Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[R.A.F.]

Well we know the story as it really played out was NOT as advertised.....

No..."we" don't "know" any such thing...why do you keep doing this?...it's not like I (and others) are going to let you get away with it.

 

[R.A.F.]

With regard to judging whether Neil is changing the muffler on the Eagle, changing the oil, or flat out full on jiving us in that photo, I have no special training.

Do you think you are telling us something we didn't know from your posts?

 

[332nd]

Well we know the story as it really played out was NOT as advertised.....

For example, the LAM-2 map is fraudulent, ego, they are acting.......Everything they say about the LAM-2 map is said in the context of a lie, or euphemistically, in the context of an "act"........

No that's circular logic. You have claimed several times how the astronauts "should have acted" in various instances. How do you know they should have acted in the way you claim? For example, Armstrong giving a thumbs up in front of the LEM. Why should he have done so.

 

[R.A.F.]

I lack the expertise to know how much evidence historians need before they call something true.

Without any doubt, whatsoever, If anything can be called "true" based on evidence, then it would be the Apollo missions...those missions were the one of the most throughly documented endeavours in all of history.

What amazes me, personally, is that someone with little to no experience in how to evaluate evidence, would actually claim that Apollo didn't happen...it is beyond laughable...it is ridiculous in the extreme.

...Patrick is so far from any sort of successful attack on the historical accuracy of the Apollo missions that it hardly matters.

Agreed....so what's the point of this thread?


Hasn't it been determined that no evidence would be convincing to Patrick? Since this thread will only continue to go around, and around, and around, isn't it about time to move it to where it belongs...the abandon all hope part of the board??

It's going to land up there, eventually...

 

[abaddon]

Not exactly. The positive proposition is that men walked on the moon. The burden of proof fell to those who sought to have that accepted as true.

Not quite true.

It is Patrick's affirmative claim that the Apollo missions were successfully carried out to militarize the Moon and the Lagrange points.

It is Patrick's affirmative claim that the Russians did similar.

It is Patrick's affirmative claim that the manned aspect was faked to cover up the militarization of the Moon and L4 and L5.

Therefore, Patrick must assume the burden of proof for these affirmative claims.

 

[Tomblvd]

Here is a good way to think of it Jay......If someone has influenza and they are in the hospital with me, they are followed under strict respiratory isolation precautions, masks, isolation room and so forth. If someone has infectious diarrea, regardless of the type/etiology (C. Difficile enteritis, Salmonella, etc.)
, ditto with regard to isolation, and in the infectious diarrhea case, strict stool precautions are rigorously adhered to. Problems like C. difficile enteritis spread like crazy through our institution and others regardless of how tightly adherent any staff is to good infection precautions. C. dif, would not have been out of the question in the Borman case. Had he been so afflicted, the others would have gotten sick with essentially 100% certainty given the circumstances.

As proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in post 5231, you are NOT a doctor nor do you have even the most basic medical training. Anything you say on the matter can be safely disregarded. Your post is nothing more than regurgitation of google or wiki material.

You are fooling nobody.

 

[Loss Leader]

Not quite true.

It is Patrick's affirmative claim that the Apollo missions were successfully carried out to militarize the Moon and the Lagrange points.

It is Patrick's affirmative claim that the Russians did similar.

It is Patrick's affirmative claim that the manned aspect was faked to cover up the militarization of the Moon and L4 and L5.

Therefore, Patrick must assume the burden of proof for these affirmative claims.

Certainly, he must prove them true if he wants them to be accepted as true. And, I guess, the truth of any of these claims would be inconsistent with a manned landing (although possibly not). So let's agree in the spirit of charity that the proof of any of these claims by him would be sufficient to show man didn't walk on the moon.

Still, the proof of any of them is not necessary to show that the manned landings were faked. There are other sufficient ways of doing it without assuming the burden of proof of anything beyond a few key facts.

I agree with you that this is decidedly not the tactic that Patrick has chosen. And I agree with you that the bears the burden of proof of any of his alternate theories.

 

[sts60]

You really think that's how it works? That CAPCOM is the only man in the room who ever hears an astronaut's voice?

Ha ha ha. That's hilarious. Everybody in the FCR is listening to the air-to-ground loop, and so are most if not all of the folks in the back rooms. Working Shuttle missions as a payload controller, first in the payload MPSR (Apollo-era Mission Control set up) then in the new POCC, I routinely had A/G 1 and 2 as well as Flight, Payloads, and a couple of our own loops up. As usual, Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/etc. has no idea what he's talking about.

At the very, very least, to fool the people at these consoles you would need to employ ANOTHER full-time engineer -- preferably from the same team -- that could generate the kinds and details of data that will pass this uber-suspicious, ever-careful, looking-for-trouble eye.

Wouldn't work anyway. It is not possible to simulate a complex mission so as to fool the flight controllers and supporting engineers for a sustained period. This doesn't even consider the tracking station crews who are receiving the telemetry and doing the ranging, nor the scientists who evaluate the data and samples. Moreover, it does not answer the fact that man-operated ships and man-deployed systems were carefully loaded onto the launch vehicles and tracked to, on, and from the Moon.

And, of course, you already have all the most knowledgeable people doing the real thing; the alleged fakers wouldn't have the chops to fool them anyway, even if it was possible. And the only people who think it was possible are utterly clueless about spaceflight.

...I agree with you that this is decidedly not the tactic that Patrick has chosen. And I agree with you that the bears the burden of proof of any of his alternate theories.

There is also the burden of showing why and how the established record of what was built, integrated, flown, and deployed by the engineers and flight crews did not actually happen. Not that Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/etc. will ever actually address either case.

Even before that, though, there is the small problem that quite a few of his claims flatly contradict each other, as I have already noted.

 

[Garrison]

There are two parts to Patricks arguments. First there are the attacks on the historical record of Apollo embodied by such things as Borman's illness and the Apollo 12 lightning strike where his argument is essentially that the actions described in the historical record so conflict with 'reasonable' expectation that they must be false. To date he has failed to demonstrate that his expectation was reasonable, and in fact it has been amply demonstrated that he is mistaken in his assertions.
Secondly there are Patrick's claim about a military program to instrument the moon and the lagrange points. Again to date Patrick has failed to provide any evidence for the existence of this program beyond speculative articles largely written long before Apollo.
While Patrick attempts to conflate these two issues they are in fact separate; Patrick could show the historical record for Apollo is flawed but this would not prove the existence of his military program. Likewise the existence of such a military program does not automatically disprove the reality of Apollo.
Of course the distinction is academic because as I say Patrick hasn't made a case for either set of arguments, he has simply made a series of outlandish claims and 'if I ran the zoo' arguments, while failing to understand the refutations provided.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I know the mods disdain for unnecessary deployment of lolcats, but I ran across this just today and felt it needed to be here:

Oh, and did Pat1k ever explain how the Russians were talked into assisting the coverup thereby tolerating and even encouraging their own embarrassment and humiliation?

 

[Patrick1000]

The problem with rocks and pics......

You have only "gone over" rocks and photos to state that you won't address them. Or is that you can't address them?

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/369228main_ap14labeled_540.jpg Footprints as well as the LM. How would those footprints (more accurately, bootprints) have got there, if your contention that the lunar missions were unmanned was correct?

The problem with rocks and pics.....

It is hardly fair to ask you to dig through a gadzillion and 30 pages to find several old posts that have already addressed this subject Agatha, and so I shall say a word or two on the matter, as it is a matter of paramount importance.

Rocks and pics are a dead end for both sides, but as they lead inevitably to stalemate, fighting over rocks and pics favors the status quo, the official story.

Were Neil Armstrong and company to admit the rocks and pics were indeed all fake, it hardly would lead to the advancement of my position, the reason being, "SO WHAT?"....... "So what?!" if they are fake Armstrong would say, "So so so so what?!" It says absolutely NOTHING about what the boys were up to which is the heart and soul of the issue, the meat of the thing, STRATEGIC/THERMONUCLEAR WAR WITH THE RUSSIANS, OVER THE TOP COLD WAR INSANITY, SPACE MADNESS IN SPADES.

A pics/rocks centered debate lands us de facto in the realm of "Apollo is about bragging rights". Rocks/pics based analyses tend to say, "we're better than the Russians". Well....., so......, who even cares much if that were to have been the case. Big fat space deal.... Rocks/pics debates tend to be debates stripped of context, having no teeth, NO CREDIBILITY BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT ABOUT ANYTHING REALLY.

This is the main sense in which people such as the late and very great Ralph Rene and the new and mostly true Jarrah White fail, fail in a limited sense. They argue until they are hypoxic with frustration and then some. They argue futilely as they argue for the most part outside of any meaningful context.

So a guy like Rene, when he brings up his point about Michael Collins' "fake" space walk, claiming Collins never walked in space, claiming Collins walked in a free falling airplane. Well right or wrong, Rene goes NOWHERE with his arguments because his criticism is not about anything but criticism, material analysis per se. This is NOT Apollo. One cannot argue against NASA bull without presenting the clowns as the National AeroSpaceWeaponization Association crew that they are.

Likewise with Jarrah, great mind, good film maker, heart is in the right place, 10 plus on target, if not with his facts, then certainly with regard to his spirited enterprise, personal conflicts with notable, respected and reputable mainstreamers aside. But Jarrah has no guiding star. His program is without a grounding sense, an identity independent of more than "the rocks are not "real" Apollo program lunar stones", an identity independent of more than "the pics are inauthentic, not taken from the surface of the moon". Who cares? Most don't.... I don't......

So when I speak of rocks and pics, I am speaking about them in a broad sense, a broad metaphorical sense. "Rocks and pics" is a reference to ALL OF THE SIMPLE MATERIAL ARGUMENTS OF THE RALPH RENE AND JARRAH WHITE TYPE.

Rocks and pics debates are just what the perps want. Argue all you like about these material points. In the case of Jarrah White, he goes to an Aldrin press conference and asks Buzz about the authenticity of a petrified tree piece or whatever the heck the phony thing was that wound up in a Dutch Museum having passed as a moon rock for many years. But for God's sake, wouldn't ya' think that Jarrah would ask something about what Armstrong/Aldrin/Collins were up to with their shenanigans? Strategic War anyone? Thermonuclear warheads at half a dozen intercontinental ballistic missile paces. Ask THAT question and you would have Aldrin back on his heels babbling like the phony baloney fool that he deep down is. They guy couldn't navigate his way out of a paper air distress vomit bag, let alone effect a genuine lunar rendezvous. White does not have a sense for the very same thing Rene did not have a sense for, terms of debate, an appreciation for how, in exactly what way these clowns were and still are vulnerable. As said before, give me 2 minutes with Armstrong at an open press conference and I'd figuratively dope slap the Eagle Scout until his sash with all of its phony merit badges flew off him, flew off him so so so fast that it would make his little mommy cringe.........

So there is this sense in which these rocks and pics debates are a waste of ALL OUR TIME. They tend to occur in a realm of Apollo devoid of contact with the origins and objectives of the fraudulent program. "So what?!!!!????!!!!", Armstrong would say, "You are correct. The rocks are fake. The pics are fake." And everyone gets up the next day and goes off to their jobs, like 'em or not....No big deal, so what the rocks are fake and Armstrong is a phony... Without context, the whole silly thing is next to meaningless. This is Bart Sibrel in a nutshell. As mentioned, I think there is a reasonable chance Sibrel is a plant, a pro NASA operator for this very reason. The guy is pathetically inept. Rene and White on the other hand are capable researchers and have solid debating skills.

In addition, rocks/pics debates are contests that neither side can win. So the official story stands. This is the sense in which this type of interaction favors the status quo. It's neigh impossible to prove the pics fraudulent. Whatever one may say or find, the official version is , "they went, don't you realize there is a mountain of material evidence supporting that photo of Armstrong checking the Eagle's blown muffler?" One cant't really get any purchase on reality from this vantage, squatting there under the Eagle's chassis. Pretty dark despite the artificial lighting ya' know....... The Apollo researcher simply hasn't enough leverage taking a rocks/pics approach, as good as Rene and White may seem at times, Ralph with his clever pen and Jarrah with his natural bent for film.

So rocks and pics are worth taking a look at, do not get me wrong Agatha, both in the sense of looking at the material evidence itself and criticizing said evidence such as one might, and also in the sense of "rocks and pics" representing a material approach, an Apollo research genre. That said, one makes a great deal more progress working Apollo from the inside of its narrative...........

If I produce a map THAT MICHAEL COLLINS SAYS HE USED IN TRYING TO FIND HIS COLLEAGUES ON THE LUNAR SURFACE AND I THEN SHOW THAT NOT ONLY WAS THIS MAP FRAUDULENTLY GRIDDED, BUT ADDITIONALLY, THAT MICHAEL COLLINS SIMPLY HAD TO KNOW ABOUT THE MAP'S WESTWARD SHIFTED LONGITUDE THAT SEEKS TO GAME US, INCLUDING THE HOUSTON BOYS IN THE TRENCH, GAME US ALL INTO BELIEVING THAT THE SIMULATED EAGLE MADE A SIMULATED LANDING IN A PLACE OTHER THAN IT WAS SIMULATED TO HAVE PARKED ITS SIMULATED BIRD FANNY, well then, you have 'em dead to rights, because after all, THIS IS COLLINS' MAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You have caught Michael Collins himself in a big, fat, atmosphere free, plain as day lie. Collins can protest, kick and scream and cry and shout and pout and claim privilege of authority all that stooge likes, but at the end of Collins' bogus and patently fraudulent long and artificially lit lunar day, it is all plainly and oh so simply a bold faced LIE, and as I am fond of saying, this party in space is OVER OVER OVER OVER my friends.

Focusing on narrative as opposed to material per se, focusing primarily on the story, THE PHONY STORY itself, as told by the Apollo principals and then catching these principals in LIES is the way to go. It is fool proof. It is an approach that more than counters any juvenile appeals to authority. Narrative analysis is an approach that shows us all the TRUTH, and as "Lost Bird Thread" readers have seen, narrative analysis represents an Apollo investigative genre that is beyond devastating to the official mind numbingly dumb dumb dumb story.........

H. David Reed said he walked into work on the morning of 07/21/1969 and his technical help informed our favorite launch FIDO that the flight team did not know where the Eagle was lunar latitude and longitude wise. The PGNS, AGS, MSFN, map analysis and targeted site solutions were all at odds with one another, in fact, they all differed so much so that they located the bird 4.5 miles distant from one another. 5 solutions and not a pair of them closer together than 4.5 miles. One then looks at the Apollo 11 Mission Report and notes a story entirely different from that of Reed. In the Apollo 11 Mission Report presentation, very much unlike Reed's presentation, the PGNS, AGS and MSFN solution are all very close to one another, six tenths of a mile distant in one case more or less, roughly a mile or so in others. And additionally, the solutions are ALL CLOSE TO THE ACTUAL TRANQUILITY BASE SITE. Whose lying? H. David Reed? I think not, no motivation. The authors of the Apollo 11 Mission Report? You betcha'!!!!!! How do we know it is them and not Reed who are lying? Context my friends, context.........

 

[Patrick1000]

The Russians were instrumenting the mmon before the Americans....

I know the mods disdain for unnecessary deployment of lolcats, but I ran across this just today and felt it needed to be here:

[qimg]http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/ImageoftheDayAstronauts120911-thumb-550x442-78634.jpg[/qimg]

Oh, and did Pat1k ever explain how the Russians were talked into assisting the coverup thereby tolerating and even encouraging their own embarrassment and humiliation?

The Russians were instrumenting the moon before the Americans...Who made the first lunar soft landing? The first lunar crash landing? First ICBM? First earth orbiting satellite? First man in space? First pics from the moon? blah blah blah .......

 

[Patrick1000]

I do not see boot prints.....

You have only "gone over" rocks and photos to state that you won't address them. Or is that you can't address them?

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/369228main_ap14labeled_540.jpg Footprints as well as the LM. How would those footprints (more accurately, bootprints) have got there, if your contention that the lunar missions were unmanned was correct?

I do not see boot prints Agatha.....Nor do I believe anyone would say they saw bootprints here in such photos unless told they were there.

I would suggest that as a criteria for determining what the photos might or might not show.

Let's say you'd have to ask the guy/gal in the street, "What do you see here?" If they say bootprints, footprints fine. Most people would say that they see nothing there, footprint wise anyway......

 

[Patrick1000]

The military issue is actually straightforward......

There are two parts to Patricks arguments. First there are the attacks on the historical record of Apollo embodied by such things as Borman's illness and the Apollo 12 lightning strike where his argument is essentially that the actions described in the historical record so conflict with 'reasonable' expectation that they must be false. To date he has failed to demonstrate that his expectation was reasonable, and in fact it has been amply demonstrated that he is mistaken in his assertions.
Secondly there are Patrick's claim about a military program to instrument the moon and the lagrange points. Again to date Patrick has failed to provide any evidence for the existence of this program beyond speculative articles largely written long before Apollo.
While Patrick attempts to conflate these two issues they are in fact separate; Patrick could show the historical record for Apollo is flawed but this would not prove the existence of his military program. Likewise the existence of such a military program does not automatically disprove the reality of Apollo.
Of course the distinction is academic because as I say Patrick hasn't made a case for either set of arguments, he has simply made a series of outlandish claims and 'if I ran the zoo' arguments, while failing to understand the refutations provided.

The military issue is actually straightforward......Telling lies about not being able to see stars at all in cislunar space is risky risky risky business as these are risky risky risky lies. BIG OBVIOUS LIES! By that I mean, one can easily get caught telling them. I knew Neil Armstrong was lying the very first time I heard that bull he enjoys spewing about stars. What a dumb dumb he is........ Anyhoo, the motivation for these lies must tremendous. There was gain of astronomical dimension in their bold faced telling.

Unless you are Bart Sibrel, one does not argue that Apollo is about vanity, public relations, bragging rights. The reason being, the lies are ever so ever so ever so big and risky. The chance of getting caught is insanely great. You would not do this just to say you were smarter than Ivan. Armstrong would not risk exposure and SUPREME HUMILIATION, which is inevitable posthumously by the way, were bragging rights the sole matter at stake. Putting us in a better position to better blow up the Russians, well Armstrong would risk EVERYTHING, and did do so for that. Ditto for the navigator who couldn't navigate his way out of an air distress bag and Michael Collins who couldn't read his own lunar map if his now worthless reputation depended on it.

You don't game people like FIDO H. David Reed and astronomer Joseph Wampler and my mother and Sally Ride and Richard Feynman and Jay Utah and Christie McAullife and Thomas Kelly and the assemblies of stooges that constitute the US Congressional legislative bodies unless there is a heck of a lot to be gained above and beyond simple bragging rights, the thing is simply too risky. Because in the end, the truth will come out, 50 years from now people will know how bogus it all was and is, how we were ripped off, lied to and screwed with.......

OCCUPY OAKLAND? OCCUPY WALL STREET? HECK I SAY OCCUPY NASA!!!!!!!! WE WANT OUR MONEY BACK JACK!!!! WE ARE CLOSING YOU CLOWNS DOWN !!!!!!

By the way Garrison, since you brought it up, the Borman illness is a sure thing, proof positive of Apollo mission fraudulence. Next time you see your doc why don't you ask him/her if breathing infected feces would be ok. And here are some cute little questions to roll over in your noggin' this weekend, "What is the pH of room air? What is the pH of Apollo command module "air" ?" How about this one Garrison, "Infectious considerations aside, what is the effect on lung function of aspirating acidic vomitus? What is the typical treatment for such aspirations? Is there treatment for chemical/acid injury to lungs in outer space? Is there treatment for acidic pulmonary injury in a pretend Apollo Command Module ? "

Any ideas Garrison.....?......?.......?.....

 

[Tomblvd]

The problem with rocks and pics.....

......is that you cannot hope to address them in any meaningful way.

And please, never EVER give us the excuse that you cannot respond to a question because you "don't have time". That wall of text above is nothing short of obscene. To write so much and say so little is a true waste of electrons. Not to mention our time.

Now I still await your response to your epic medical fail. Or are you finally ready to admit you are not a doctor?

 

[matt.tansy]

This is the main sense in which people such as the late and very great Ralph Rene

Rene believes the circle has been squared, PI is not equal to 3.14159265..., Newton's universal law of gravitation is wrong.

It is very illuminating that you believe Rene to be a great man.

Likewise with Jarrah, great mind,

Jarrah believes a spacecraft in a polar orbit just makes circles above the north pole, objects on the Moon weigh 1/216 what they weigh on Earth and a pile of bricks under a landing LM would have been blown away like feathers.

Again, very illuminating.

 

[JayUtah]

Rocks and pics are a dead end for both sides, but as they lead inevitably to stalemate, fighting over rocks and pics favors the status quo, the official story.

Yes it does, because those are the strongest evidence for the authenticity of Apollo, evidence no one has yet been able to explain away.

Far from a stalemate, the Apollo lunar samples are a slam-dunk because scientists from all over he world, including those not especially favorable to the United States, have examined the rocks with expert eyes and pronounced them authentic pieces of the Moon. They've been used to authenticate meteor specimens. There is zero belief in the geology world that the Apollo samples are anything other than what we say there are. How can that possibly be a stalemate? You're wrong and we're right. How much more cleanly cut can it get than to have all the evidence on one's side?

And photographic analysis is also a science, one in which no hoax theorist has managed to establish credentials. And yes, it's very amusing to hear those charlatans pontificate over what can and cannot be real photographs, only to have teenagers with cell phone cameras produce examples of those "impossible" photographs in droves, within minutes. Stalemate? Hardly! Unlike satellite geodesy, photography is something that the whole world can try out and call people on.

A pics/rocks centered debate lands us de facto in the realm of "Apollo is about bragging rights".

No. Rocks and pictures land us squarely in the realm of actual evidence that must be explained by any theory. So far, in 30 years, no one has been able to come up with a theory that explains the physical evidence without committing the most ludicrous flights of fancy.

It has absolutely nothing to do with beating the Russians or chest-thumping. In fact, we gave some Apollo samples to the Russians in the early 1970s and they gracious shared some of theirs with us. It is very much not a case of, "Ha ha! We have Moon rocks and you don't."

Rocks/pics based analyses tend to say, "we're better than the Russians".

ROFL! That is the entire basis of your "instrumented Moon" theory -- i.e., that we had a base the Russians couldn't touch. Sheesh, do you even pay attention to what comes out of your mouth?

This is the main sense in which people such as the late and very great Ralph Rene and the new and mostly true Jarrah White fail, fail in a limited sense. They argue until they are hypoxic with frustration and then some. They argue futilely as they argue for the most part outside of any meaningful context.

Isn't it more likely that their frustration derives from being both wrong and clueless, and of being egregiously embarrassed every time they dared set foot in public? Jarrah almost never leaves the safe confines of his little walled garden where he preaches to a congregation of sycophants, and Ralph Rene spent the last 20 years of his life barricaded in his house grumbling about how Bart Sibrel and David Percy had stolen all his hoax-related income.

At least we know who your mentors are. I'm not surprised. So you say you "succeed" where they "fail" by not touching the evidence they couldn't manage to explain. You "win" by ignoring evidence you admit you can't explain.

So when I speak of rocks and pics, I am speaking about them in a broad sense, a broad metaphorical sense.

You do that. The rest of the world accepts them as genuine in a real and very scientific sense.

Rocks and pics debates are just what the perps want.

Yes, we "perps" want you to address all the pertinent evidence, not just the part you like. And incomplete theory fails immediately when it leaves material evidence unaddressed.

As said before, give me 2 minutes with Armstrong at an open press conference and I'd figuratively dope slap the Eagle Scout until his sash with all of its phony merit badges flew off him, flew off him so so so fast that it would make his little mommy cringe...

Strong words from someone who called Steven Bales a liar and then ran away when I offered to put you in touch with him so you could accuse him person.

We all grow very weary of your chest-thumping and bravado. As I said, what would impress me is for you to get on the agenda of the next meeting of the AIAA, present your findings to them under you real name, and then stay on the stage to answer questions. What do you say? Are you up for it?

In addition, rocks/pics debates are contests that neither side can win.
So the official story stands.

That means you lose the contest.

That said, one makes a great deal more progress working Apollo from the inside of its narrative...

So you claim that hard scientific evidence and physical artifacts such as "rocks and pics" are too ambiguous to make a good debate, so you focus instead on what you yourself characterize as drama criticism. So that's tantamount to a claim from you that drama criticism is a "harder" science than geology.

Have I summed that up about right?

Good heavens, you're essentially saying that evidence that you think favors you should be given 100% of the weight, and evidence you can't handle gets zero weight.

Focusing on narrative as opposed to material per se, focusing primarily on the story, THE PHONY STORY itself, as told by the Apollo principals and then catching these principals in LIES is the way to go. It is fool proof.

In that it is proof for fools, I agree. Your "narrative analysis" consist of nothing but comparing Apollo facts, widely accepted as genuine by the relevant experts, against your personal subject opinion -- which we determine on a daily basis is woefully uninformed.

Your continued unwillingness to take any other approach means you can spin fairy tales ad nauseam about what you think space flight "should" be. You're telling the jury to note how well-dressed the defendant is and telling them that it trumps the photographs of her bent over her dying husband holding a bloody knife.

It is an approach that more than counters any juvenile appeals to authority.

Please elaborate on this. Are you saying you know more than the experts?

 

[R.A.F.]

The problem with rocks and pics...I can't address them without looking foolish.

Fixed that for you...

Rocks and pics are a dead end for both sides, but as they lead inevitably to stalemate, fighting over rocks and pics favors the status quo, the official story.

What do you mean "favors"? Do you mean you can't answer straightforward questions concerning the images and returned samples, because they show you to be wrong?

...because that's what it looks like to everyone else....you just dodge the "tough' questions.

Were Neil Armstrong and company to admit the rocks and pics were indeed all fake...

Now why would they do something like that?

Rocks and pics debates are just what the perps want. Argue all you like about these material points.

Well, DUH!! Of course we will engage you in a discussion of the samples...why can't you address those questions??

You have caught Michael Collins himself in a big, fat, atmosphere free, plain as day lie. Collins can protest, kick and scream and cry and shout and pout...

Why do you attribute such childish behavior to astronauts?? Where is the evidence for any of that crap??

...more unsubstantiated garbage...

No patrick...you have simply not demonstrated that you know what you are talking about...and that you would continue this "dodge", re. the returned lunar samples...(why do the scientists of the world disagree with you?) simply shows you are not prepared to discuss this subject rationally.


You simply have failed to convince ANYONE, of ANYTHING.

 

[abaddon]

The problem with rocks and pics.....

It is hardly fair to ask you to dig through a gadzillion and 30 pages to find several old posts that have already addressed this subject Agatha, and so I shall say a word or two on the matter, as it is a matter of paramount importance.

Rocks and pics are a dead end for both sides, but as they lead inevitably to stalemate, fighting over rocks and pics favors the status quo, the official story.

Why, Patrick? Why do rocks and pics favour the official story?
Could it be that they are physical evidence you are unable to refute?

Were Neil Armstrong and company to admit the rocks and pics were indeed all fake, it hardly would lead to the advancement of my position, the reason being, "SO WHAT?"....... "So what?!" if they are fake Armstrong would say, "So so so so what?!"

But that will never happen as the rocks are demonstrably from the moon.
Your scenario is simply made up, and thus irrelevant.

It says absolutely NOTHING about what the boys were up to which is the heart and soul of the issue, the meat of the thing, STRATEGIC/THERMONUCLEAR WAR WITH THE RUSSIANS, OVER THE TOP COLD WAR INSANITY, SPACE MADNESS IN SPADES.

In this paragraph, you have equally said precisely nothing.

A pics/rocks centered debate lands us de facto in the realm of "Apollo is about bragging rights". Rocks/pics based analyses tend to say, "we're better than the Russians". Well....., so......, who even cares much if that were to have been the case. Big fat space deal.... Rocks/pics debates tend to be debates stripped of context, having no teeth, NO CREDIBILITY BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT ABOUT ANYTHING REALLY.

They are provably of lunar origin. That ain't nothing.

This is the main sense in which people such as the late and very great Ralph Rene and the new and mostly true Jarrah White fail, fail in a limited sense.

Rene and White fail at every step.

They argue until they are hypoxic with frustration and then some. They argue futilely as they argue for the most part outside of any meaningful context.

Their futility is grounded in their inability to understand basic science.

So a guy like Rene, when he brings up his point about Michael Collins' "fake" space walk, claiming Collins never walked in space, claiming Collins walked in a free falling airplane. Well right or wrong, Rene goes NOWHERE with his arguments because his criticism is not about anything but criticism, material analysis per se. This is NOT Apollo. One cannot argue against NASA bull without presenting the clowns as the National AeroSpaceWeaponization Association crew that they are.

At least we can agree Rene goes precisely nowhere.
You have yet to provide any evidence of the weaponisation of space.

Likewise with Jarrah, great mind, good film maker, heart is in the right place, 10 plus on target, if not with his facts, then certainly with regard to his spirited enterprise, personal conflicts with notable, respected and reputable mainstreamers aside. But Jarrah has no guiding star. His program is without a grounding sense, an identity independent of more than "the rocks are not "real" Apollo program lunar stones", an identity independent of more than "the pics are inauthentic, not taken from the surface of the moon". Who cares? Most don't.... I don't......

Jarrah has been comprehensively debunked, just like Rene.

So when I speak of rocks and pics, I am speaking about them in a broad sense, a broad metaphorical sense. "Rocks and pics" is a reference to ALL OF THE SIMPLE MATERIAL ARGUMENTS OF THE RALPH RENE AND JARRAH WHITE TYPE.

i.e. you are attempting to evade the existence of physical evidence.

Rocks and pics debates are just what the perps want. Argue all you like about these material points. In the case of Jarrah White, he goes to an Aldrin press conference and asks Buzz about the authenticity of a petrified tree piece or whatever the heck the phony thing was that wound up in a Dutch Museum having passed as a moon rock for many years. But for God's sake, wouldn't ya' think that Jarrah would ask something about what Armstrong/Aldrin/Collins were up to with their shenanigans? Strategic War anyone? Thermonuclear warheads at half a dozen intercontinental ballistic missile paces. Ask THAT question and you would have Aldrin back on his heels babbling like the phony baloney fool that he deep down is. They guy couldn't navigate his way out of a paper air distress vomit bag, let alone effect a genuine lunar rendezvous. White does not have a sense for the very same thing Rene did not have a sense for, terms of debate, an appreciation for how, in exactly what way these clowns were and still are vulnerable. As said before, give me 2 minutes with Armstrong at an open press conference and I'd figuratively dope slap the Eagle Scout until his sash with all of its phony merit badges flew off him, flew off him so so so fast that it would make his little mommy cringe.........

A long screed devoid of evidence.

So there is this sense in which these rocks and pics debates are a waste of ALL OUR TIME.

You are avoiding the physical evidence. Address it please.

They tend to occur in a realm of Apollo devoid of contact with the origins and objectives of the fraudulent program. "So what?!!!!????!!!!", Armstrong would say, "You are correct. The rocks are fake. The pics are fake." And everyone gets up the next day and goes off to their jobs, like 'em or not....No big deal, so what the rocks are fake and Armstrong is a phony... Without context, the whole silly thing is next to meaningless. This is Bart Sibrel in a nutshell. As mentioned, I think there is a reasonable chance Sibrel is a plant, a pro NASA operator for this very reason. The guy is pathetically inept. Rene and White on the other hand are capable researchers and have solid debating skills.

No, they don't have any debating skills. Both have been beaten under the table multiple times.
Both are unable to address the physical evidence.

In addition, rocks/pics debates are contests that neither side can win. So the official story stands.

Science has won, so the official story stands.
HB types are unable to contest the science, and must thus resort to evasion.

This is the sense in which this type of interaction favors the status quo. It's neigh impossible to prove the pics fraudulent. Whatever one may say or find, the official version is , "they went, don't you realize there is a mountain of material evidence supporting that photo of Armstrong checking the Eagle's blown muffler?" One cant't really get any purchase on reality from this vantage, squatting there under the Eagle's chassis. Pretty dark despite the artificial lighting ya' know....... The Apollo researcher simply hasn't enough leverage taking a rocks/pics approach, as good as Rene and White may seem at times, Ralph with his clever pen and Jarrah with his natural bent for film.

You are conceding here that you cannot contest the pictorial record. Good.

So rocks and pics are worth taking a look at, do not get me wrong Agatha, both in the sense of looking at the material evidence itself and criticizing said evidence such as one might, and also in the sense of "rocks and pics" representing a material approach, an Apollo research genre. That said, one makes a great deal more progress working Apollo from the inside of its narrative...........

Name one geologist who disputes the lunar origin of the samples.
Describe how those samples were returned sans an Apollo mission.
You have already conceded that the photographic record cannot be falsified. Explain it then.

If I produce a map THAT MICHAEL COLLINS SAYS HE USED IN TRYING TO FIND HIS COLLEAGUES ON THE LUNAR SURFACE AND I THEN SHOW THAT NOT ONLY WAS THIS MAP FRAUDULENTLY GRIDDED, BUT ADDITIONALLY, THAT MICHAEL COLLINS SIMPLY HAD TO KNOW ABOUT THE MAP'S WESTWARD SHIFTED LONGITUDE THAT SEEKS TO GAME US, INCLUDING THE HOUSTON BOYS IN THE TRENCH, GAME US ALL INTO BELIEVING THAT THE SIMULATED EAGLE MADE A SIMULATED LANDING IN A PLACE OTHER THAN IT WAS SIMULATED TO HAVE PARKED ITS SIMULATED BIRD FANNY, well then, you have 'em dead to rights, because after all, THIS IS COLLINS' MAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You have caught Michael Collins himself in a big, fat, atmosphere free, plain as day lie. Collins can protest, kick and scream and cry and shout and pout and claim privilege of authority all that stooge likes, but at the end of Collins' bogus and patently fraudulent long and artificially lit lunar day, it is all plainly and oh so simply a bold faced LIE, and as I am fond of saying, this party in space is OVER OVER OVER OVER my friends.

Repetition will not make your argument stronger, nor will ALL CAPS. In this very thread you have already demonstrated you lack of knowledge of coordinate systems.

Focusing on narrative as opposed to material per se, focusing primarily on the story, THE PHONY STORY itself, as told by the Apollo principals and then catching these principals in LIES is the way to go. It is fool proof. It is an approach that more than counters any juvenile appeals to authority. Narrative analysis is an approach that shows us all the TRUTH, and as "Lost Bird Thread" readers have seen, narrative analysis represents an Apollo investigative genre that is beyond devastating to the official mind numbingly dumb dumb dumb story.........

You demonstrated the efficacy of your approach when you claimed that Aldrin never returned the coordinates calculated by PGNS, quoting the transcripts as evidence. When the Noun 43 callout was pointed out to you you backpeddled furiously and changed the subject.

H. David Reed said he walked into work on the morning of 07/21/1969 and his technical help informed our favorite launch FIDO that the flight team did not know where the Eagle was lunar latitude and longitude wise. The PGNS, AGS, MSFN, map analysis and targeted site solutions were all at odds with one another, in fact, they all differed so much so that they located the bird 4.5 miles distant from one another. 5 solutions and not a pair of them closer together than 4.5 miles. One then looks at the Apollo 11 Mission Report and notes a story entirely different from that of Reed. In the Apollo 11 Mission Report presentation, very much unlike Reed's presentation, the PGNS, AGS and MSFN solution are all very close to one another, six tenths of a mile distant in one case more or less, roughly a mile or so in others. And additionally, the solutions are ALL CLOSE TO THE ACTUAL TRANQUILITY BASE SITE. Whose lying? H. David Reed? I think not, no motivation. The authors of the Apollo 11 Mission Report? You betcha'!!!!!! How do we know it is them and not Reed who are lying? Context my friends, context.........

And we come full circle to David Reed. Again.

 

[Erock]

The problem with rocks and pics.....

Is that you cannot explain them. Case closed, your theory is DEAD DEAD DEAD!!!!!!

So when I speak of rocks and pics, I am speaking about them in a broad sense, a broad metaphorical sense.

Perhaps we should call you Mr Metaphor The fact you chose to ignore them consigns your great soapbox rant to the same dustbin as every other HB.

Context my friends, context.........

The context of this debate is as follows....

1. You say NASA manufactured an overshoot to 'hide' the Eagle from Russia.
2. You then shoot yourself in the foot by contending the exact co-ordinates were handed out on the phone (and only those co-ordinates) to LICK.
3. You cite Reed as a means to dispute the numerous co-ordinates available by ignoring his reference to them in terms of them being vectors for rendezvous (Jay - could you elaborate on that if you get time?), and not Lat and Long positions.
4. You cited the observatory director who confirmed all the co-ordinates were given to LICK. An account from 1969.
5. You waffle continuously about the Moon as a key weaponisation point, when numerous experts have explained to you why that is bilge.
6. You applaud the capabilities of Rene and White, two people who between them make you look positively smart in comparison. That isn't saying much
7. You declare you have a degree in Maths(sic - AMERICAN??) then proceed to demonstrate the most basic of budget analysis errors.
8. You declare yourself as a doctor, yet show no expertise of influenza and its transmission or incubation.
9. You make the most inept analysis of maps, shown by experts in the field to be so, yet studiously stick to your opinions.
10. Can't be bothered to list any more, my eyes glazed over

You have made so, so many errors in this thread it is embarrassing. Yet here you are, still spouting the same rubbsih again and again.

Abandon all hope. Explain the rocks, or you lose. We haven't even touched on the subject of lunar gravity in the hours of continuous footage, I expect metaphorically that this is immaterial too!

Actually you already lost, but you seem unable to concede anything - most unscientific of you.