Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[SUSpilot]

@Jay: your answer to Loss Leader stands with Marisa Tomei's "the defense is wrong!" testimony in My Cousin Vinny. The difference being that I don't think you made any technical errors, unlike the writers of the movie (as listed in the "goofs" section of the IMDB entry about the film).

 

[Multivac]

My view is Apollo is very very very real, all one gadzillion worthless dollars worth of it. My point is that the project is unmanned and 100% military with a public relations cover. You don't't lose a spaceship as NASAL claims to have done unless your teMple is 10 plus incompetent, and those clowns were anything but incompetent with regard to science and engineerig. Now their acting skills are another matter altogether.

Patrick, this makes no sense. The hardware was designed to be operated by people; it was NOT fully automated. Not sure who NASAL are, but NASA did not lose, or claim to lose, the Eagle or any other spaceship. This has ben explained to you many times.

Are you saying that they pretended to lose the Eagle so that some hypothetical automated system carried out some unspecified military task?

One of the things I have always admired about American space missions is that are done in the open. Launches, flights and landings are shown live on TV rather than revealed later. Mistakes are not covered up, but are announced and open to public scrutiny.

If NASA were just PR merchants you would not have learnt about Apollo13 in real time. Nor would you have heard about the Challenger and Columbia shuttle disasters, or the mistake made in manufacturing the mirror for Hubble. All of these disasters and mistakes were announced, and the reports were published. Also, if the public face of Apollo was a PR exercise to cover some secret military missions, why would they have faked the oxygen tank explosion on Apollo13? The American public were getting bored with Apollo by then, so why reawaken their interest by faking an explosion that endangered the lives of the three astronauts? If it was a PR exercise, surely every aspect of every mission would be reported as perfect.

 

[Multivac]

Great post Multivac.......

It was and is blindingly obvious that Apollo was/is a PR stunt with some real science going on, actuality a ton of real science going on if you ask me, but back to the PR stunt business........

So you and I agree that it is a PR stunt Multivac, wouldn't you have a plan to put the boy scout out in front of the Eagle for God's sake and take his picture? AND were this real, Aldrin would have had a camera as well, ALL OF THE TIME THEY WERE ON THE MOON.

Sorry, but how on Earth, or the Moon, did you twist and misinterpret any of my posts to indicate that I support your bizzare theories? Nowhere have I said anything that could possibly make you believe that I think Apollo was faked in any way, or a PR exercise. I object to you twisting my posts to fit your beliefs.

The two of them, both of them, would of course need to be prepared to take pics of one another and anything else as the opportunity or DANGER or TRIUMPH arose.

The fact only Armstrong for the most part has a camera and takes pics of Buzz proves Apollo fraudulent right there. How much more of a laughable charade can this this be/become?

Also, think about this.... What is the reason they don't photograph the truant boy scout? Could we easily see him as the phony he is were he photoed once straight on? Missing a camera mount? Telltale missing identification? Missing a camera? Something is going on there....

We do know it to be fake though, do we not......????...... They would have photographed the yoyo to death in front of the LM were the thing real, right??????

It's tyue that there are only a few good quality pics of Neil Armstrong on the moon, but there are lots of photos of Buzz Aldrin on the moon, which were taken by Neil Armstrong. Why are you calling Neil Armstrong a truant boy scout? Do you think someone else took the photos of Buzz?

Please stop claiming that "we" know Apollo was fake, unless you are using the "royal we", and simply mean that you believe it.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I would still like Patrick to tell us why all the worlds scientists and engineers with suitable qualifications and experience across many disciplines and fields for 40 years think Apollo was real and happened the way NASA says?

 

[Patrick1000]

This is good, from THE APOLLO 11 LM LUNAR SURFACE CHECKLIST.....

http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11sur.pdf


Look at page 3, a third of the way down. The checklist reads;


"NOTIFY MSFN OF APPROXIMATE LANDING SITE"

The "astronauts" were alleged to have run a p68 program, post landing program. This program was to give them the PGNS determined landing site coordinates. Why didn't they notify MSFN of these numbers, notify MSFN of the Eagle's approximate landing site? What could have been more important at the time? There was no such notification given. Just read the voice transcript, NONE. Can you believe it? NONE!!!!!

Again, what could have been more important? The two alleged soon to be alleged moonwalkers ran a p68 program that allegedly gave the alleged landing site coordinates. The PGNS purportedly gave Armstrong and Aldrin the landing site coordinates in real time as 0.649 north and 23.46 east. This is per the Apollo 11 Mission report table 5-IV. Anyone can read this table, plain enough, simple enough........

Another point to consider. As of today, most serious Apollo historians consider the most accurate and FULLY MODERN DETERMINATION OF THE APOLLO 11 LANDING SITE COORDINATES TO BE THOSE OF DAVIES AND COLVIN;

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/lunar_sites.html

Davies/Colvin found/find the Eagle to be at 0.67408 north and 23.47297 east. Again, these are considered tho be the best/most accurate Apollo 11 landing site coordinates available to date. Note that the coordinates as determined by the Apollo 11 PGNS p68 program give a result only 0.53 miles from Davies and Colvin. Now THAT!!!!!! my friends is accurate.

Is this bird LOST. I dare say not! Is someone hiding it? YES!!!! If by hiding you mean lying about its Apollo 11 script/narrative pretended whereabouts.

Note not only the incredible accuracy, but additionally, note the result using the raw numbers is better than that given by making the calculation with the trajectory to map correction factors. In that case the PGNS solution is 1.58 miles from that of Davies and Colvin. Regardless, either solution, PGNS with or without trajectory to map corrections gives a result very very close to the modern result of Davies and Colvin and the fact that the "uncorrected result" is better than the corrected one suggests the correction factors were intentionally introduced to confuse.

But Back to business. Why didn't Armstrong and Aldrin tell MSFN that their p68 program yielded a latitude and longitude solution 0.649 north and 23.46 east, numbers that would ultimately prove to be within a half mile of the best fully modern determination of the Eagle location available today?

Why didn't they notify MSFN? Why didn't they notify MSFN? Why didn't they notify MSFN? Why didn't they notify MSFN? Why didn't they notify MSFN? Why didn't they notify MSFN? Why didn't they notify MSFN? Why didn't they notify MSFN?

Why didn't they notify MSFN as to the Eagle's approximate coordinates? It was only in the LM LUNAR CHECKLIST FOR GOD'S SAKE !!!!!!!!!!!!!



FAKE!!!!! FAKE !!!!!! FAKE !!!!!!!!!

Proof positive my friends so very very very very very very FAKE!!!!!!!!

Can this thing get any more bogus than this? If it can, I cannot imagine what would make it so. An appearance by the Three Stooges a' la HAVE ROCKET WILL TRAVEL perhaps.......

 

[Loss Leader]

But Back to business. Why didn't Armstrong and Aldrin tell MSFN that their p68 program yielded a latitude and longitude solution 0.649 north and 23.46 east, numbers that would ultimately prove to be within a half mile of the best fully modern determination of the Eagle location available today? Why didn't they notify MSFN?

Patrick, your question makes no sense. When would a reasonable person expect someone to follow a script exactly? The time to follow scripts is when people are putting on a play. Real life never goes according to plan, no matter how well thought out.

If the mission were faked, we'd expect the checklist, the script, to be followed exactly. It's when something is real that you see deviations.

And, of course, I'm granting your assumption that the checklist wasn't followed. I'm sure someone will be along shortly to correct that notion.

In the meantime, here is a summary of the questions asked of you that you ignored in favor of typing your last meaningless post. Incidentally, these questions are only the ones from the last 21 posts in the thread. They are sometimes paraphrased:

1. Why do all the worlds scientists and engineers with suitable qualifications and experience across many disciplines and fields for 40 years think Apollo was real and happened the way NASA says?

2. If Neil Armstrong took the photo of Buzz Aldrin on the moon, why are you calling him a truant boy scout?

3. If the public face of Apollo was a PR exercise to cover some secret military missions, why would they have faked the oxygen tank explosion on Apollo13?

4. The American public were getting bored with Apollo by the time of Apollo 13, so why reawaken their interest by faking an explosion that endangered the lives of the three astronauts?

5. If NASA knew people expected pictures of Armstrong, and they knew they didn't have them, why didn't they invent an excuse?

6. Patrick, can you decide which claim you would like to make and "stick" to it? If not, why not??

7. Am I the guy next door?

8. Why is it real-time television and real-time conversations with a US President, also broadcast, are unacceptable?

9. Ehy is it photographs in training, on the pad, in the spacecraft, and following the mission are insufficient?

10. Why can't NASA simply put any old actor into a space suit, cover his face, and claim it's Armstrong in the photos?

11. If photos of Armstrong are that important, and NASA had originally planned to take lots of him, then why didn't they follow the obvious steps to correct that? Why did they instead accept the "clearly" wrong condition?

12. A simple question, Patrick: Why?

13. Show me where in the Apollo 11 photography plan Aldrin was instructed to take "set" pictures (which you do not define) of Armstrong.

14. So this is all about you, then?

15. You have been unable to provide any evidence that would change the minds of people actually familiar with Apollo, why is that?

16. Are all the scientists who confirm Apollo as real, just stupider than you?

17. Your disbelief is not evidence; why can't you understand that?

18. Address the returned Lunar samples that have been studied by scientists around the world and tell us all how wrong ALL those scientists are.

 

[Andy_Ross]

But Back to business. Why didn't Armstrong and Aldrin tell MSFN that their p68 program yielded a latitude and longitude solution 0.649 north and 23.46 east, numbers that would ultimately prove to be within a half mile of the best fully modern determination of the Eagle location available today?

Why didn't they notify MSFN? Why didn't they notify MSFN? Why didn't they notify MSFN? Why didn't they notify MSFN? Why didn't they notify MSFN? Why didn't they notify MSFN? Why didn't they notify MSFN? Why didn't they notify MSFN?

Why didn't they notify MSFN as to the Eagle's approximate coordinates? It was only in the LM LUNAR CHECKLIST FOR GOD'S SAKE !!!!!!!!!!!!!

How does this show a hoax? If it was all so carefuly scripted then they would have notified MSFN wouldn't they? or not bothered putting it in the script?

 

[Patrick1000]

They landed, they ran the p68, they are supposed to cough up the numbers....

Patrick, your question makes no sense. When would a reasonable person expect someone to follow a script exactly? The time to follow scripts is when people are putting on a play. Real life never goes according to plan, no matter how well thought out.

If the mission were faked, we'd expect the checklist, the script, to be followed exactly. It's when something is real that you see deviations.

And, of course, I'm granting your assumption that the checklist wasn't followed. I'm sure someone will be along shortly to correct that notion.

In the meantime, here is a summary of the questions asked of you that you ignored in favor of typing your last meaningless post. Incidentally, these questions are only the ones from the last 21 posts in the thread. They are sometimes paraphrased:

1. Why do all the worlds scientists and engineers with suitable qualifications and experience across many disciplines and fields for 40 years think Apollo was real and happened the way NASA says?

2. If Neil Armstrong took the photo of Buzz Aldrin on the moon, why are you calling him a truant boy scout?

3. If the public face of Apollo was a PR exercise to cover some secret military missions, why would they have faked the oxygen tank explosion on Apollo13?

4. The American public were getting bored with Apollo by the time of Apollo 13, so why reawaken their interest by faking an explosion that endangered the lives of the three astronauts?

5. If NASA knew people expected pictures of Armstrong, and they knew they didn't have them, why didn't they invent an excuse?

6. Patrick, can you decide which claim you would like to make and "stick" to it? If not, why not??

7. Am I the guy next door?

8. Why is it real-time television and real-time conversations with a US President, also broadcast, are unacceptable?

9. Ehy is it photographs in training, on the pad, in the spacecraft, and following the mission are insufficient?

10. Why can't NASA simply put any old actor into a space suit, cover his face, and claim it's Armstrong in the photos?

11. If photos of Armstrong are that important, and NASA had originally planned to take lots of him, then why didn't they follow the obvious steps to correct that? Why did they instead accept the "clearly" wrong condition?

12. A simple question, Patrick: Why?

13. Show me where in the Apollo 11 photography plan Aldrin was instructed to take "set" pictures (which you do not define) of Armstrong.

14. So this is all about you, then?

15. You have been unable to provide any evidence that would change the minds of people actually familiar with Apollo, why is that?

16. Are all the scientists who confirm Apollo as real, just stupider than you?

17. Your disbelief is not evidence; why can't you understand that?

18. Address the returned Lunar samples that have been studied by scientists around the world and tell us all how wrong ALL those scientists are.

They alleged landed, they allegedly ran the p68. Assuming these things occurred, they are supposed to cough up the numbers, the landing site coordinate numbers. At the time, it was the single most important datum simply based on safety concerns. They did not disclose any landing site coordinates whatsoever. This bird is nowhere and this Apollo 11 Mission is proven FAKE, sorry, but true true true Loss Leader. FAKE!

 

[JayUtah]

And as usual, faced with questions he cannot answer or flat-out refuses to answer, Patrick changes the subject.

Why didn't they notify MSFN of these numbers, notify MSFN of the Eagle's approximate landing site?

Why are you so sure they didn't? Hint: the answer to your question is on the same checklist page. When you find it, be sure to let us know.

There was no such notification given. Just read the voice transcript, NONE.

GET 102:48:10 LMP (Aldrin): Copy Noun 60 -- Noun 43, over.
GET 102:48:13 CAPCOM (Charles Duke): Roger, we have it.

It's right there in black and white, perfectly obvious to those who are properly qualified to understand the transcripts.

 

[Patrick1000]

Safeguarding the command module against the possibility of astronauts inhaling....

No Patrick1000 a FAKE mission would have made sure to get all those perfect 'Kodak moments'. A real mission, under the real constraints explained by JayUtah had to set priorities. All you're telling us here, as you've done so many times, is that your priorities would have been different(and based on a lack of understanding of medical/technical/political realities); none of which proves anything about Apollo.
Now how about going back to all those technical and hardware questions you've skipped over?

Safeguarding the command module against the possibility of astronauts inhaling and ingesting infectious diarrhea is hardly a priority of MINE. It should have been a priority of Dr. Berry's and wasn't and proves Apollo fraudulent.

Ask any doc, "is it ok to inhale and ingest(orally) infected fecal material? Is it OK to inhale/ingest diarrhea from a man said to be infected with some UNKNOWN agent resulting in infectious gastroenteritis?"

See what they say Garrison. Remind yourself, this is not a point in dispute. Infected diarrhea floating about the zero-G Apollo 8 Command Module is a NASA acknowledged piece of Apollo history a NASA FACT. As a matter of FACT, the Apollo 8 Mission Report says the etiology of the diarrhea was viral gastroenteritis. So there is absolutely no question this occurred according to NASA.

Priority of MINE? Who cares what I say in this case? THIS SPACE MISSION IS PROVEN FAKE RIGHT THERE. My opinion is irrelevant. Just take a look at any basic microbiological analysis of what bugs are in stool.

No risk in breathing that stuff in?

Good luck with your fantasy Garrison as regards the medium term outlook on the maintenance of even a semblance of Apollo integrity. This charade is over my friend, over over over, and the evidence, the inconsistencies , the narrative's internal incoherencies continue to grow grow grow.

 

[R.A.F.]

Please stop claiming that "we" know Apollo was fake, unless you are using the "royal we", and simply mean that you believe it.

It's no use, Multivac...Patrick will continue saying that no matter how many time he is told to STOP.

He has great difficulty following simple instructions, yet he is "able" to "expose" that Apollo was faked...

Yeah...not very likely...

 

[R.A.F.]

I would still like Patrick to tell us why all the worlds scientists and engineers with suitable qualifications and experience across many disciplines and fields for 40 years think Apollo was real and happened the way NASA says?

Other than the OBVIOUS reason, that it would expose that you haven't a clue what you are talking about, Why can't you answer this question, Patrick??


This is another of those questions that will be repeated until you respond...if you don't, well as I said, the reason why will be obvious.

 

[Patrick1000]

Oh please Loss Leader, how ever so ridiculous.....

O.M.G., you've wandered out of JU's field and into mine.

As is true of many of your most general statements, Patrick, you are right in a way. Juries are often asked to apply common sense and determine what a reasonable person would do. They generally do this to determine whether a situation is more likely than not.

But here's the most important thing about that: the question of whether some behavior is reasonable is far different from the question of whether only one particular behavior is reasonable.

Let's say that I am driving when I see a dear in the road, staring right at me. I do one of the following: 1) honk at the dear, slow down and hit it because it doesn't get out of the way; 2) slow down and swerve over into the oncoming lane and pass the dear because it doesn't get out of the way; 3) stop the car and wait a full thirty seconds until the stupid dear finally runs off; 4) stop the car, wait, get out of the car after two solid minutes, and run at the dear while waving my hands so that it finally runs off.

What would you do? I know what I have done.

But which is the reasonable course of action? What would a reasonable person do? The answer is all of them. There are multiple reasonable courses of action. Someone who doesn't know that dear freeze when startled may hit the thing, reasonably expecting it to run off like a rabbit. After just one encounter with a dear, the reasonable person might react differently.

So, lawyers don't ask a jury to determine the one and only true reasonable course of action. The question is whether the action taken is one that a reasonable person might have chosen.

But there's another legal concept you've missed. Why do we ask what a reasonable person would do? We ask it only in one circumstance: when we are trying to determine one's legal duty to others. The "reasonable man" standard has to do with duty and negligence.

Thus, we have to question why you're applying the reasonable man standard to NASA. What duty did NASA have that it neglected? If NASA was a military front, its duty was to protect the nation which, according to you, it did successfully. There's no negligence; there's no reasonableness test.





There's your mistake. You think that one particular set of actions is the ONLY reasonable set. The question is: Would a reasonable NASA have planned a mission that didn't include still pictures of Armstrong? Could sober, rational men and women have done that?

We may have questions. What was NASA thinking? JayUtah gave us an excellent explanation of the considerations that led to only one camera being unloaded and that put it in Armstrong's hands. Does it sound reasonable? NASA considered the time necessary to unload and load two cameras from the LEM. NASA considered which astronaut was the better photographer. Those things seem like good, sober explanations.

The way the pictures were taken seem reasonable.

Please note that you are right, to a small extent. NASA considered a way to get pictures of Armstrong. NASA wanted to. But, in the end, they chose another path.





You realize, of course, that the helmets completely obscured the astronauts' faces. For most of my life, I though the pictures were of Armstrong. I only found out recently that they were of Aldrin. Do you think NASA may have suspected that they wouldn't be able to get a clear picture of faces when they chose not to unload a camera for Aldrin?





Most of the numbers between 1 and 11 are odd. Must all numbers from 1 to 11 be odd?





Except that you've made three mistakes: 1) you haven't given people any facts as to why it might have been reasonable for only Armstrong to have a camera; 2) you've asked the wrong question; and 3) you haven't shown that the question deserves to be asked. Every jury gets to hear the details of what went into a decision; but you appear to be denying the jury this opportunity. Second, the right question is, "Do you believe a reasonable NASA might have chosen not to take still pictures of Armstrong?" Third, there's no reason why NASA should have acted reasonably.

The reasonable thing to do, in my opinion, would have been to decide the whole thing was just too hard and to give up. That's what I would have done. Even you don't think there was no space program, even though I think the whole idea of strapping people to rockets is insane.





Why? You believe that the US carried out missions vital to our defense that actually worked: they kept us safe from nuclear attack for forty years.





Odd that you choose this example. I did go to the Colosseum with my wife on our honeymoon. And we only have pictures of her, none of me. Why? I had the camera; the outfit she was wearing had no pockets.

Oh please Loss Leader, how ever so ridiculous. For crying out loud, Armstrong allegedly landed on the moon and the only photo we have of him looks as though the guy is checking for a blown muffler on the underside of the Eagle. It's beyond painful to look at this garbage.

As I said previously, whenever I go to the Smithsonian, I don a paper bag over my head and utter not a word in English. I speak Italian and broken Cantonese so the foreigners won't know I'm an American and connected to this monstrous embarrassment.

 

[R.A.F.]

Proof positive my friends so very very very very very very FAKE!!!!!!!!

Why do you think your opinion relevant?

It has been proven by your own posts that you don't know what you are talking about, yet you respond in the same manner almost in every post...


Please address Multivac's question...or at least admit that you can't answer...

 

[Loss Leader]

Oh please Loss Leader, how ever so ridiculous.

I note that you haven't disagreed with a word I wrote regarding law, the true meaning of the "reasonable person" standard, and its place within the judicial framework.

Have I made any mistakes in explaining the law to you?

If not, will you agree that legal "reasonableness" has nothing to do with whatever definition of "reasonableness" that you are using?

Ask any doc, "is it ok to inhale and ingest(orally) infected fecal material? Is it OK to inhale/ingest diarrhea from a man said to be infected with some UNKNOWN agent resulting in infectious gastroenteritis?"

I'll ask that question of doctors if I get to ask two follow-up questions:

1. Do you believe there are situations when the risks of inhaling fecal matter might be disregarded by reasonable people in order to pursue rewards they value?

2. Knowing that astronauts who would have gone to the moon risked breathing poop and did actually do so on at least one occasion, do you believe men have walked on the moon?

However, you should ask the following of any astronauts you might meet: Would you be willing to die doing your job?

 

[JayUtah]

They did not disclose any landing site coordinates whatsoever.

Yes, they did. You're just too inexpert to see how it was done. To those who are properly educated in the operation of the MSFN and the LGC, the answers are plainly there.

...sorry, but true true true Loss Leader. FAKE!

Why did you quote the post containing all his questions, but fail to answer a single one of them? I would like to hear your answers to them. It would help convince us that you are the serious historian you claim you want to be. Real scholars face their critics, not run from them.

 

[JayUtah]

Oh please Loss Leader, how ever so ridiculous. For crying out loud, Armstrong allegedly landed on the moon and the only photo we have of him looks as though the guy is checking for a blown muffler on the underside of the Eagle. It's beyond painful to look at this garbage.

And all this indignant huffing and puffing matters exactly why?

As I said previously, whenever I go to the Smithsonian, I don a paper bag over my head...

We get it: you're disgusted by Apollo. Ranting and raving about it repeatedly doesn't help people think of you as a rational researcher.

When I go to the Smithsonian I usually end up answering tourists' questions that stump the guides. Let that sink in.

 

[JayUtah]

Safeguarding the command module against the possibility of astronauts inhaling and ingesting infectious diarrhea is hardly a priority of MINE. It should have been a priority of Dr. Berry's and wasn't and proves Apollo fraudulent.

No, you don't get to invent new "rules" for space missions. Just because you, wallowing in misinformation and inxpertise, would have done something different has absolutely no value as proof.

Ask any doc, "is it ok to inhale and ingest(orally) infected fecal material [...]?"

You left out the most important part of the question: "...while tens of thousands of miles away in a spacecraft heading for the Moon on a singular historic mission."

You have fled from Loss Leader's excellent treatise on reasonable judgment, and you commit similar errors here. You're trying to tell us that the only reasonable thing to do would be to abort the mission. But in fact those who have the appropriate knowledge and experience disagree. The jury has already rendered its verdict, and it is not in your favor.

If I ask a physician, "Should I move a man who has a fractured pelvis?" I expect his answer will be, "Certainly not." However, if I add the second part of the question, "...as a train is bearing down on the tracks where he is laying," then I expect him to say, "Yes, by all means move him!"

See? You want give experts only the part of the question that leads them to agree with you. You don't want to give them the whole problem. Reasonable judgment considers all the pertinent factors, not just the ones you cherry-pick. Your approach is dishonest.

In fact Dr. Charles Berry, whose credentials and experience not in any dispute whatsoever, considered all the factors and made a decision which has not been materially challenged. If you argue that his decision would be considered unreasonable by any number of competent, similarly qualified physicians, then you bear the burden to produce those physicians and let us question them. Your uninformed opinion is irrelevant.

Remind yourself, this is not a point in dispute. Infected diarrhea floating about the zero-G Apollo 8 Command Module is a NASA acknowledged piece of Apollo history a NASA FACT.

This is the standard pseudo-science hair-split I raised earlier. You pound your fist on the point of fact, but you ignore entirely the point of judgment that follows. Just because the facts turn out to be what you say they are doesn't mean you're right about what should be done about them.

Priority of MINE? Who cares what I say in this case? THIS SPACE MISSION IS PROVEN FAKE RIGHT THERE. My opinion is irrelevant.

Ignoratio elenchi. Your entire argument rests upon your judgment and nothing else. You state, on no better authority than your own uninformed opinion, that the Apollo 8 mission should have been aborted. You say the mission as presented to the public therefore has to be fake because it did not conform to your judgment. How is that not begging us to accept your statement?

As a matter of fact, no one does care what you say in this case. Your inexpert, uninformed, selectively-argued opinion is simply irrelevant.

No risk in breathing that stuff in?

Who is claiming there was no risk?

 

[abaddon]

Yes, they did. You're just too inexpert to see how it was done. To those who are properly educated in the operation of the MSFN and the LGC, the answers are plainly there.



Why did you quote the post containing all his questions, but fail to answer a single one of them? I would like to hear your answers to them. It would help convince us that you are the serious historian you claim you want to be. Real scholars face their critics, not run from them.

I notice Patrick is carefully avoiding the Noun43 question.

Why is that, I wonder?

 

[Loss Leader]

There was no such notification given. Just read the voice transcript, NONE. Can you believe it? NONE!!!!!

Patrick, exactly what does Noun 43 mean?