Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[JayUtah]

Of course I am taking questions.......

What does my RESPONSE to SpitfireIX look like Loss Leader?

Those aren't the questions he was talking about, Patrick, and you know it.

I would suggest Loss Leader that you yourself might suggest to your colleagues to leave this "QUESTION" alone, as every time they bring it up I shall quote Armstrong, McCandless, Reed, Wampler, Beattie, NASA's own fraudulent Mission Report.

So your plan to "answer" questions is simply to repost the same wall of text over and over again. Why am I not surprised?

Unless you guys are clairvoyant, it hardly makes sense to answer your questions on MY VIEWS...

This sounds very much like a retraction of your willingness to demonstrate your competence. Please therefore explain exactly what you meant by the following:

Can't Jay come up with a question that is for God's sake on topic to test my knowledge, a question relevant to my discovery of yet even more internal incoherence and the associated implication of Apollo 11 Mission fraudulence?

I have provided six such questions. I have lately broken them out and clearly posted them in their own post so that you can be sure which questions I'm talking about.

Make no mistake, my credibility or NASA's is not at stake. Yours is. You are the claimant, and it is your burden to prove that you know what you're talking about. You may do so by answering those questions.

And make no mistake: these are not just idle questions chosen at random. These are questions that relate directly to your claims, and the answers to them reveal facts that you will have to reconcile with your statements.

You may not argue that they are a waste of your time; clearly you have plenty for wall-of-text posting.
You may not argue that they are off-topic; they were issued in direct response to your statments.
You may not argue that they are too easy or too hard; there is a spectrum of expertise required, from the novice to the expert.

Time to put up or shut up.

 

[Garrison]

Unless you guys are clairvoyant, it hardly makes sense to answer your questions on MY VIEWS with regard to a newly introduced subject like VLBI and its role in the Apollo fraud before those questions responding to my said views on VLBI or any new subject for that matter have been asked, unless of course you guys are riding like space cowboys on the backs of faster than light tachyons.......

But that isn't what you've been asked to do, you've been asked to provide either practical demonstrations that you understand the topics at hand and to provide evidence to support the claims made about those topics. Is it not reasonable to assume that you can do both these things with regard to topics that you yourself have chosen to bring up?

To remind you of my request:

Please produce schematics, documentation, pictures, or withness statements for the existence of the military hardware and instrumentation you claim was sent to the moon.

 

[twinstead]

I've always found it funny when people peer around their blinders in order to tell others to "rip their blinders off"

 

[matt.tansy]

The Earth would have been moving about the barycenter as well, and the earth/tracking stations were of course rotating also. LOTS OF MOVEMENT!

<snip>

So let me destroy that idea: the movement of the receiver is a hindrance to properly measuring the Doppler shift of a spacecraft. The rotation of the Earth in no way assists in determining the radial velocity of a spacecraft. The rotation of the Earth is an error that must be eliminated.

In fact, for TRANSIT, heading and speed input is required to correct the received Doppler shift for own ship's movement. The American Practical Navigator "Bowditch", Volume 1, 1984 edition, states a 1 knot error in own ship's speed will cause a 0.2 nautical mile position error.

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited for rule 0

 

[PhantomWolf]

You obviously have so NOT NOT NOT NOT read my posts Phantomwolf and so I will make this one short...

Nice rant, but you failed to answer any of the questions I actually asked. All you did was to repeat the inaccuracies you have been giving for pages. You didn't explain why targets on the moon would be untouchable compared to those closer. You didn't explain why they would be preferable to geostationary satellites. You didn't explain how they could be used without the 9m+ dishes that were used to receive the data from Apollo. You failed to explain why the Soviets couldn't have taken out the transmitters, nor why the US would build, modify, and use the LMs which were designed for Manned flight and control, and needed human intervention to fly, over purpose built machines that would have been a much smaller target and could have used the then current technology to launch rather than building entirely new rockets that had no other function. Or why they needed to send so many. Finally you have totally failed to explain why there is zero radio evidence of what you claim despite the numbers of people viewing the sky and looking for radio signals who would have found them, including the Soviets.

You scenario makes no sense and your rant doesn't change that in any way.

 

[Patrick1000]

Not inaccurate......

Nice rant, but you failed to answer any of the questions I actually asked. All you did was to repeat the inaccuracies you have been giving for pages. You didn't explain why targets on the moon would be untouchable compared to those closer. You didn't explain why they would be preferable to geostationary satellites. You didn't explain how they could be used without the 9m+ dishes that were used to receive the data from Apollo. You failed to explain why the Soviets couldn't have taken out the transmitters, nor why the US would build, modify, and use the LMs which were designed for Manned flight and control, and needed human intervention to fly, over purpose built machines that would have been a much smaller target and could have used the then current technology to launch rather than building entirely new rockets that had no other function. Or why they needed to send so many. Finally you have totally failed to explain why there is zero radio evidence of what you claim despite the numbers of people viewing the sky and looking for radio signals who would have found them, including the Soviets.

You scenario makes no sense and your rant doesn't change that in any way.

Not inaccurate......Straight from the mouths of the principals;

1) Wampler and Stone were given lunar coordinates 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east on the night of the alleged first moon landing , 07/20/1969

2) Neil Armstrong himself did not know those were the landing site coordinates until 08/01/1969

3) The Apollo 11 voice transcript features a conversation between Armstrong and McCandless(CapCom) while the "astronauts" are purported to be returning from the moon. This is more than a day after they have alleged left the lunar surface. McCandless refers to the Eagle's landing site coordinates as the $64,000 question

4)Apollo geologist/scientist Donald Beattie was among the scientists trying to determine the Eagle's landing site coordinates beginning July 25 1969 by way of photo and flight data analysis. The scientists were told the landing site coordinates were not known and it was believed their analysis of the photos/flight data might give the LICK OBSERVATORY SCIENTISTS the additional information they needed to locate the LRRR.

Note 1) above, the LICK SCIENTISTS ALREADY HAD THE COORDINATES

5) H. David Reed, the Eagle/Apollo 11 Mission lunar surface launch FIDO was told when he arrived at work on the morning of 07/21/1969 that the Eagle landing site coordinates were not known with any certainty, solutions as provided by map analysis/PNGS/AGS/MSFN/targeted coordinates were not even close to one another, and because of a lack of consistency among ANY of these solutions, Reed used none of them and solved by way of a reverse rendezvous radar calculation.

Which of my above statements is inaccurate phantomwolf and please cite your support/reference for your claim with regard to said inaccuracy .

 

[Patrick1000]

Every time you ask me that RAF, I tell you the same thing.....

An aside to Patrick...

When I continually (and politely) ask the following...



I am under no "illusion" that you will actually answer, because I don't ask that question with you in mind, but every time I ask, the "fence sitters" must say to themselves, "if Apollo were really faked, then why can't Patrick "debunk" the images and returned samples?"

See, Patrick, I ask so that the "fence sitters" can understand that you are not debating this subject in good faith, and as long as you don't...as long as it is obvious that you don't, then anything you say becomes easily dismissible.

Please address the images taken on the Lunar surface and the returned Lunar samples...

Every time you ask me this question RAF, I tell you the same thing.....more or less anyway. I cannot make out anything very distinct in those photos AND, as you should know by now, my view is one might very well expect to find the LM at 00 41'15" north and 23 26' 00" east.

Remember RAF, my claim is that they are planting military equipment on the moon under the guise of Apollo.

So they park the Eagle at 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east and then years later, an orbiter photographs it. Both your side and mine EXPECTS this, and so, for the most part, these photos do nothing for your side in terms of demonstrating my analysis/theory wrong.

I expect to see junk in these spots....

 

[Multivac]

Wait. What "fence sitters"?

To anyone lurking in this thread - do you feel "on the fence" about the claims made herein?

I have made a few posts in this mega-thread, so am an almost lurker. No, I am not "on the fence" as it is blindingly obvious to 99.999% of the worlds population that Apollo happened, that it was not a military operation and that 12 men walked on the moon.

It is laso blindingly obvious that it was largely a political PR stunt, but some real science was done on the moon, largely due to harrison Schmitt. Schmitt was a professional geologist before he became an astronaut, and spent a lot of time trying to pass some of his knowledge onto the crews of Apollo misssions so that they could make their time on the moon collecting samples more productive. He finally reached the moon on Apollo 17, where he collected some of the most interesting rocks collected during the program.

Many HBs seem to believe that the landings were faked because they have seen the awful programme that FOX made many years ago, or from reading crap on the internet. Patrick, however, takes this to a whole new level of absurdity. His theory seems to change continuously, he ignores evidence from posters such as Jay Utah, STS-60, RAF, Loss leader and others even though it is apparent that they know what they are talking about.

The evidence to support Apollo is an immense archive of photos,16mm film, moon rocks, tracking data from professional and amateur astronomers, radio broadcasts that were monitored by radio hams, the hundreds of people that worked at NASA and the 400,000 that designed and built the hardware.

The evidence against Apollo are misunderstandings about photographic shadows, incredulity, ignorance and a few people trying to make money from hoax "documentaries".

 

[Loss Leader]

1) Wampler and Stone were ...
2) Neil Armstrong himself did not know ..
3) The Apollo 11 voice transcript features a conversation between Armstrong and McCandless(CapCom) ...
4)Apollo geologist/scientist Donald Beattie was ...
5) H. David Reed, the Eagle/Apollo 11 Mission lunar surface ...

Do any of these gentlemen agree that the moon landing was a hoax?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

1) Wampler and Stone were given lunar coordinates 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east on the night of the alleged first moon landing , 07/20/1969.

Your evidence for this vital element of your claim's timeline (an anecdotal recounting of the tale made decades later) is not convincing.

 

[Erock]

Not inaccurate......Straight from the mouths of the principals;

1) Wampler and Stone were given lunar coordinates 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east on the night of the alleged first moon landing , 07/20/1969

2) Neil Armstrong himself did not know those were the landing site coordinates until 08/01/1969

3) The Apollo 11 voice transcript features a conversation between Armstrong and McCandless(CapCom) while the "astronauts" are purported to be returning from the moon. This is more than a day after they have alleged left the lunar surface. McCandless refers to the Eagle's landing site coordinates as the $64,000 question

4)Apollo geologist/scientist Donald Beattie was among the scientists trying to determine the Eagle's landing site coordinates beginning July 25 1969 by way of photo and flight data analysis. The scientists were told the landing site coordinates were not known and it was believed their analysis of the photos/flight data might give the LICK OBSERVATORY SCIENTISTS the additional information they needed to locate the LRRR.

Note 1) above, the LICK SCIENTISTS ALREADY HAD THE COORDINATES

5) H. David Reed, the Eagle/Apollo 11 Mission lunar surface launch FIDO was told when he arrived at work on the morning of 07/21/1969 that the Eagle landing site coordinates were not known with any certainty, solutions as provided by map analysis/PNGS/AGS/MSFN/targeted coordinates were not even close to one another, and because of a lack of consistency among ANY of these solutions, Reed used none of them and solved by way of a reverse rendezvous radar calculation.

Which of my above statements is inaccurate phantomwolf and please cite your support/reference for your claim with regard to said inaccuracy .

For the sake of completeness, please cite the reference from the LICK team who refer to 5 or 6 coordinates being given to them in 1969, an account noted at the time. It's buried in this thread somewhere.

 

[sts60]

I have made a few posts in this mega-thread, so am an almost lurker. No, I am not "on the fence" as it is blindingly obvious to 99.999% of the worlds population that Apollo happened, that it was not a military operation and that 12 men walked on the moon.

I didn't think there were any fence-sitters. There's only Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/newyorkmary/etc. making unsupported, unphysical, and frequently self-contradictory claims... and everybody else.

The evidence to support Apollo is an immense archive of photos,16mm film, moon rocks, tracking data from professional and amateur astronomers, radio broadcasts that were monitored by radio hams, the hundreds of people that worked at NASA and the 400,000 that designed and built the hardware.

Don't forget years and years of science data from the ALSEP laboratories, which were hand-deployed by the crews of five different missions. There's also lots of video, as well as orbital photography from the J-missions, and direct observation of the landing artifacts by LRO, and a great deal of flight, engineering, and test hardware still on Earth. There's also decades of science and engineering after Apollo that uses and confirms what was learned in that program. As well as the Mercury, Gemini, and unmanned programs that led up to Apollo.

The evidence against Apollo are misunderstandings about photographic shadows, incredulity, ignorance and a few people trying to make money from hoax "documentaries".

Well, some aren't in it for money, but rather to get a reaction from the grown-ups.

 

[JayUtah]

Every time you ask me this question RAF, I tell you the same thing.....more or less anyway. I cannot make out anything very distinct in those photos...

Please read our posts carefully, Patrick. He's not talking about landing site photos taken from orbit, but rather photos taken on the lunar surface 1969-1972, i.e., the photos taken by the Apollo astronauts.

There are some 6,000 of these. The civilized world rightly regards these as documentation of an event that actually occurred. Yes, we're well aware that you believe the Apollo missions were instead unmanned attempts to deploy military hardware on the Moon. But your theory says nothing about the photographic evidence for the widely-held account.

Further there are well over 300 kilograms of lunar material available for study -- material NASA says their astronauts retrieved from the lunar surface. Of the thousands of scientists who have studied this material, none has come forward to question its validity or authenticity. In fact, they all affirm it. Your theory does nothing to explain the physical evidence accepted unanimously by the relevant experts as authentic.

A theory which cannot explain all the pertinent evidence is worthless, no matter how vigorously you argue the pro case. R.A.F. and Sts60 astutely point out that no matter how much you try to stir up controversy over landing site coordinates, there are still gaping holes in your theory.

Further, when may we expect your answer to these questions?

 

[JayUtah]

Not inaccurate......Straight from the mouths of the principals;

1) Wampler and Stone...
2) Neil Armstrong himself...
3) ...Armstrong and McCandless(CapCom)...
4) ...Donald Beattie
5) H. David Reed...

Which of my above statements is inaccurate phantomwolf

Really, Patrick?

Phantom Wolf asked you in this post to discuss the credibility of your theory according to the following criteria:

• Moon visibility
• Defensibility
• Signal separation and receiver issues
• Existing technology alternatives
• Concealment

You responded with this post that partially addressed only the first point in his post.

I'm sure you may have intended the VLBI discussion to also address signal separation, but what you don't realize is that VLBI requilres all the transmitters to be visible simultaneously, not just one. So you actually narrowed the visibility requirement of your theory. In any case, you let stand without comment almost all of his post.

Phantom Wolf noted in this post that you had neglected to discuss the following:

• Defensibility
• Technology alternatives
• Concealment
• Signal separation and receiver issues

And now you're bringing up the tired landing-site coordinate issue again as if that somehow addressed those outstanding questions.

Your statements "out of the mouths of the principals" regarding the difficulty in locating the Apollo 11 LM have nothing whatsoever do to do with the feasibility of the system you propose and insist was deployed.

and please cite your support/reference for your claim with regard to said inaccuracy .

Why does he need to cite a source to tell you that you failed to answer his questions?

Very well, he can cite me. I have described above how you failed to answer his questions. You have your reference. Now please answer his questions.

And mine.

 

[R.A.F.]

Every time you ask me this question RAF, I tell you the same thing.....more or less anyway.

Yes...you "dodge" the question every time.

I cannot make out anything very distinct in those photos...

In particular...Apollo 17...you can't discern the "twin" rover tracks...exactly where surface operations showed them to be??

It is my opinion that you are intentionally "not seeing" the descent stage, and experiments, because it destroys your "argument".

Remember RAF, my claim is that they are planting military equipment on the moon under the guise of Apollo.

You can't seem to "decide" what your claim "is". Was A8 military?...oh wait, they got sick so they had to come home. Was A12 military?...oh, wait, they were struck by lightning, and "couldn't" complete their mission.

Why don't you post EXACTLY "what" you are claiming...and no, don't post a wall of junk...just answer the question.

So they park the Eagle at 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east and then years later, an orbiter photographs it. Both your side and mine EXPECTS this, and so, for the most part, these photos do nothing for your side in terms of demonstrating my analysis/theory wrong.

Bullocks...there are no different "sides". This isn't a game but an examination of reality. There is the established, demonstrated truth, "backed" by evidence, and then there is your fantasy.

I expect to see junk in these spots....

But we don't see "junk"...we see the descent stage, the ALSEP experiments, the rover and it's tracks.

Heck, we can see large rocks that were "evidenced" in the TV transmissions.

It is obvious you are not discussing this subject "in good faith", because of your blindness to anything against your irrational ideas.

Prove me wrong...



Ok, so you "kinda" addressed the images...in your own irrational way...while completely ignoring the thousand of images taken on the surface...however...

...how about the returned Lunar samples studied by scientists all over the world?

...and how about John Young...is he only lying about Apollo, or is he lying about going into space at all??

 

[JayUtah]

Your evidence for this vital element of your claim's timeline (an anecdotal recounting of the tale made decades later) is not convincing.

That's the problem, Patrick. You cite these five sources as if they all support your claim. In fact four of them agree and tell the commonly-accepted story, and your notion of reconciling the fifth is to assert that it alone must be true while all the others must be false -- part of some elaborate scripted hoax.

Your fifth source is an anecdotal account told many years after the fact. The four sources in agreement are mostly contemporary accounts, documented under well-established circumstances and provisioned with supplementary data. Why is there any question about relative credibility?

How does that constitute valid historical research?

And what's even more baffling, you ask Phantom Wolf to "cite a source" showing that any or all of these accounts is "inaccurate." Seriously? Four sources that disagree with you have already been cited -- by you. It doesn't matter that you're citing them just so you can ignore them. They're out there, and your plan for dealing with them is just to latch onto the one other source you arbitrary feel is more authoritative and reliable.

Good luck with that.

 

[Erock]

There is a UPI article I read in the Dallas Morning News from 07/24/1969, the day the Apollo 11 capsule allegedly made its simulated non splashdown. Harlan Smith, the McDonald Observatory Astronomer/telescope expert is quoted in the article as saying, now get this, he could not find the LRRR, partly because he did not know where it was. He was trying the most likely coordinates, but sdince the weather was bad, he had only been able to test/check for the 6 most likey spots, the 6 coordinate solutions viewed as most probable, the 6 places where the Eagle might most likely be.

Do you believe this? Why does the guy need to check 2 spots, let alone 6, let alone more than 6 once the weather clears. The Lick Observatory guys have the exact spot; 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east. Talk about coordinate confusuion! Talk about getting played for a chump!!!

Talk about selectively reinforcing what you alone have decided. This account calls into doubt the veracity of Wampler and Stone in their recollection. Your conclusion is illogical and highly predictable. What would be more likely to be correct, an account written at the time, or an account written 42 years later?

You never did reply to that comment. Historically we now have the actual director of the observatory telling us that in 1969, the LICK team were given 6 different coordinates. 42 years later we have two LICK people telling us that the final coordinate was relayed to them incorrectly.

Which is likely to be more accurate, one account from the observatory director given at the time, or two people looking for the returns recalling 42 years later?

Here is a quote from an email I received from Professor Wampler -

"The Apollo mission was certainly not faked. All this is explained in an article I wrote with James Faller in Scientific American, 1970, 222, 38--49. I'm surprised that Patrick is claiming that Apollo 11 was faked. I thought that I had explained all this to him."

"As you know the EVA occurred not too long after landing. I'm not sure how long it took NASA to get the site coordinates and then they had a number of people to telephone. I suspect that it was after the beginning of the first EVA."

He suspected it was after the first EVA. There was only one EVA, and I suspect that he could be mistaken with a 42 year gap in recollection. If need be, I can substantiate this email.

 

[matt.tansy]

My favorite example of Patrick not quite thinking through his fantasy-based Moon navigation system is NASA supposedly spent billions of dollars on this system so the Navy can shoot their SLBMs more accurately but NASA doesn't bother to tell the Navy about it.

"Vhat good is having a Doomsday device if you don't tell anybody you have one?"

 

[Garrison]

Post #5086 seems a perfect example of Patricks refusal to address questions. He quotes Phantomwolf's post but utterly fails to adress the points raised, instead reiterating his 'lost Eagle' material one more time.

Please Patrick address the issues; let's have some evidence for this military hardware you are so certain was launched under cover of Apollo.

 

[sts60]

Post #5086 seems a perfect example of Patricks refusal to address questions. He quotes Phantomwolf's post but utterly fails to adress the points raised, instead reiterating his 'lost Eagle' material one more time.

Please Patrick address the issues; let's have some evidence for this military hardware you are so certain was launched under cover of Apollo.

You might want to ask him for any evidence whatsoever that what was documented, and very thoroughly too, to have been launched to and deployed on the Moon... wasn't.

I won't, as I wrote him off as a troll quite a long time ago and am only reading and responding to others here. Not that it makes a difference; he has neither evidence against the actual case, nor evidence for any of the fantasy versions he's spun - some of which contradict each other, and are therefore, by his own words, "inconsistent and therefore untrue". It's unsurprisingly hypocritical not to apply his own criterion to his own arguments.