Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[JayUtah]

Of course he is wrong. By the way, I believe guys like Harland are government plants.

Thank you for admitting that you cherry-pick your sources. You accept Harland as an authority when he seems to agree with you, but you discount his authority when it becomes inconvenient for you. That's what separates conspiracy theorists from real historians.

For now, I am moving on.

I'm sure you'd like to, but I'm going to continue to remind you that people who are better informed and more experienced than you in the relevant fields strongly disagree with your findings. And you have no response for them except denial.

 

[Tomblvd]

Of course he is wrong. By the way, I believe guys like Harland are government plants. He may or may not be aware of Apollo truth, but his role is to publish this pseudo history gibberish.

Yet only a few dozen or so posts prior to that, you had this to say about this "government plant":

This is interesting, from none other than the renown Apollo Historian David M. Harland himself.

In his book, EXPLORING THE MOON(The Apollo Expeditions) Harland wrote that Collins was not able to locate the Eagle with his sextant because HE DIDN'T REALLY KNOW WHERE TO LOOK. Now that is LOST, and it is come from a very reputable historian. One of the best most would say. Interesting? No?

Do you understand now why there is nobody on this site that has EVER taken your side on a discussion? You are hopelessly out of your depth. Nobody in their right mind would quote a known liar and disinformation agent to support their own side.

It's insanity.

 

[Erock]

Why does anyone even make the claim that the Eagle's coordinates are uncertain to begin with? There is no reason at all for this claim. No rationale.

Because they were uncertain. Historically, later with confirmation back at home, they were able to establish which were the exact co-ordinates.

Now, you seem to have some sort of cognitive problem understanding that just because they had correct readings at the time, they could still not know for certain, that they were correct.

As a 'doctor' when you make a diagnosis, then someone else gives a second and third opinion. If after further tests one of them turns out to be correct, does this mean it was fraudulent? The person making the correct diagnosis was not certain, but was correct.

Do you understand this stunningly obvious point?

 

[JayUtah]

Here is is. No retraction or concession, but plenty of backpedaling.

So the $$$$$$ figures per se are not critical.

They were very critical to your argument until you could no longer evade the problem of having done the arithmetic wrong. You cited exact figures culled from various common sources and told us that the "monetary facts" were inescapable.

Now, as it has become painfully obvious that you don't know what you're talking about, the exact dollar figures suddenly become unimportant to your claim. How dishonest. You told us to follow the money. We followed the money and ended up right where everyone else did -- far away from your hypothesis.

As such, they may have spent much more on Apollo, shuffling money here and there about.

Speculation. Since your supposed documentary evidence for conspicuously big spending has been thoroughly refuted, you don't have any actual facts anymore to support your claim. But unable to let go of your hypothesis, now you speculate that secret spending was "somehow" applied in order to militarize the Moon, and that because of "laundering" we may never find it.

Way to go. If you had been a conscientious scholar you would have admitted your mistake when it was first brought up, rather than stick to your guns for an absurd length of time and then try to sneak a revised argument under the radar.

You went from an argument of "The figures don't lie, they're right there in black-and-white," to one of, "Well maybe there's other money we can't see." Cheating, pure and simple. Your budget argument fails, and it's clear now that you realize it. The honest thing to do would have been to admit the error.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Funny thing about Apollo 12's lightning strike. There was actually a debate on the ground about whether or not they should go for the moon after the Apollo stack had reached orbit. In the end the only mission critical part of the CSM they couldn't confirm as functional from the readings they were getting were the parachutte pyrotechnics, and it was decided that if those didn't work it was better that they had been to the moon than not, so they gave them the go for TLI.

No mission went without something failing to work correctly, somethings were worse than others, for instance the major failure on Apollo 17 was just a docking clamp that had to be manually fixed into place, but some could have been serious show stoppers. That didn't stop them trying and most of the time succeeding in the missions. If trained and professional people stop doing what they are doing because something doesn't work correctly, we'd never get anything done.

The reason you turn a passanger plane back if there is a serious issue, us not because it wouldn't do the job, but that no-one wants to risk the lives of the passangers. The Apollo Astronauts knew the risks and took them willingly. It's that simple.

 

[Multivac]

This is interesting, from none other than the renown Apollo Historian David M. Harland himself.

In his book, EXPLORING THE MOON(The Apollo Expeditions) Harland wrote that Collins was not able to locate the Eagle with his sextant because HE DIDN'T REALLY KNOW WHERE TO LOOK. Now that is LOST, and it is come from a very reputable historian. One of the best most would say. Interesting? No?

If you have rread "Carrying the fire", which you claim to have read, you will know that Michael Collins could only see the landing area for about two minutes per orbit and that the sextant only saw an angle of 1.8 degrees due to its 20x magnification.

 

[R.A.F.]

Your budget argument fails, and it's clear now that you realize it. The honest thing to do would have been to admit the error.

Come on, Patrick...admit your mistake.

It won't hurt "too" much, and it will give your credibility a "boost" it so sadly needs.



Let's say you don't admit your mistake...what are the rest of supposed to think of that??
Don't you understand how denying the obvious reflects on you?

 

[Patrick1000]

What is so illogical.....

So, the spending is military because you cannot conceive that it isn't. I'll be sure to pencil that in to my college logic textbook: Fallacy of Disagreement with Patrick1000.

Seriously, you need to be aware that you are engaging in neither logical nor historically accurate thought.

What is so illogical.....about my just clearly/unambiguously having demonstrated that the Panama Canal Project was an American Military Project Loss Leader?

 

[Patrick1000]

You are funny RAF......

Come on, Patrick...admit your mistake.

It won't hurt "too" much, and it will give your credibility a "boost" it so sadly needs.



Let's say you don't admit your mistake...what are the rest of supposed to think of that??
Don't you understand how denying the obvious reflects on you?

You are funny RAF......Glad we are beyond the name calling stage.

Now, with respect to the business at hand, what mistake would that be? Webb's initial estimate of the moon landing project was 20-40 billion. That was my claim, and all historical records bear that out.

Webb's initial estimate was 20-40 billion, that was reported to Kennedy in 1961, the year the fiscal budget was 96 billion. Where is my mistake? The Webb report? The Kennedy 1961 budget figure? They both look solid to me.

I have no problem whatsoever retracting a claim. Don't see that need here yet. Show me a different figure on the Webb estimate and/or the 1961 US fiscal budget, would be happy to review it and change my statement/claim as appropriate.

 

[nomuse]

You posit the Panama Canal as equivalent to your version of the Apollo Program. To be a good match, it would require that;

1) The public was misled -- up to the present day -- about the real purpose of the Canal. This effort to mislead includes extensive falsified documentation.

2) No civilian shipping (the purported purpose of the canal) ever took place.

3) Secret military technology with impacts far beyond moving ships across the isthmus were also incorporated in the canal structure (aka, your idea that the LRRR was actually part of enhanced missile guidance).

I don't think this has much to do with the canal as we know it.

 

[nomuse]

You are funny RAF......Glad we are beyond the name calling stage.

Now, with respect to the business at hand, what mistake would that be? Webb's initial estimate of the moon landing project was 20-40 billion. That was my claim, and all historical records bear that out.

Webb's initial estimate was 20-40 billion, that was reported to Kennedy in 1961, the year the fiscal budget was 96 billion. Where is my mistake? The Webb report? The Kennedy 1961 budget figure? They both look solid to me.

I have no problem whatsoever retracting a claim. Don't see that need here yet. Show me a different figure on the Webb estimate and/or the 1961 US fiscal budget, would be happy to review it and change my statement/claim as appropriate.

The "mistake" is that Webb never said "Give me 30% of the budget for 1961." He proposed a plan which would go forward for a good decade, and ramp up over several years to peak funding level (simultaneous with the general increase in the US economy over time). He proposed, in short, a program which would never, even in the peak years to come, exceed many of the existing programs (or come even close to the then-current defense spending.)

 

[R.A.F.]

You are funny RAF......Glad we are beyond the name calling stage.

No, my opinion of you has not changed, I simply tired of it.

I have no problem whatsoever retracting a claim. Don't see that need here yet.

That you can't see that need is irrelevant. You have been proven wrong time and again, and it just makes you look foolish to deny obvious mistakes.

Show me a...

No...no one here has to prove you wrong..the onus is on you to prove yourself right.

It continues to amaze me just how hard that simple idea is for you to understand.

 

[Garrison]

You are funny RAF......Glad we are beyond the name calling stage.

Now, with respect to the business at hand, what mistake would that be? Webb's initial estimate of the moon landing project was 20-40 billion. That was my claim, and all historical records bear that out.

Webb's initial estimate was 20-40 billion, that was reported to Kennedy in 1961, the year the fiscal budget was 96 billion. Where is my mistake? The Webb report? The Kennedy 1961 budget figure? They both look solid to me.

I have no problem whatsoever retracting a claim. Don't see that need here yet. Show me a different figure on the Webb estimate and/or the 1961 US fiscal budget, would be happy to review it and change my statement/claim as appropriate.

Permit me to reiterate your most glaring error on the budget:

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.

Now do you see how that differs from both reality and your current claim(which are still some distance apart)?

 

[JayUtah]

What is so illogical.....about my just clearly/unambiguously having demonstrated that the Panama Canal Project was an American Military Project Loss Leader?

Because "clarity" and "disambiguity" for you mean simply to disregard contrary fact.

You cite the activities of the U.S. military in conjunction with securing the permission to build there. Does that mean every instance in which the U.S. military is invoked to protect civil interests qualifies as a "military" project? Think carefully before you answer.

You cite the activities of the "military" in administering the Canal. The organization in question is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which from its inception has held the responsibility to maintain U.S. navigable waterways -- civilian or otherwise -- often under direct civilian authority. Does that mean every USACOE-operated waterway is a military project? Think carefully before you answer.

You cite the activities of the U.S. military in securing the Canal during times of war. Does that mean that every wartime protection undertaken by the military converts the protectee into a "military" project? Think carefully before you answer.

Sorry, but the revenue-consuming operation of building the Canal was a civilian funded project under civilian control. That the military played the occasional role does not universally taint it.

Now I'm sure you'd absolutely love to bog down in the details of who "really" built the Panama Canal. But we're not going to do that. Even if someone concedes for the sake of argument that the Panama Canal was a "military" project, the question at hand is whether Apollo was a military project, as you claim it was. Proving that some other project was or wasn't military doesn't improve your argument; it can only destroy it by refuting your "what else could it be?" premise.

In case you missed it, Loss Leader was responding to this part of your argument:

In 1966 the NASA budget constituted 4.41 % of federal spending. Our budget this year was/is roughly 3.7 trillion dollars give or take. So 4.41% of that would be 163,170,000,000, ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY THREE BILLION DOLLARS. A ton of money.

This is all military Loss Leader, has to be.

First, as has been already noted, we're not quite sure why you're suddenly accepting the actual NASA appropriations as authoritative. According to you, NASA's expenditures for 1966 were not $5.9 billion but rather $30 billion. Remember your claim? "That's right, $30 billion every year for 11 years." That includes 1966.

So even though I'm not the first to point it out, I really think you own the readers here an explanation for why you claim $30 billion per year in one post, confirm in several other posts that you're not backing down from that figure, and then in the quoted post back down and claim an entirely different number. Please reconcile the inconsistency.

Second, you're still just begging the question. Citing some number and claiming that it "has" to be military spending is consummate question-begging. And you still apparently don't know what that means, even after I sent you to a suitable reference on the phrase. Please for your own sanity, research what "begging the question" means.

That claim and Loss Leader's response have absolutely nothing to do with the Panama Canal. He's quite right to mock you, and you are being egregiously illogical at that point. That's why we're not going to take that bait.

The good ol' bait-and-switch gets parried again. Please address the actual arguments, not the ones you wish had been made.

 

[JayUtah]

Webb's initial estimate of the moon landing project was 20-40 billion. That was my claim, and all historical records bear that out.

No, the primary source contradicts your claim. Webb's official estimate was $20 billion --period. There is no primary source establishing any other figure. If you think you have one, please give an exact verifiable citation.

I have no problem whatsoever retracting a claim. Don't see that need here yet. Show me a different figure on the Webb estimate...

One has been shown to you in every post on the subject since you first made the claim. Kindly do not imply that this is the first you've heard of it.

...and/or the 1961 US fiscal budget, would be happy to review it and change my statement/claim as appropriate.

Straw man. The initial estimate is not the problem and you know it.

The problem is that you mistakenly applied the entire project estimate to every year for the 11 years of the project, multiplying instead of dividing.

Then you tried to sneak in the actual expenditures as part of your argument, while subsequently reaffirming that you hadn't backed down from your "$30 billion multiplied by 11 years" original claim.

Then you tried to ignore the actual figures altogether by saying the exact expenditures didn't matter and it was all likely laundered away anyway.

At this point your prior statements leave you with these choices:

1. Concede that your original attempt to multiply $30 billion times 11 years was an error.

2. Concede that you have given inconsistent figures for yearly expenses for Apollo.

Those are the only choices you have. But I'm sure you'll choose:

3. Continue to pretend nothing is wrong.

 

[abaddon]

You are funny RAF......

Re-use of your common insult noted.

Glad we are beyond the name calling stage.

All of us are. You are not.

Now, with respect to the business at hand, what mistake would that be?

The one where you made an elementary mathematical mistake.

Webb's initial estimate of the moon landing project was 20-40 billion. That was my claim, and all historical records bear that out.

Yup, over a decade. You missed the time-scale part.

Webb's initial estimate was 20-40 billion,

Again, over more that a decade. Why do you miss this?

that was reported to Kennedy in 1961, the year the fiscal budget was 96 billion. Where is my mistake?

Yoou don't understand budgets and long division.

The Webb report? The Kennedy 1961 budget figure? They both look solid to me.

It has been demonstrated right here where you err.

I have no problem whatsoever retracting a claim.

It has been amply demonstrated over many pages that you do.

Don't see that need here yet.

Your blindness is not anyone else's problem. It is up to you to provide evidence for your claims. You have failed to do so.

Show me a different figure on the Webb estimate and/or the 1961 US fiscal budget, would be happy to review it and change my statement/claim as appropriate.

So much data has been provided that it is clear that you will not reconsider regardless of anything which may be presented.

 

[Border Reiver]

Patrick, you did initially report those figures, and then went "This was approxximately 1/3 of the Federal budget!"

What you have overlooked, had pointed out repeatedly to your, and then ignored, was that this $30B was spread out over 11 years of the program.

May I say how glad I am that you do not concern yourself with mortgages...

 

[Patrick1000]

Look again at my original posts......

Patrick, you did initially report those figures, and then went "This was approxximately 1/3 of the Federal budget!"

What you have overlooked, had pointed out repeatedly to your, and then ignored, was that this $30B was spread out over 11 years of the program.

May I say how glad I am that you do not concern yourself with mortgages...

Look again at my original posts......I was crystal clear it was spread out over 11 years. It would have made no sense to make the claim for a single year, of course that would be absurd.

Read my posts again. There is no ambiguity. The time frame is stated and stated clearly.

 

[Patrick1000]

OK RAF, here is something new to mull over, very enlightening......

No, my opinion of you has not changed, I simply tired of it.



That you can't see that need is irrelevant. You have been proven wrong time and again, and it just makes you look foolish to deny obvious mistakes.



No...no one here has to prove you wrong..the onus is on you to prove yourself right.

It continues to amaze me just how hard that simple idea is for you to understand.

OK RAF, here is something new to mull over, very enlightening......Sorry your opinion of me hasn't changed, but regardless, here is a new point for you that may encourage you to consider my fraud perspective more carefully as a bona fide possibility.


I'd like to move on in my next few posts to discuss some material extraordinarily compelling, and quite frankly, material that is awfully scary. This has to do with the subject of the Apollo Program's seeking to plant equipment at the strategic Earth-Moon System Libration Points. For the very curious, here are a few references. I'd encourage everyone to really dig in. This is critically important stuff that floats in the very belly of the Apollo Fraud Scheme.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1966SSRv....5..210S

http://emergentspace.com/gps_pubs/AIAA-2004-4747-774.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point

http://astronauticsnow.com/GalacticFrontier/spie_2005.html

(for the last reference, scroll down to number 4 "SPACE MISSION" for an image of the location of the Libration points. rather sobering I am sure many will agree)

Earth-moon system Libration points are 5 in number; L1, L2, L3, L4, L5. These are points where bodies/satellites remain fixed with respect to the moon and the earth.

The Apollo program sought to position/place equipment not only on the moon, but in these critical locations as well for the purposes of reconnaissance, surveillance, ranging, tracking, targeting.

I'll obviously have a great deal more to say about the instrumentation/effective weaponization of the earth-moon Libration zones. But take a look for yourselves first and roll it all over in your minds. It is obvious what the boys were up to.

There is nothing on earth or in heaven one cannot see and do from these vantages. Indeed, these Libration points constitute provide the ultimate high ground.

 

[Patrick1000]

No, the primary source contradicts your claim. Webb's official estimate was $20 billion --period. There is no primary source establishing any other figure. If you think you have one, please give an exact verifiable citation.



One has been shown to you in every post on the subject since you first made the claim. Kindly do not imply that this is the first you've heard of it.



Straw man. The initial estimate is not the problem and you know it.

The problem is that you mistakenly applied the entire project estimate to every year for the 11 years of the project, multiplying instead of dividing.

Then you tried to sneak in the actual expenditures as part of your argument, while subsequently reaffirming that you hadn't backed down from your "$30 billion multiplied by 11 years" original claim.

Then you tried to ignore the actual figures altogether by saying the exact expenditures didn't matter and it was all likely laundered away anyway.

At this point your prior statements leave you with these choices:

1. Concede that your original attempt to multiply $30 billion times 11 years was an error.

2. Concede that you have given inconsistent figures for yearly expenses for Apollo.

Those are the only choices you have. But I'm sure you'll choose:

3. Continue to pretend nothing is wrong.

Here is a 20 billion to 40 billion dollar estimate reference for you Jay.....

The book, WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE, author William D. Compton. On page 9 the author says that there was growing awareness of the probable total estimated cost of 20-40 billion.

I do see lots of references to the $20,000,000,000 figure as a first estimate, so I have no major problem conceding the point Jay on the grounds that this lower figure appears more often than any of the others.

So instead of my claim that Apollo was announced at 20-40 bil, let's agree on the lower figure, 20 billion dollars. Roughly 21% of the 96 billion dollar 1961 federal budget to be spent over 11 years.

My point, my argument, still stands and stands very well. Everything is roughly 1/3 less expensive, but it is still ridiculously over the top costly. Just has to be military as such.