Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[SUSpilot]

I have received plenty of positive feedback regarding my work, research, especially as regards the coordinate confusion issue and the medical issues. Granted, seldom if ever is anything posted publicly in this forum in my support, but then again, that is the whole point in my posting here, taking you and the others on directly in this most hostile environment. My work grows and stands as an inspiration to others to do likewise. We are not afraid Jay, with all due respect. We know this Apollo thing is ridiculous, bogus, a charade.

Would you mind providing a link or other evidence is such support? I tried Googling "Patrick1000 Apollo Hoax" and couldn't find anything relavent that didn't circle back here. There was one German body building site with a "Patrick1000", but I doubt that was you and it was aout steroids, anyway. Perhaps the support you're receiving is for another nom de plume?

Look, when someone who couldn't hold a candle to Jay's qualifications can see the errors you're making and can point them out, you really are standing on thin ice.

 

[R.A.F.]

...though I can't remember the stats for that.

Neither can I, off hand...probably should look that up...


But from memory, there was a stretch of time (something like 18 months) at Edwards where they lost some outrageous number of pilots. I want to say in the high 20's, but if could have been more or less.

Your percentage sounds about right...it was a real horrendous couple of years.

 

[drewid]

Sure I have made, make and will make mistakes with regard to my analyses on the Apollo frauds, but in general, my criticisms are more than valid and very much on target.

Same question to you as I asked Jay drewid; WOULD YOU BE COMFORTABLE BREATHING IN BORMAN'S DIARRHEA? I DID NOT THINK SO, AND NEITHER WOULD NEIL ARMSTRONG FEEL VERY COMFORTABLE CHOKING ON THAT IMAGINARY GUNK.

As such, we can be certain that none of these people were sent to the moon, let alone landed and walked there. They simply did not have a place to hygienically go to the bathroom, 'bout as fundamental as it gets, a flat out vacuum sealed incontrovertable proof of Apollo fraudulence.

Your opinion is just that, an opinion with nothing to back it up.

Would I put up with unhygenic conditions to get to the moon? Hell yes.
People put up with unhygenic conditions just to travel round parts of this planet for fun.

 

[CptColumbo]

'Biological contamination' was hardly likely to stop a test pilot in that or any other era. I remember reading that test pilots in the 60's only had a 56% (IIRC) , chance of surviving a 20 year career, Navy test pilots were even worse off, though I can't remember the stats for that. Colleagues died during the course of everyday work. Upset stomach stop a mission? Not likely.

In the book The Right Stuff by Tom Wolfe, he writes about the mentality of the test pilot. It's been a few years since I read it, but it was along the lines of; If a test pilot suffers a mechanical failure, and is told he has 5 seconds to eject, the first thing that goes through his mind is "I have 5-6 seconds to get this plane under control again."

 

[Patrick1000]

What They Really Were Up To "On The Moon"

Now that it has become clear to at least the snowflakes among us that the Apollo Project was not a lunar manned landing project, but rather a lunar instrumentation and space weaponization project, I would like to move on and begin to examine more thoroughly what it was that the NASA boys were up to with their equipment.

Presenting information from newspaper articles and other materials in previous posts, I have suggested Apollo's objectives, rather than landing men included, but were not limited to; measuring the distances across the great oceans and making other spatial measurements of our planet, making precise measurements of the earth's rotation rate/variabilities to be used in Coriolis effect calculations, measuring gravity's strength with great precision, as well as making better, more accurate determinations of k2, ke2, J, and K as previously described, picking up Russian ICBM launches, and transmitting unjammable, or difficult to jam signals. All of this would be of great use to us in our targeting of Russian, Chinese and other unfriendly military/civilian objectives with our ballistic missiles, and of course be useful in understanding the Russian capabilities as well. The Apollo Program was directed to such military efforts, as well as others.

I read a great book last week that gave some details with regard to to my interest in this subject, STOCKPILE, by Jerry Miller. Miller is a retired US Navy Vice Admiral. As a nuclear weapons delivery pilot, and a nuclear plans monitor, he was/is big time familiar with the ICBM/SLBM issues. He helped prepare the National Strategic Target List and the Single Integrated Operational Plan for waging nuclear war as well. After retiring from the Navy, Miller was involved in arms control meetings with the Soviets. A very very very very credible guy. This is indeed a worthwhile book for others to check out if you have interests similar to mine, or are simply interested in the history of nuclear weapons for whatever reason.

Miller wrote in his book that before the advent of modern geodetics, they simply went with "latitude and longitude" when targeting Moscow. Later on, precision measurements of distances, spin, gravitational strength and so forth, modern geodetics, lead to, GET THIS, a change of ONE MILE in the position of Moscow's heart from what simple pre modern geodetic latitude and longitude told them that it should be. This 1 mile change in "Moscow's true location" was/is of course the tip of the iceberg in terms of how modern geodetics changed the face and nature of ICBM targeting. This is the kind of militarily useful geodetic information Apollo was after and the kind of stuff Apollo indeed ultimately provided. Where did Jerry Miller get his better numbers to work with? Well from the Apollo program of course, where else? From what better vantage to measure the distance to Moscow, the spin/Coriolis considerations, G, k2, ke2, J , K and so forth.

Keep in mind that the moon is not the only military satellite/platform. It is one in a system that was set up by the US military before during and after Apollo. But it was/is a most important platform, perhaps the most important of our platforms. Unreachable, unjammable, stable, and in the eyes of military men and women, beautiful.

Another great nonfiction yarn for Nick Terry's band of SNOWFLAKES is Pat Norris' SURVEILLANCE SATELLITES IN WAR AND PEACE, a 2008 Springer publication. Norris was/is a computer/satellite specialist who made important contributions while working on quite a few space projects including Hubble, Apollo, Europe's first weather satellite, Huygens landing in Titan, the failed Beagle 2 landing on Mars, early US telecommunication efforts, and even the latest GPS satellites.

As I read through Norris' great book last week, I was struck by the many references he made to the moon. I'll discuss just one here in this post, and save the others for my next. Check this out boys and girls.

The total US budget for fiscal year 1961, the year big Johnny said "LET'S FAKE IT!!!!" Errrrrhhhhhh, I mean "LET"S GO!!!!!" was 94 billion bucks. Now the head of NASA, James Webb, then provided an estimate that the cost of the simulated moon landings would be 20-40 bil, let's call it 30 billion bucks, give or take. Let's say one third of the total 1961 federal budget, the spending spread out over 11 years time(1961-1972). I do not want to discount inflationary concerns, but for the sake of getting some ballpark sense of all this, let's leave inflation out for now. You'll see my points are more than valid. Ok, let's put this in perspective. Obama's 2012 fiscal budget is 3.729 trillion dollars.

So in 2012 equivalent terms/current US currency value, James Webb, the NASA chief, informed Kennedy and the nation that the simulated moon landings would set us back $ 1,243,000,000,000 dollars over 11 years. That comes out to $113,000,000,000. ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTEEN BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR in 2012 equivalent bucks, every year for eleven years. 3 % annually of the total federal budget. Department of Defense spending is scheduled to be $ 553,000,000,000. FIVE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THREE BILLION for fiscal year 2012. This amounts to 15 % of federal outlays. NASA's fiscal 2012 budget is slated for $ 18,700,000,000. EIGHTEEN BILLION SEVEN HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS. This is one sixth as big as the Apollo era budget. The 1962 Apollo program budget, averaging out over 11 years, AMOUNTS TO A TWENTY PERCENT EQUIVALENT OF AN ENTIRE 2012 US MILITARY BUDGET.

So it is obvious what is going on, given the tremendous numbers. LOOK AT THEM NOW IN THIS WAY. THEY ARE THE NUMBERS OF WEAPONS SYSTEMS PROGRAMS, NOT BASIC SCIENCE PROGRAMS. Kennedy's and subsequent administrations used Apollo to fund their space weapons programs(special ICBM research and development, satellites, lunar instrumentation, and so forth).

The Russians are building ICBMs. No one is sure, but they may well be better at it than we are, and have more of them. It is still difficult to tell. We have to figure this out, and also figure out a way to be sure our ICBMs land in Khrushchev's backyard and not in the suburbs of Moscow. There is also pressure from the public and scientific communities NOT TO weaponize space. And indeed, the US and the Soviet Union are both signatories to an important, landmark really, 1967 treaty, the treaty's language prohibiting the weaponization of space, and in particular, there is a provision in the treaty which explicitly prohibits the weaponization of the moon.

How do the boys wearing brass get their money for their pet project without congress giving them a hard time? Without people getting suspicious about violation of the no weapons in space treaty when they are unloading one huge package after another and planting them God only knows where(now we do know where do we not, on the moon!)?

Consider this, Russia will spend $ 43,200,000,000 and China $ 59,000,000,000 on defense in 2012. The equivalent Apollo budget for a single year was $ 113,000,000,000, larger than both the Russian 2012 and China 2012 defense budgets combined. 2.62 TIMES LARGER THAN THE ENTIRE RUSSIAN 2012 DEFENSE BUDGET, AND 1.9 TIMES AS LARGE AS THE CHINESE FISCAL 2012 MILITARY BUDGET.

As they say, MONEY TALKS, and it is telling us here something my friends. In current bucks, Apollo did not translate into a cost of $125,000,000,000. Au contraire my fellow SNOWFLAKES. That line about the cost is a ruse. We have seen this plain as the light of a long long long lunar day, seen it by way of this simple analysis. Apollo cost one third of a full federal annual budget laid out over 11 years time, ONE TRILLION TWO HUNDRED AND FOURTY THREE BILLION DOLLARS over 11 years in 2012 dollars. And there is only one thing we lay that kind of scratch out for, well 2 things. One is GUNS!, the other is bailing out the bank jerks.

So we see Apollo actually cost us 9.6 times as much as you were probably lead to believe, given the often quoted and oh so very erroneous "current dollar cost" of 125 billion dollars bandied about.

Apollo is about weapons my friends, WEAPONS!!!!!

 

[matt.tansy]

Miller wrote in his book that before the advent of modern geodetics, they simply went with "latitude and longitude" when targeting Moscow.

Still struggling with the entire concept of a datum, I see. Every latitude and longitude is referenced to some datum.

Later on, precision measurements of distances, spin, gravitational strength and so forth, modern geodetics, lead to, GET THIS, a change of ONE MILE in the position of Moscow's heart from what simple pre modern geodetic latitude and longitude told them that it should be.

Yeah, all datums shifted quite a bit. In the late 1800s!

This 1 mile change in "Moscow's true location" was/is of course the tip of the iceberg in terms of how modern geodetics changed the face and nature of ICBM targeting. This is the kind of militarily useful geodetic information Apollo was after and the kind of stuff Apollo indeed ultimately provided. Where did Jerry Miller get his better numbers to work with? Well from the Apollo program of course, where else?

The entire history of the World Geodetic System would disagree with you. Especially those developed in 1960 and 1966, years before Apollo landed on the Moon.

 

[Halcyon Dayz]

Conjecture is not evidence.

Conjecture based on non-facts is fantasy.

 

[Garrison]

So in 2012 equivalent terms/current US currency value, James Webb, the NASA chief, informed Kennedy and the nation that the simulated moon landings would set us back $ 1,243,000,000,000 dollars over 11 years. That comes out to $113,000,000,000. ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTEEN BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR in 2012 equivalent bucks, every year for eleven years. 3 % annually of the total federal budget. Department of Defense spending is scheduled to be $ 553,000,000,000. FIVE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THREE BILLION for fiscal year 2012. This amounts to 15 % of federal outlays. NASA's fiscal 2012 budget is slated for $ 18,700,000,000. EIGHTEEN BILLION SEVEN HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS. This is one sixth as big as the Apollo era budget. The 1962 Apollo program budget, averaging out over 11 years, AMOUNTS TO A TWENTY PERCENT EQUIVALENT OF AN ENTIRE 2012 US MILITARY BUDGET.

This is a frankly incredible mistake. The $113 Billion figure is the ENTIRE spend over 11 years converted to current dollar values. In reality the NASA budget maxed out around 4% of the US budget at the height of Apollo, whereas today its less than 0.5%, with the DOD getting a bit more than 20%. You've made some major errors in this thread but this may be the single largest.

 

[JayUtah]

Now that it has become clear to at least the snowflakes among us...

Who else does that include besides you? I see only universal disputation of your claims.

I have suggested Apollo's objectives, rather than landing men included, but were not limited to...

Please explain in technical terms why these objectives cannot have been met by Earth-orbit technology. In other words, why does the Moon (a quarter million miles away) provide the most effective platform for that observation?

This is the kind of militarily useful geodetic information Apollo was after and the kind of stuff Apollo indeed ultimately provided.

Is that your conclusion or Miller's?

Where did Jerry Miller get his better numbers to work with? Well from the Apollo program of course, where else?

Does Miller assert this, or is this your interpretation/guess?

Unreachable, unjammable, stable, and in the eyes of military men and women, beautiful.

It isn't unreachable. The Soviets easily reached it, even before the U.S. It isn't unjammable; the great distance requires a highly sophisticated and vulnerable communication infrastructure. The military briefly thought of space outposts, but then quickly realized that having an outpost whose location was easily predictable by orbital mechanics and not very able to maneuver was inherently vulnerable. A lunar installation occupies a very predictable and unchanging position in the sky, a sitting-duck target.

The total US budget for fiscal year 1961, ... was 94 billion bucks.

Total receipts were around $94 billion. Total outlay was about $97 billion.

Now the head of NASA, James Webb, then provided an estimate that the cost of the simulated moon landings would be 20-40 bil...

Over 10 years, and this was to include some $11 billion for the development of the Saturn V rocket, which would not be considered an Apollo-only expense but would be shared by several federal budget centers.

So in 2012 equivalent terms...

Rather than conjectural pseudo-accounting, simply refer to the actual expenditures.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-16_Apollo_Program_Budget_Appropriations.htm

Kennedy's and subsequent administrations used Apollo to fund their space weapons programs...

No. The myth of allegedly exorbitant Apollo budgets is well debunked.

Apollo cost some $20 billion in actual dollars over 11 years (it actually started before Kennedy's announcement; Eisenhower approved it), or just under $2 billion in actual dollars per year. In contrast, disbursements for 1969 alone include some $10 billion for health care, $8 billion for education, $8 billion for welfare, and some $24 billion on retirement, for about $50 billion in human service expenditures.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_1969USbn_12bs1n#usgs302

Are they all building bombs too?

As they say, MONEY TALKS, and it is telling us here something my friends.

No. You are simply pointing to what you believe is a large expenditure of funds and then speculating on what it was "really" spent on.

Apollo cost one third of a full federal annual budget laid out over 11 years time...

No. Apollo's yearly costs on average were around half of NASA's budget, let alone the entire U.S. federal budget. You have ignored published accounting figures and simply relied upon your own estimates and extrapolations. Let the actual costs bear out the facts.

Apollo is about weapons my friends, WEAPONS!!!!!

No. Your entire line of reasoning is that Apollo was enormously expensive, and there's only one thing you spend a lot of money on -- guns. It is factually false that Apollo was enormously expensive. It is factually false that only defense gets large budgets; the U.S. federal budget spends commensurately on entitlements and education. Space exploration has been historically a surprisingly small fraction since the 1950s.

And as for your claims regarding what the money was "really" spent on, you're simply begging the question.

 

[JayUtah]

Still struggling with the entire concept of a datum, I see. Every latitude and longitude is referenced to some datum.

We engineers use datums too for documenting tolerances in distance, flatness, alignments, etc. You can always tell the real engineers from the pretenders by seeing whether they understand the datum concept and understand how ubiquitously it is used in practice, but how seldom it is mentioned by outsiders.

So the concept of a datum in cartography is not that hard to grasp. There is the science as understood by its practitioners, and then then there is the misconception promulgated by pretenders.

The notion of a cartographic datum is best illustrated in Garrison Keillor's explanation for why Lake Wobegon does not show up on any map of Minnesota. The town allegedly lies in the center of the state. The survey of the state, he argues, was undertaken from its four corners, which served as the primary datums for the statewide map, and moved inward. Meeting in the center, the cartographers chose to resolve the tolerance buildup from the datums by omitting some land at the center, which happened to include Lake Wobegon.

 

[sts60]

While other posters are addressing new errors, I'd like to go back to the beginning.

The very first word in the title of the thread itself - "Lost" - is wrong. In no real sense of the word was the Apollo 11 LM "lost".

- It was not lost in terms of its ability to come home, which is always the most important meaning of the word. The LOR planning anticipated that the ship would land somewhere within a few n.mi. of its target, and it did. There was active tracking and maneuvering reserve on both the LM and CSM to take landing errors into account. The poster had been repeatedly asked to define what "lost" would mean in terms of delta-V or active radar acquisition range, but never did.

- It was not lost in terms of its mission, which had one single primary objective: "To perform a manned lunar landing and return." And none of the secondary objectives required the LM to land precisely at its target, or even mentioned a specific target.

- It was not even lost in terms of navigation, any more than aircraft flying across the oceans pre-GPS were lost. The LM's location was known with acceptable accuracy by multiple means - the existence of which the poster originally denied.

In other words, this thread started out in intellectual arrears, and 110 pages later, there is no improvement. The latest budget claim is a whopping error, paired with bald assertions of "military" applications whose inference chain back to various factoids is nothing more than the OP's imagination.

What many people don't realize is that the NASA budget peaked in 1966, in IIRC the high $30B in today's dollars - around 4% of the federal budget, again IIRC. I have a House oversight committee report from 1969 which shows the thorough accounting made for Apollo funding. Fantasies about said funding being channeled into secret military projects are just that - fantasies bearing no relation whatsoever to reality.

 

[drewid]

So we can add fiscal policy and budgets, and more datum usage and history, to the list of evidence that Patrick doesn't understand

 

[Patrick1000]

I say it one more time, cold stone facts

The point is so very important that I'll hammer it once more at the risk of needling everyone 'til they scream.

Kennedy comes out and says our fiscal budget for 1961 is 94 billion dollars and then in May says, "by the way, I want 30 billion more for Apollo". Those are the stone cold facts my friends.

OK, fast forward to Obama. His budget for 2011 is $ 3,818,800,000,000. Three trillion, eight hundred and eighteen billion, eight hundred million dollars. So say he wants to do the same thing as Kennedy, one third of the federal budget over the next eleven years.

Can he really ask for $ 1,272,666,666,666, one trillion three hundred billion dollars for a FAKE space program over eleven years. People would start throwing tomatoes at the guy.

We were scammed, then and present tense, we are scammed now.

Write to your congress person and tell her/him to go to the brain store and pick one up. We know they are scarce in D.C., but the constiuancy is a tad desperate ya' know?

 

[matt.tansy]

Miller wrote in his book that before the advent of modern geodetics, they simply went with "latitude and longitude" when targeting Moscow. Later on, precision measurements of distances, spin, gravitational strength and so forth, modern geodetics, lead to, GET THIS, a change of ONE MILE in the position of Moscow's heart from what simple pre modern geodetic latitude and longitude told them that it should be.

There are numerous datum transformation tools on the internet. Using this one: http://home.hiwaay.net/~taylorc/toolbox/geodesy/datumtrans/

and plugging in the coordinates for Moscow (57 N 037 E) and selecting the North American Datum 1927 (mean for CONUS) and WGS 72 datum (alleged by Patrick1000 to have been derived from the Apollo program) the difference in lat and long is 0.1 NM and 0.07 NM, respectively, for a total difference of 0.13 NM.

Obviously, when the Vice Admiral was referring to "pre modern" he was referring to sometime between Eratosthenes and 1927.

 

[Patrick1000]

No he meant this to mean during his tenure as a military person this was the case

There are numerous datum transformation tools on the internet. Using this one: http://home.hiwaay.net/~taylorc/toolbox/geodesy/datumtrans/

and plugging in the coordinates for Moscow (57 N 037 E) and selecting the North American Datum 1927 (mean for CONUS) and WGS 72 datum (alleged by Patrick1000 to have been derived from the Apollo program) the difference in lat and long is 0.1 NM and 0.07 NM, respectively, for a total difference of 0.13 NM.

Obviously, when the Vice Admiral was referring to "pre modern" he was referring to sometime between Eratosthenes and 1927.

No he meant this to mean during his tenure as a military person this was the case. "Moscow's location" changed during his military career targeting Ruskie cities.

 

[JayUtah]

The point is so very important that I'll hammer it once more at the risk of needling everyone 'til they scream.

I'm not sure what to say. You made a colossal arithmetical blunder in your previous post, and after attention was called to it by two different people, you turn around and make the same colossal blunder again in your rejoinder. Oh well, I guess it proves it wasn't just a simple arithmetic error, but instead an actual error in comprehension. Or it proves that you aren't paying attention to any of the responses in this thread.

In this thread you seem to praise Anders Lindman for "making [us] mad." If you want to be taken seriously and not dismissed as a troll, perhaps "needling" is not something you should be proud of. Especially when you're as mistaken as you are.

Kennedy comes out and says our fiscal budget for 1961 is 94 billion dollars...

No. Again you seem not to know the vast qualitative difference between income and expenditure. The U.S. federal government took in $94 billion in 1961 and spent $97 billion that same year, for a deficit of $3 billion. How are we supposed to respect your budgetary analysis when you don't know the difference between money coming in and money going out?

...and then in May says, "by the way, I want 30 billion more for Apollo". Those are the stone cold facts my friends.

No, they aren't.

You didn't cite a reference for your claim that James Webb estimated the cost of landing on the Moon at "$20-40 billion," which you've apparently averaged to $30 billion. But since it's a reasonable figure, I'll stipulate that Webb probably made that estimate.

While it may be a fact that he made such an estimate, the actual expenditures are a completely different set facts, which I've handed to you in a very neat table broken out by year, by cost center, and by percentage of NASA's budget, in non-adjusted dollars that you can compare to the non-adjusted dollars reported in your source for U.S. federal expenditures. You've ignored those facts in favor of your completely erroneous handwaving.

The other stone-cold fact that conspiracy theorists generally don't know about is that Apollo wasn't Kennedy's idea; it was Eisenhower's idea. He approved it and laid out the initial budget. Then it was Johnson's.

In the early 1960s Kennedy wanted a demonstration of U.S. superiority in science and technology. He asked the various departments of his administration to make proposals. They rolled in, from sea habitats to telecommunications to space stations. None of them met Kennedy's criteria for spectacle and scope.

Lyndon B. Johnson, then Vice President and head of the U.S. space program, proposed any of a set of variations on manned lunar fly-by or landings. The Kennedys (Jack and Bobby) rejected them as too expensive and with too poor a chance for success. Not to be so easily thwarted, Johnson summoned Wernher von Braun, James Webb, and leaders from the aerospace industry to beef up the proposal, finally handing the White House a detailed analysis replete with rosy (i.e., substantially lowered) cost estimates, assurances of feasibility, and endorsements by prominent American scientists. Then and only then did Kennedy agree to give Apollo the funding to transform it into a manned lunar mission.

Johnson was happy because it gave him direct control over a new, important, and well-funded federal effort. Webb too. In fact, Webb traded his political future for the chance to build Apollo on his watch. After Kennedy's death he went to Congress time and again to fight for the promised funding levels, invoking the ghost of an assassinated President to compel reluctant Congressmen to maintain the effort. The ink wasn't even dry on Nixon's inaugural papers when Webb was kicked to the curb by sore politicians.

The Johnson-Webb machine made a number of powerful enemies in Congress, including senators Mondale and Proxmire, who dogged NASA and Apollo all through the 1960s and well beyond the first landing, pulling out all the stops to try to defund it. And this is the program you're saying had all sorts of skeletons in its closet, none of which these noted campaigners against government waste and fraud were able to find. Even Kennedy, who was never really sold on the idea, summoned Webb to the Oval Office and told him that needed to stay focused on the deadline and not throw too many bells and whistles into the effort.

Kennedy didn't just run to Congress and ask for $30 billion, which was then handed to him without question.

Those are the actual historical facts, not the caricature of them that's presented in conspiracy theories.

OK, fast forward to Obama.

Why? You still haven't gotten Kennedy right. You don't need to deal in 2011 dollars or in the politics of the sitting President. Everything we need to show the glaring error in your logic is right there in the 1960s. You still don't see it.

So say he wants to do the same thing as Kennedy, one third of the federal budget over the next eleven years.

No. This is your colossal blunder again. The estimate of $30 billion for Apollo in 1961 was not $30 billion per year for each of the following 10 years, but instead a total of $30 billion, to be spread out over 10 years. Apollo was never one-third of the entire federal budget for any one year between 1959 and 1973, the official years of its operation. As repeatedly stated, and as evidenced in the references I cited, the Apollo expenditures never rose above the single-digit percentages of the overall federal budget.

Maybe it's been a while since you got your claimed math degree, but you take the total and divide by the number of units to get the average unit cost. By your estimate ($30 billion over 10 years) that's three billion per year, or an average of 3.3 percent of 1961's budget for each of 10 years. Your math is off by a factor of ten.

Can he really ask for $ 1,272,666,666,666, one trillion three hundred billion dollars...

No, and that's nowhere near the equivalent of what the Kennedy administration did.

...for a FAKE space program over eleven years.

You haven't proven it was fake. And <snip> you even admitted you couldn't prove it was fake.

Edited by LashL: 

Moderated thread

Write to your congress person and tell her/him to go to the brain store and pick one up.

Given the stunning errors you've committed in this thread over the past 24 hours, I'll let your statement speak for itself.

 

[nomuse]

The point is so very important that I'll hammer it once more at the risk of needling everyone 'til they scream.

Kennedy comes out and says our fiscal budget for 1961 is 94 billion dollars and then in May says, "by the way, I want 30 billion more for Apollo". Those are the stone cold facts my friends.

OK, fast forward to Obama. His budget for 2011 is $ 3,818,800,000,000. Three trillion, eight hundred and eighteen billion, eight hundred million dollars. So say he wants to do the same thing as Kennedy, one third of the federal budget over the next eleven years.

Can he really ask for $ 1,272,666,666,666, one trillion three hundred billion dollars for a FAKE space program over eleven years. People would start throwing tomatoes at the guy.

We were scammed, then and present tense, we are scammed now.

Write to your congress person and tell her/him to go to the brain store and pick one up. We know they are scarce in D.C., but the constiuancy is a tad desperate ya' know?

Which part was fake?

Did Rocketdyne deliver functional F1 engines for the Saturn V first stage? People saw those engines, and the stage lifted off, so it certainly appears so. So they had to be paid for. Did Rocketdyne get the money? Well, they managed somehow to order parts and pay workers who showed up every day -- that money had to come from somewhere. Did these workers actually go in to a shop (or an office)? Well, go out to Canoga Park and ask around and see if there was a large workforce who didn't actually get a paycheck.

Did Playtex get paid? Did Grumman get paid? Go up and down the list of equipment delivered, and ask if there was actually money coming in to those companies, and if not, how the heck they made salary (and paid investors, for those that were publicly traded).



Here's hoping this post doesn't get lost in moderation like the last ones.

 

[R.A.F.]

Write to your congress person and tell her/him to go to the brain store and pick one up. We know they are scarce in D.C., but the constiuancy is a tad desperate ya' know?

Can you PLEASE make your "points" without insulting people?

 

[Garrison]

The point is so very important that I'll hammer it once more at the risk of needling everyone 'til they scream.

Kennedy comes out and says our fiscal budget for 1961 is 94 billion dollars and then in May says, "by the way, I want 30 billion more for Apollo". Those are the stone cold facts my friends.

$30 billion dollars was the total cost of the whole program over its lifetime, not the annual cost.

That Patrick is the fact, that you cannot simply own up even to such an obvious mistake speaks volumes.

 

[R.A.F.]

The point is so very important that I'll hammer it once more...

You could use a jackhammer, but it won't make your "arguments" any more true.