'll be "called" on it every time you try to do that.

 

[catsmate]

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

Atlas served less than five and a half years as a weapon, until mid '65; most were pad launched and none used storable fuel. It was obsolescent after the first Minuteman demonstrations in early 1961 and obsolete when that missile entered service about a year later.

 

[Patrick1000]

Your point is irrelevant

Atlas served less than five and a half years as a weapon, until mid '65; most were pad launched and none used storable fuel. It was obsolescent after the first Minuteman demonstrations in early 1961 and obsolete when that missile entered service about a year later.

Your point is irrelevant. What does that have to do with instrumenting the moon?

 

[Patrick1000]

There is plenty of evidence for it.

There is no evidence for what you say, so please do not post your "uneducated" opinions as if they were factual...you'll be "called" on it every time you try to do that.

There is plenty of evidence for it. Collins says his eyes dark accommodate simply by way of pupilary dilatation. If that is the case they would dark adapt within fractions of a second, and stars would be readily seen simply by darkening the Command module cabin for a moment.

 

[Patrick1000]

Called on what RAF? pupils dialate in fractions of a second.

There is no evidence for what you say, so please do not post your "uneducated" opinions as if they were factual...you'll be "called" on it every time you try to do that.

Called on what RAF? Pupils dilate and constrict in fractions of a second. This is how Collins claims his eyes dark/light adapted during the Apollo 11 Simulated Mission. As such, Collins would dark adapt essentially instantly, well within fractions of a second anyway. Armstrong and Aldrin too. As such, all three would see stars all the time in cislunar space, not to mention from the surface of the moon as well.

 

[JayUtah]

Lots of evidence Greedo. I like to focus on demonstrating inconsistencies in the official Apollo narrative.

The Apollo record is inconsistent only with your uninformed expectation. That does not establish much of a basis for an accurate judgment of authenticity.

Would you finally care to answer my question: Why do all the suitably informed people believe Apollo is real?

 

[R.A.F.]

I am suggesting that he is not an astronaut.

You have not given us any reason to care what your opinions are.


It's what happens when you make outrageous claims without evidence...and without having any familiarity whatsoever with the matter being discussed.

 

[JayUtah]

The point is Aldrin is other than whom he claims to be.

Keep in mind that most of us believe you are the same person who has spammed a number of forums under false identities, plying these same hoax claims. You don't really stand on the moral high ground on this point.

Aldrin's claims to be an astronaut are universally accepted by all except for a few hoax enthusiasts. This includes people of great knowledge, and people who worked very close to him and know the facts of his life. Colonel Aldrin's skill as a military pilot is a matter of objective record. The academic work of Doctor Aldrin, PhD, is also a matter of objective record. His flight record as an astronaut also includes a Gemini mission, unless you're prepared to argue that too was phony.

Ultimately all you have to offer against this wall of universally accepted support is your naked disbelief, and frankly your childish name-calling. Do you really expect to be taken seriously? All you can say is that he didn't behave as you would have had you been an astronaut. How is that valid?

 

[TjW]

No I mean NASA, the NRO was established August 25 1960. NASA was established July 29 1958.

Sure the NRO is military too, but NASA, military NASA, came well before the NRO.

NASA has never been military. NASA is able to borrow military pilots, as was its predecessor, NACA.

 

[R.A.F.]

I like to focus on demonstrating inconsistencies in the official Apollo narrative.

Like inconsistencies in the image record?...recently verified by the LRO orbiter?...or inconsistencies with the returned Lunar samples??

..oh, that's right, you won't discuss images or rocks...you "brush aside" those issues as if unimportant.

Why should anyone take you seriously, when you choose to ignore "inconvenient" facts??

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The point is Aldrin is other than whom he claims to be.

I'll give you a dollar to say that to his face.

 

[Patrick1000]

Losing a spaceship is inconsistant with the expectations of any American taxpayer.

The Apollo record is inconsistent only with your uninformed expectation. That does not establish much of a basis for an accurate judgment of authenticity.

Would you finally care to answer my question: Why do all the suitably informed people believe Apollo is real?

Losing a spaceship is inconsistant with the expectations of any American taxpayer.

To answer you question, I presume because they know nothing about diarrhea( and the bogus Frank Borman affair), and they know nothing yet of the fraudulent LAM-2 Apollo 11 Simulated Mission Flown Map of Michael Collins, nor about the other coordinate confusion nonsense that I have documented so well. Or, perhaps, as it turns out, we'll all decide they are not so suitably infoprmed after all. time will tell. apollo is fraudulent, that much we do know for sure.

 

[Patrick1000]

What do I have to offer?

Keep in mind that most of us believe you are the same person who has spammed a number of forums under false identities, plying these same hoax claims. You don't really stand on the moral high ground on this point.

Aldrin's claims to be an astronaut are universally accepted by all except for a few hoax enthusiasts. This includes people of great knowledge, and people who worked very close to him and know the facts of his life. Colonel Aldrin's skill as a military pilot is a matter of objective record. The academic work of Doctor Aldrin, PhD, is also a matter of objective record. His flight record as an astronaut also includes a Gemini mission, unless you're prepared to argue that too was phony.

Ultimately all you have to offer against this wall of universally accepted support is your naked disbelief, and frankly your childish name-calling. Do you really expect to be taken seriously? All you can say is that he didn't behave as you would have had you been an astronaut. How is that valid?

What do I have to offer? "The pretend Columbia" was not even remotely sanitary, we know that for a fact from anayzing the fake Borman illness. We know Michael Collins' Apollo 11 simulated Missionn Flown LAM-2 map was intentionally gridded incorrectly to "hide" the Eagle's non-whereabouts. Given these facts, well elaborated upon earlier, we know Aldrin's mission was quite simply phony.

 

[Patrick1000]

The LRRRs definitely had military applications

NASA has never been military. NASA is able to borrow military pilots, as was its predecessor, NACA.

The LRRRs definitely had military applications. The reflectors were used at the very least in the measuring of ocean distances and the study of the earth moon system and gravity in general.

As such, the LRRRs played a direct role in American ICBM targeting calculations. With the LRRR data, the calculations improved.

Right there, Apollo is not "peaceful".

 

[Patrick1000]

I believe I mentioned that I thought the military probes Apollo landed were the LMs

Like inconsistencies in the image record?...recently verified by the LRO orbiter?...or inconsistencies with the returned Lunar samples??

..oh, that's right, you won't discuss images or rocks...you "brush aside" those issues as if unimportant.

Why should anyone take you seriously, when you choose to ignore "inconvenient" facts??

I believe I mentioned that I thought the military probes Apollo landed were the LMs themselves more likely than not. So imaging them would turn up only our "peaceful" expectations.