Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Patrick1000]

It is rather obvious RAF......

All those people INCLUDING SCIENTISTS the world over...all those people "fooled"....but not you?

Please explain why your opinion should be of more interest than the opinions of the scientists of the world.

I and others have asked this question in a number of different ways...yet you've "dodged" it in every instance.

Please respond to it now...

It is rather obvious RAF......How many scientists would change their minds if they knew about the fraudulent LAM-2 rotated and falsely gridded map RAF? LOTS!!!!! How many doctors would know Apollo to be phony if they knew the full Borman dime store vomit and diarrhea story? LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS.

The full story is simply not known to most. That is one of the reasons that I write about this as do others. We are the alternative and REAL MEDIA IN THIS CASE. We are the reporters, albeit after the fact. But it is better than nothing. At least some of the truth is coming out.

Think back, scroll back to my earlier posts on Deke Slayton and Alan Shepard's MOON SHOOT book, written by Jay Barbree the astronaut heiny kisser and syncophant. How is anyone going to know what happened really if astronaut buttocks magnets like Barbree are the one's reporting the FAKE NEWS....?...?...

 

[Andy_Ross]

Patrick,.

Why do all the worlds scientists and engineer for the last 40 years think Apollo was real? Why do they accept the engineering, transcripts, rock samples, reports and data produced b apollo?
Why do Space Agencies and Aerospace companies the world over still use Apollo data?

 

[nomuse]

You really, really need to read up on map projections.

As I've pointed out before the LAM2 flown map (UTM) and the Grollier map (transverse mercator) use different projection systems and datums which, in part, will result in the 'rotation' and coordinate shift that you seem to find so diabolical.

Really, when you work with maps and airphoto or satellite imagery all the time, datum shifts, affine transformations, projection changes, scale shifts, false origins and rotations are just every day occurences.

I've just been cleaning up UV's on a new 3d model and it only underlines the stupidity of thinking there is one perfect projection that is optimal for all purposes.

 

[JayUtah]

All of the astronauts know this is a fraud Jay....What do you think Charlie Duke is doing there at his CapCom Mission Control console when Apollo 11 makes its simulated landing, picking his nose ?.....?......?

They are sending an EAGLE to the moon Jay, what do you think they are doing? Acting? Almost all those guys in Houston BELIEVE THIS TO BE REAL. AND IT IS REAL, real in the sense genuine military equipment is being launched. The only fake thing about it and it is A VERY BIG FAKE THING, is that real astronauts are not involved. There are no manned landings, only equipment lands. Think of it Jay as a giant Surveyor VII touching down at Tranquility Base. Imagine all the great stuff they packed into that bad boy.

Apollo was a program to launch and land lots and lots and lots of this stuff. It is real Jay in that regard, very very very very real. They are protecting you from the Ruskies Dude......That is what Apollo is about.......Do I need to keep repeating that? I thought I had made that very very very clear, what the reality was. Apollo was an unmanned program to weaponize space, and this space weaponization program was run under the guise of peaceful/scientific exploratory missions. Get it?......

Every head of Israeli Intelligence from say 1970 on would know for starters. They may well have known, figured it out, or were told by US intelligence beforehand. It would have been pretty stupid for us to pretend with those guys, the Israelis, you know Jay. They tend to figure everything out pretty quickly. Certainly by the mid 70s Israeli Intelligence would have figured it out on their own. They are hardly stupid Jay, not like me. Not like I was. Then again, I was only 11 when this thing went off, so not stupid, but rather naiive. Were I say 16 and hip to the phony LAM-2 rotated and bogusly gridded map and the fake Borman dime store vomit and diarrhea, I would have been on board much earlier. Still, better late than never.....

As regarding the main actors, the few in the know know know, the most fascinating character for my money is Harrison AKA Jack Schmidt. He enters Apollo as a scientist, a geologist and then later becomes an astronaut.

In this particularly interesting case it is more than fascinating to read how Donald Beattie describes Schmidt's activities when he first entered Apollo as a scientist, pre "official astronaut" days. He is an obvious "PLANT" and a key and exceedingly useful PLANT at that. Imagine all the jive he feeds the astronauts like Armstrong so that they surprisingly sound so erudite. Brilliant really, evil genius and then some.

I almost ralphed up my dinner two nights ago while watching an over the top insanely bogus Schmidt talk/video on Apollo. What a phony that clown is.....

WHAT BULL!!!

And again it would be hysteriaclly funny if this all was not so expensive.....

None of this rant has a single thing to do with my post. Use fewer words, please, and try to stay with the subject.

 

[SUSpilot]

He should proudly stand in front of the space ship he flew to the surface of the moon, give a thumbs up, figuratively speking of coures, AND HAVE HIS BLOOD YPICTURE TAKEN. THAT IS HOW HE SHOULD BEHAVE....

This is the basis of your argument that Neil Armstrong has some sort of guilt complex because of an alleged Apollo hoax? That is just nonsensical, to say the least. First, the procedural obstacles have already been explained to you. Second, maybe he just isn't into "I love me" stuff. Third, they were busy. And fourth, your priorities aren't necessarily everyone else's.

 

[Patrick1000]

I know that I am far from an expert and certainly defer to you....

You really, really need to read up on map projections.

As I've pointed out before the LAM2 flown map (UTM) and the Grollier map (transverse mercator) use different projection systems and datums which, in part, will result in the 'rotation' and coordinate shift that you seem to find so diabolical.

Really, when you work with maps and airphoto or satellite imagery all the time, datum shifts, affine transformations, projection changes, scale shifts, false origins and rotations are just every day occurences.

I know that I am far from an expert, and certainly defer to you Laton with regard to map stuff in general. That said, here is a fun and very very very easy exercise that anyone can do to prove to themselves the Apollo 11 Flown LAM-2 map is fraudulent and along with it, all of the Apollo 11 Mission.

The targeted landing point as all will recall from the Apollo 11 Mission Report section 5.3, page 5-6 was said to have been 00 43' 53" north and 23 38' 51' east. For the purpose of this little exercise, one can round these to 00 44' north and 23 39' east, or go all out and use the coordinates to the last second of arc if it suits you. Either way, you'll find the same thing here.

Go to the maps I referenced above in my posts at # 5166, # 5190 and so forth. THEN FIND THE TARGETED LANDING SITE ON ALL OF THOSE MAPS, THE GOOGLE EARTH/MOON, THE APOLLO 10 FLOWN MAP, MAURICE GROLIER'S RENOWN US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY POST FLIGHT MAP(MADE WITH PRE-FLIGHT MATERIALS) AND THE APOLLO 11 LAM-2 NOW INFAMOUS FLOWN MAP OF MICHAEL COLLINS.

One finds in all cases but the last that 00 43' 53" north and 23 38' 51" east lands one in an open area pretty much in the middle of the landing ellipse. The coast looks more than clear there, a beautiful spot to park your Eagle/LM. Smooth, essentially no craters, an obviously great choice for the first Apollo lunar landing, were it real.

But on the other hand, if you go to 00 43' 53" north and 23 38' 51" east on the Apollo 11 LAM-2 flown map of Michael Collins, well then you wind up a pretty good piece, 3 minutes of arc or so west and then a bit north of that nice clear field at the "genuine" targeted site as found on all of the other maps. PLEASE NOTE THAT ON THE APOLLO 11 LAM-2 FLOWN MAP OF MICHAEL COLLINS, 00 43' 53" NORTH AND 23 38' 51" EAST IS MOST DECIDEDLY NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LANDING ELLIPSE AS IT IS ON THE APOLLO 10 FLOWN MAP. OF COURSE IT SHOULD BE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ELLIPSE, THAT IS THE WAY THE ELLIPSE WAS DESIGNED, AND THIS OF COURSE IS CONFIRMED BY THE POSITION OF THE ELLIPSE IN THE APOLLO 10 FLOWN MAP.

Here on the Apollo 11 LAM-2 Flown Map at 00 43' 53" north and 23 38' 51" east there are more craters and significant irregularities with which to deal than at the TRUE targeted landing site in the middle of the ellipse and as defined by the location 00 43' 53" north and 23 38' 51" east on all of the other maps. The Apollo 11 Lam-2 flown map is unique with regard to that just discussed. Unique because it is of course intentionally manipulated to deceive. Note the Apollo 10 flown map is also rotated some, but as the center of rotation is more or less at the center of the landing ellipse and as the rotation is not great, the rotation manipulation does little to impact the targeted landing site location here.

So on the LAM-2 flown map of Collins we find many more obstacles(craters) at 00 43' 53" north and 23 38' 51" than we do on the other more accurate maps, INCLUDING THE RELATIVELY ACCURATE APOLLO 10 FLOWN MAP THAT CERNAN AUTOGRAPHED. And obviously the intent of all this was to have the Eagle pretend to target this super clear area as defined by the landing coordinate location on the other maps.

Try this for yourself. It is easy and a lot of fun really.

Any old average guy or gal Laton can do this, find the targeted landing site on all of these maps and prove to himself or herself that the originally targeted site on the Apollo 11 flown LAM-2 flown map is not to be found at map coordinates 00 43' 53" north and 23 38' 51" east, but well east and a bit south of the LAM-2 map's presentation of things, this owing to the rotation and perhaps even more significantly the westward displacement of the longitude lines.

At 00 43' 53" north and 23 38' 51" east on the LAM-2 Flown Map of Michael Collins there are more craters/obstacles and so forth. This of course proves the map to be a fake and with it, the whole Apollo 11 mission.

Easy enough for all of us to do. Go for it! Find the targeted site on all of the maps! It is FUN! AND, proves the fraud in one fell Eagle swoop, NOT!

 

[JayUtah]

No training, my opinion is based on common sense.....

So you admit receiving no special training to enable you to judge accurately the work of experts in fields you know nothing about?

 

[JayUtah]

How many scientists would change their minds if they knew about the fraudulent LAM-2 rotated and falsely gridded map RAF? LOTS!!!!!

Supposition is not proof.

How many doctors would know Apollo to be phony if they knew the full Borman dime store vomit and diarrhea story? LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS.

Supposition is not proof.

The full story is simply not known to most.

So when asked why all the world's experts disagree with you, your answer is that they are all ignorant except for you. Doesn't that strike you as the least bit arrogant?

Okay, put up or shut up. Name me two relevant scientists with verifiable identities and credentials who endorse your claim regarding the map. Find me two verifiable physicians with flight-surgeon credentials who endorse your findings regarding Borman. If what you say is true, that should be very easy to do. And yes, I will verify their identities and testimony, as I did your contact with Eric Jones.

 

[JayUtah]

Why do Space Agencies and Aerospace companies the world over still use Apollo data?

Yes, Patrick claiming that the aerospace community wouldn't know as much about Apollo as he does still has me giggling. Sheesh, it was only the seminal event in the history of the science, and you can't throw a cleco in the industry without hitting something Apollo-derived. It's like accusing a cardiac surgeon of not "knowing" that Christiaan Barnard was really a fraud.

 

[332nd]

Wow.. Still going huh?

Ok Since Patrick has once again wandered into my territory...

Patrick, you have again referred to the astronauts in question as actors. I am an actor. I have an MFA in acting, I've made my living for the past 8 years acting & teaching acting on the university level.

Can you explain how you know they are acting?

 

[Patrick1000]

There was limited practical experience with space sickness....

Agreed.



Please cite a reference establishing that the symptoms of space adaptation sickness (SAS) were not well known before 1969.



While several people here have suggested that the diarrhea may have been a symptom of SAS, I find no evidence that NASA at any time asserted that. Nor do I find any evidence that SAS was considered as a diagnosis for Frank Borman's illness. The two diagnoses considered were an adverse reaction to a sleeping aid, and acute viral gastroenteritis.

If you believe NASA intended Frank Borman's diarrhea to be accepted as a symptom of SAS, please provide evidence of that.

There was limited practical experience with space sickness at that time. Most that write on the subject write that for the most part it was not an issue with respect to the Mercury and Gemini Programs.

I quoted long sections of Berry's book chapter previously that were deleted unfortunately and I will not do so again, will not quote the sections.

At any rate, in the Aerospace Medicine book I have referenced before with Berry writing on the topic of manned space flight medicine, Berry has little to say, and that book was written AFTER the Apollo Missions were all completed.

The point about the Borman illness has little to do with the diagnosis Jay. My main point has nothing to do with whether or not it was viral gastroenteritis, space sickness or the seconal. The problem as I have emphasized numerous times is that were anyone to have loose stool, then all 3 astronauts would be exposed to WHATEVER was in the stool by virtue of whatever the etiology. This is simply flat out not acceptable because "whatever" might be INFLUENZA, or worse yet. All the astronauts could easily die.

So to yet again emphasize my point, the evaluation of Borman was inadequate by any standard, let alone the evaluation of an astronaut flying to the moon. But let's allow that the evaluation WAS ADEQUATE, BETTER YET TO EMPHASIZE MY POINT, LET'S SAY CHARLES BERRY DID AN EXCELLENT JOB. The problem is that the risk persisted. Were this real, they would have seen to it that regardless of the etiology, one moving forward would not allow the astronauts to be inhaling and ingesting stool, potentially infected stool, on trips of 9 days' duration. The risk is insane, over the top, unbelievably great.

As such, given the fact that the problem was never fixed and that the astronauts remained at risk for Apollos 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, remained vulnerable with the risk of serious illness unacceptable, one may conclude that none of this ever happened. It simply could not have. Ask your friends who are medical people, see how they respond; DIARRHEA OF UNKNOWN ETIOLOGY FLOATING IN A ZERO G CABIN, ALL ON BOARD WILL BY VIRTUE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES INHALE AND INGEST THIS MATERIAL. IS THIS SAFE?


THE ANSWER IS A RESOUNDING NO AND APOLLO IS BY VIRTUE OF THIS "NO" PROVEN WITHOUT ANY QUESTION WHATSOEVER TO BE VACUUM SEALED FOR SURE FOR SURE FOR SURE FRAUDULENT, ALL OF IT.......APOLLO CANNOT BE A MANNED LUNAR LANDING PROGRAM, IMPOSSIBLE, SIMPLY NOT NOT NOT SAFE.....

 

[Patrick1000]

Great tantrum......

We all knew what Noun 43 was before we asked you. The point was to determine whether you knew what Noun 43 means, and therefore the implications of Duke's confirmation that the contents of Noun 43 had been received in Houston by telemetry. You didn't notice the inconspicuous little P00E at the top of the checklist page?

When Aldrin asks whether Noun 43 has been copied, he's asking whether the PGNS-reported landing site coordinates (i.e., the contents of Noun 43) have been received at Mission Control. You naively thought that the report listed in the checklist had to be a verbal read-down. Yet another mistake in a long and ongoing series of errors you've committed and never acknowledged.

I've reproduced your previous tantrum



and I'm asking you if you have any pertinent comment or retraction at this point.

Great tantrum......Obviously noun 43 from p68 was not reported to MSFN, the CapCom or anyone else as Collins was not asked to look at the area corresponding to coordinates 0.649 north and 23.46 east, the PGNS landing site coordinates as given in the Mission Report.

So yes Jay, I do not have all the meanings of the nouns memorized. That said, this noun 43 business has nothing to do with my post. My point stands and stands well. A p68 was run, the latitude and longitude results were 0.649 and 23.46 as per the Apollo 11 Mission Report and we know Houston/Mission Control/MSFN was not informed as Michael Collins looked everywhere but at 0.649 north and 23.46 east. Again to emphasize, these coordinates are a half a mile away from 0.674 north and 23.47 east, the best modern solution for Tranquility Base, the Eagle landing site per the Merton Davies work on the subject.

So to answer your question, of course I am not going to retract squat....

 

[Patrick1000]

No, they missed the original site from the get go.....

Somewhere in this 130 pages of goo, was it brought up that the LM nearly crashed on landing and Armstrong had to find another place to land? The original site was too close to a crater?

No, they missed the original site from the get go.....

Look on the maps that I made reference to. The original site on all of the maps with the exception of the Apollo 11 LAM-2 flown map shows the intended landing site/the targeted landing site to be relatively large crater free, such as the moon can be relatively large crater free. This is why they chose 00 43' 53" north and 23 38' 51" east as their landing site.

The Eagle was off course from the get go, flying long and south of where it was "hoping to go". They could tell this quite easily on the way down. they knew they were going to fly long/west.

Armstrong claimed to have encountered a boulder field and a football stadium sized crater (West Crater) which he flew over just before landing. Armstrong "landed" just beyond/west of Little West Crater. It was this small landmark/tiny crater that allowed for the landing site's identification by photo analysis.

 

[Patrick1000]

Don't be ridiculous Suspilot......

This is the basis of your argument that Neil Armstrong has some sort of guilt complex because of an alleged Apollo hoax? That is just nonsensical, to say the least. First, the procedural obstacles have already been explained to you. Second, maybe he just isn't into "I love me" stuff. Third, they were busy. And fourth, your priorities aren't necessarily everyone else's.

Don't be ridiculous Suspilot......

Neil Armstrong's not having his picture taken is not an argument for fraud in and of itself. Not fixing the Apollo 8 toilet, losing a spaceship, pretending to not see stars/lasers, having a star sighting system that does not work, flying a manned space ship to the moon that has been hit by lightning, flying, or rather pretending to fly a rotated and erroneously gridded map to the moon, now THOSE are reasons to indict NASA for lying their butts off. This is what constitutes 100% proof positive of Apollo fraud.

Once you know the fraud to be true, once one confirms it, for example based on something utterly irrefutable like the dime store vomit and diarrhea on Apollo 8, then one can look at other "lines" in the narrative and make sense of them.

One cannot point to Armstrong's not having his picture taken as proof of fraud by itself. It is not strong enough in isolation. One looks to other things for vacuum sealed proof of the Apollo charade, things like the Borman illness con job. But once you confirm fraud based on these types of stone cold objective FACTS, this type of good material evidence, another good example being the phony LAM-2 map, then one can go to such insanely bizarre incoherencies like Armstrong checking his Eagle's muffler with his back turned to the camera being the ONLY picture of him with the 70 mm Hasselblad, or the only one commonly shown anyway, and say, "Oh I get it, now I see... It is fake and so that bogus Armstrong changing the oil on the bird shot does make a little bit of sense now because they are trying to hide something about Armstrong, not show his front side". The boy scout must be missing something there and they are worried we'll figure out this is all fake from a full faced , full front on picture of the world's most famous not so very Eagle Scout.....

 

[Patrick1000]

Details of the map fraud machinations......

You really, really need to read up on map projections.

As I've pointed out before, the LAM-2 flown map (U and the Grollier map (transverse mercator) use different projection systems and datums which, in part, will result in the 'rotation' and coordinate shift that you seem to find so diabolical.

Really, when you work with maps and airphoto or satellite imagery all the time, datum shifts, affine transformations, projection changes, scale shifts, false origins and rotations are just every day occurences.

Details of the LAM-2 map fraud machinations......

This will clear everything up for you Laton. Take a look at the LUNAR LANDING PRESS KIT FOR APOLLO 11. Go to the section entitle APOLLO LUNAR LANDING SITES.

The Press Kit shows Site 2 to be located at 00 42' 50 " north and 23 42' 38" east. Look here at the very center of this landing site ellipse on the LAM-2 Flown Map of Apollo 11;

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/LAM2_CMP-flown.jpg

The center of the ellipse is indeed at 00 42' 50 " north and 23 42' 38" east.

Look at the image in the Apollo 11 Mission Report Section 5, NASA 5-69-3715. This is an image of the landing site ellipse confirming that the targeted landing site is in the center of the ellipse and not elsewhere.

Now look at the Apollo 10 flown Map;

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a10LandingSite2lbl.jpg

This image also shows the landing site ellipse, but though the ellipse is located in the same place as that of the Apollo 11 Flown Map, because this map is gridded differently by NASA, the center of the ellipse is at NOT 00 42' 50" north and 23 42' 28" east but rather at 00 43' 53" north and 23 38' 51 east".

Where do we know that last set of numbers from? Why from the Apollo 11 Mission Report Section 5.3, POWERED DESCENT. They are the TARGETED LANDING SITE COORDINATES AS LISTED IN THE ASPOLLO 11 MISSION REPORT. So one notes two sets of targeted landing site coordinates FOR THE EXACT SAME LOCATION. The Press Kit indicates the center of the ellipse to be at 00 42' 50 " north and 23 42' 38" east, while the Apollo 11 Mission Report shows the ellipse center and the targeted landing site to be at 00 43' 53 " north and 23 38' 51" east.

Could this be a mistake Laton? Well of course not because all of NASA's maps, every one that you care to examine EXCEPT FOR THE LAM-2 FLOWN MAP OF APOLLO 11 HAVE THE CENTRAL ELLIPSE AREA DEFINED BY COORDINATES 00 43' 53" AND 23 38' 51".

The details of the scam and a great deal of the bird hiding are now know to everyone so interested, and known in great detail finally. The Apollo 11 Flown Map's gridding has an undeniable LOGIC to it, an undeniable logic to intentionally deceive. The map is gridded primarily to mislead by way of featuring coordinates 00 42' 50 " north and 23 42' 38" east as the coordinates defining the landing ellipse center. It is known with absolute certainty that at the time of LAM-2's making, 00 43' 53 " north and 23 38' 51" east were known to be the coordinates defining the relatively clear area as seen underlying the ellipe's center.

This finding, though not surprising given all so far encountered, is nonetheless startling in its significance and nothing less than sensational. Now it is known with absolute clarity how the LAM-2 flown map deception was conceived and carried out. Presumably this is the work of Schiesser with perhaps the help of a select few others, though I cannot make this claim as regards culpablity with certainty at this time.

David Harland himself is presumably aware of this and now needs to be viewed as a perpetrator himself and his work as an Apollo historian sadly must now be viewed in its entirety as nothing less than a JOKE to bolster the fraudulent official story.

If this thing could get any more sickening, I really don't see how. Oh my , this is so so so so so so bad.......

 

[Patrick1000]

Oh and one last thing I figured out tonight map wise Laton.....

You really, really need to read up on map projections.

As I've pointed out before the LAM2 flown map (UTM) and the Grollier map (transverse mercator) use different projection systems and datums which, in part, will result in the 'rotation' and coordinate shift that you seem to find so diabolical.

Really, when you work with maps and airphoto or satellite imagery all the time, datum shifts, affine transformations, projection changes, scale shifts, false origins and rotations are just every day occurences.

Oh and one last thing I figured out tonight map wise Laton.....

Remember how none of us knew for sure what the CapCom and Armstrong were referring to when they were talking about the crossrange being 17 in the Voice Transcript just before the Eagle "takes off and leaves the moon"???????????

Well I finally figured it out. Again, go to the Apollo 11 Mission Report, section 5 image NASA 5 or S-6-3715. The image features the ellipse overlaying the lunar surface with an arrow pointing to the ellipse's center indicating this was the planned landing site. At the top of that image it reads "crossrange, mi.", and indeed, the north/south crossrange is marked off in 0.5 mile increments, right down the center of the ellipse.

So Collins was pretending to fly 1.7 miles to the north of the Eagle's alleged landing site at Tranquility Base. Moreover, if one examines the command modules tracks, they do run 1.7 miles north of the Eagle's alleged perch. That is just under one tenth of a degree on the map, or equivalently 5-6 minutes of arc (with 0.1 degrees equating to 1.8/1.9 miles. With 0.314 miles roughly for each minute of arc, at a crossrange of 1.7 miles, Collins' alleged ground track is in the ball park of 5.45 minutes of arc north of the alleged Eagle landing site.)

A fabulous night with so much progress!!! Both new and OLD problems solved!!!!! The crossrange solution may wind up having a wide range of applications in terms of fraud exsposure. They did seem to try and hide this one from us a bit. We will see.....

 

[Multivac]

He should proudly stand in front of the space ship he flew to the surface of the moon, give a thumbs up, figuratively speking of coures, AND HAVE HIS BLOOD YPICTURE TAKEN. THAT IS HOW HE SHOULD BEHAVE....

Everything I've read about Neil Armstrong say the same thing. That he was, and is, a quiet man who doesn't seek the limelight or fame. This is why he became a teacher after Apollo 11 rather than going on the lecture circuit to brag and tell people he was the first man on the moon.

He was an engineer and test pilot by training and inclination. Can you think of a better job for a test pilot than piloting the first manned mission to land on another world? You might think that he should have stood in front of the LM and had his picture taken, but he was busy doing his job rather than playing tourist.

 

[Patrick1000]

This is funny Jay.....

No, your main point all along has not been that Apollo's toilet needed to be "fixed." It has instead been all along that the Apollo 8 mission should have been aborted because of Borman's illness, and that because NASA did not follow your personal judgment the mission was therefore not authentic.

Have you conceded that Apollo 8 should not have aborted and that the decision to proceed was correct? Please explicitly answer this question.

"The toilet" was a relief bag, technology borrowed from other aerospace applications. While undignified, it is deemed sanitary enough by the relevant qualified authority for use in this type of application.



You haven't proven that it is any more dangerous in the Apollo context than it would be in other occupational contexts.

Please describe in detail a feces handling system that you believe NASA should have installed aboard the Apollo CM and LM. Your description should address at least

1. the industry-acceptable sustainable level of fecal material (a) in the cabin atmosphere and (b) on cabin surfaces, citing appropriate documentary and regulatory sources;
2. a rational for why the existing cabin air filtration system and cabin housekeeping procedures would fail to achieve and maintain that level;
3. exactly how, in terms of mechanics, your proposed apparatus would achieve and maintain the necessary contamination prevention and abatement standards required above;
4. the mass requirements for your system (including a full mass-properties analysis), and how they will conform to Apollo requirements;
5. the mass-properties effect of your apparatus on launch, spaceflight dynamics, and aerodynamics;
6. the volume requirements for your apparatus (including constraints on flight-axis orientation, proximity, mechanical interference), and its effect on Apollo volumetric constraints;
7. the consumables requirements for your system (including consumption profile for all flight contingencies), and how they will conform to Apollo budgets;
8. the power requirements for your apparatus (including a power consumption profile for all flight contingencies), and how they will conform to Apollo budgets;
9. the thermal properties and tolerances for your apparatus (including a heat-transfer analysis), and how they will confirm to Apollo budgets;
10. the materials hazard properties of your apparatus (e.g., outgassing, vacuum tolerance, thermal tolerances, flammability, oxidation, exposure to materials) and a mitigation plan for each hazard for each flight contingency;
11. a list of expected failure modes and a contingency plan for each failure mode including adverse effects on spacecraft operation and system, loss of functionality, feasibility of fault correction/mitigation procedures, mission downgrading potential, and criticality elimination design rationals.

You say you know a little engineering. Let's see if you do, or whether all you can do is just sit back and idly criticize the professionals.



You are not qualified to make this judgment.



Armstrong could have been breathing Collins' feces just by washing his hands outside Collins' stall in a building in Houston. An astounding quantity of evidence has been presented to substantiate that we all daily ingest and inhale aerosolized fecal material, yet suffer few if any ill effects.



Does in the inhalation or ingestion of fecal material invariably result in death?

This is funny Jay.....I think it is up to the NASA guys and not me to prove that the air is safe to breath, don't you?.....

 

[Patrick1000]

I brought this up ages ago.......

Patrick now appears to be arguing that employing a fellow astronaut as CAPCOM is an integral part of his conspiracy theory. He seems to be saying that only an astronaut was capable of resisting asking Armstrong if he could see any lasers shining from earth. Presumably this was down to some kind of special keeping-your-mouth-shut training they received. Remarkable. A new low.

I brought this up ages ago.......You simply missed it Jack by the hedge. Having the CapComs only interact with the astronauts makes for a closed loop.... Nothing undesirable gets into that space rap ya' see?????????????

 

[Patrick1000]

I've already gone over the rocks and photos stuff Captain_Swoop and so.....

Patrick,.

Why do all the worlds scientists and engineer for the last 40 years think Apollo was real? Why do they accept the engineering, transcripts, rock samples, reports and data produced b apollo?
Why do Space Agencies and Aerospace companies the world over still use Apollo data?

I've already gone over the rocks and photos stuff Captain_Swoop and so I won't repeat that rap again.

There is little reason to doubt Apollo authenticity Captain_Swoop if you are working from the inside. Say you are Thomas Kelly, the chief designer/engineer of the LM. Why wouldn't you buy in? Why would you doubt Apollo authenticity for a nanosecond....?... You are not reading all this stuff, the stuff Patrick 1000 scrutinizes; the Mission Report, the Press Kit, the Voice Transcripts, etc, etc, etc. You are working from the inside and since by and large the thing is 99.999999999% authentic, what's to doubt?, almost nothing.

Sure there are no people riding inside of your LM, a LM that has been modified for military purposes, but how would you know that? It is an awesome piece of machinery. You are focused on that....

Best way to look at this Captain_Swoop is to remind yourself that this thing is REAL. That is how you make this kind of scam go go go go. It has both feet in reality. The rocks are probably real, at least some. The photos are probably real, with the exception of the muffler inspection shot of Armstrong and stuff like that. All of the science, the rocketry and so forth is very good and very real.

The Apollo Weaponize Space Program under the guise of peaceful/scientific manned landings is a flat out stroke of deceptive genius if you ask me......