Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Garrison]

Patrick1000 the hard truth is that even leaving aside the rocks and photos and concentrating on your chosen topics you've still failed miserably to make a case. On matters of substance you've been time and again shown to be lacking in knowledge and understanding, simply refusing to accept the explanations provided by others does not make your case, repeating the same arguments ten times does not make your case, quoting posts full of questions and failing to answer them does not make your case, what would certainly help would be some solid positive evidence rather than simply this nitpicking 'narrative analysis' because lets be honest you're no better as a 'drama critic' than you are as a doctor or mathematician.

 

[Patrick1000]

Well I do work with rocks and pics, just not to your liking......

......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?

Well I do work with rocks and pics, and do so in a very meaningful and revealing sense Tomblvd. My approach and findings are simply not to your liking......Nothing that I can do about that.......

Consider this Tomblvd, what I mean by way of narrative analysis. I say the Apollo 11 moonscapes are fake because Neil Armstrong is not featured. You want me to argue about the lighting. I don't do lighting, I do narrative.

Is smoke coming out of your earballs?

Sorry, this is my point. You and the other guys will stand over a pile of rocks and photos shouting at Bart Sibrel and Jarrah Whaite and the Ghost of Christmas Past, not to mention the ghost of Ralph Rene 'til the moon has hit its 5 billionth birthday, arguing arguing arguing as to what the stones and glossies are about, what evidence they do or do not contain in support of the official vs alternative versions of the Apollo narrative. While you guys fight, I have solved the problem, and I solved it not completely, but in strong and irrefutable outline during the second half of 2011. This party is already over Tomblvd, the real fighting anyhoo. The Apollo 11 Flown(NOT) LAM-2 map is fake dude, admit it.

Here ya' go Tomblvd, consider this, the moon rocks may all be real in that they are ultimately of lunar origin, collected on the moon by hook or crook(wasn't it Nixon who said he wouldn't use these to get the rocks?) or discovered/found here on earth. I can say with utter certainty REGARDLESS OF ASSUMING THAT FACT TO BE THE CASE, ABSOLUTE LUNAR AUTHENTICITY OF THE STONES, that Neil Armstrong did not personally bring any of those rocks back, couldn't have. One can say this with absolute unmitigated metaphysical certainty.

One can say this because Michael Collins' map shows the originally targeted landing sited to be 00 42' 50" north and 23 42' 38" east. Now we all know the middle of the landing ellipse is NOT at those coordinates but at 00 43' 53" north and 23 38' 51" east.

Now ask yourself this question Tomblvd, would you go to the moon with a guy carrying a mislabeled map? Of course not, fraud proof positive.....So the rocks may be moon rocks, but Armstrong sure didn't bring them back.

My view is that Apollo is real for the most part so I am expecting lots and lots of real/fake pics, any way they could scam them they would do so, take real lunar pics, films, to PROVE THAT IT WAS REAL WHICH IT WAS. Get it?

 

[haibut]

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

How do you fake a rock?

 

[nomuse]

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.

So you reject the "rocks and pics" because they are too hard to impeach? This is not a court. You don't get to reject evidence merely because it favors the other side.

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.

You are right in one thing here. If Neil were to say anything about the "rocks and pics" it would mean nothing. We don't accept the reality of the lunar samples because an astronaut vouches for them. We accept them because all of geology agrees they are from the Moon.

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.

Or it leads us into the realm of "Apollo is about science and technology." And the science is behind the reality of the program.

So what you are saying here is that the science is too good to argue against, so you prefer to pretend that only the political theorizing matters; that given enough of a motive, the impossibility of the crime can simply be waved away.

Of course, much of what you have been doing in the past pages is attempting to get the science to come out in favor of your claims.

No, I'm sorry, saying, "I know 2 + 2 falls well short of 5, but you have to put it in context of cold war/NWO/imperialist brass monkey donuts..." does not work.

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.

Really? You are going to hold up "Glove box" Rene and "Polar Orbit" Jarrah White as examples of solid unimpeachable arguments for your version of the conspiracy theory?

Good thing for you "context" is key. That way you can ignore that every time one of those two reaches for a specific, they get it wrong.

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 the above bloat (I'd hate to call it an expansion of your point) you come close to pointing out that all the specific claims from Ralph and Jarrah (and a host of others) can easily be shown to be wrong. Often laughably so.

You appear to be taking a step beyond even the usual framing; i.e., the "Okay, so the gloves would have worked, but there's still a lot of other things that haven't been explained," to a whole-hearted throwing out of all possible evidence, leaving only the theorizing behind.

Again, if this is the only important part of the argument, why did we spent twenty pages on navigation? Why not start on page one with, "I know Apollo was faked because the government fakes lots of things and it would have been militarily useful for reasons we are not privy to know."

Of course, then the other followers of this thread would not have had the chance to listen again to Jay and others give detailed insights to parts of the Apollo spacecraft and operations we might not have known before.

In addition, rocks/pics debates are contests that neither side can win.

Only within the framing of debate. As scientific evidence, you have only two possibilities; either the lunar samples tell the truth, or there is both a conspiracy and an epidemic of incompetence as the world communities of geology, planetology, cosmology and so forth collectively get everything wrong (and still manage to operate probes in space and drill for oil down on Earth....guess they just keep getting lucky despite their enormous incompetence, eh?)

In the framing of debate, if the debate goes on long enough you end up with those two plus one other remaining option -- to stick your fingers in your ears and say "Nuh-uh! Isn't!"

As much as you try to spin it, these are the only options available. Your "It really doesn't matter because...conspiracymilitaryindustrialnasasomethingsomething..." boils down, semantically, to either "unbelievably massive conspiracy" or "Nuh-uh!"

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...........

Neigh, I say, neigh!

"The reason the rocks and pics don't matter is because...Hey, monkeys! Monkeys, right over there! Aren't they cute? Anyhow, as I was saying, that's the reason they don't matter."

I look on it a little differently. My meta-analysis of why "rocks and pics" discussions go on forever is that most conspiracy theorists operate on the God of the Gaps principle.

In the glory days of Sibrel, someone saw what looked like a big obvious blunder on NASA's part. "There's no stars in the pictures!"

But then they discovered their naive expectations were unsupportable. What happens next, though, is that instead of changing the verdict they arrived at from this mistaken evidence, they modify it. It becomes "So they should have set up a camera that could take stars." Then they are presented with the Apollo 17 UV sky studies. The gap becomes narrower and narrower. Eventually they find themselves arguing a claim with an insanely long series of conditionals on it; that the picture necessary to prove it wasn't a fake would include Earth and the LM and the landscape and an astronaut clearly visible through his helmet and..........

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.........

Or, as I said, you can just say "Nuh-uh!" Using full caps always helps.

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.........

We have a different form of context in mind. That would be citation, my friend, citation. I no longer believe any of your fairy stories, because you are so poor at giving a solid and timely citation in which the full context can be seen -- and because you have been caught so often leaving out essential parts of the context.

Actually, what you've described above sounds absolutely normal. There were several methods and they all needed to be calibrated and corrected -- which took time. So over time, the original raw data from the same path gives a spread of different numbers.

Had it been any different I think I would be suspicious myself.

 

[nomuse]

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......

You've previously admitted that appropriate expertise is necessary to properly evaluate technical data. Are you now reneging on that? Or do you simply believe that photometrics, photogrammetry, and professional photography are not technical subjects?

You seriously believe the average man in the street can understand a picture of unfamiliar technology in an unfamiliar environment? Without even knowing anything about the kind of camera, film, lens, process chain used?

We are speaking here, mind you, of people who think (yes, they've said so in forums) that reflection only works in atmosphere! People who have never consciously taken note of interobject reflection and who have never heard of anisotropic optical surfaces. People who are confused by the fact that God Rays don't look parallel. People that think the Moon is actually larger when it is on the horizon.

Still, I think you do the average person a disservice here. If they acquiesced to your canned demonstration I would not blame them, but many people would be logical-minded enough to want to see parts of the Moon that it was not claimed astronauts had landed on. For comparison.

And they'd realize pretty clearly that nothing resembling the tracks appears in any other part of the Moon.



But, seriously -- let's take a step back to meta-analysis -- are you truly suggesting that NASA went and took random pictures of the Moon and found some that seemed to have lines on them and are trying to pass those off as tracks?

How do you care to explain the way those tracks match up so exactly with logged and recorded EVA activities? That you can map via photographs and time analysis and the radio and video recording exactly where the astronauts walked, what equipment was deployed, and see both clearly in the patterns of the LRO images?

 

[matt.tansy]

I would encourage the curious to check out this web page;

http://home.earthlink.net/~danielsage17/diana.htm

And in particular, I would like to draw the reader's attention to the LOST IN SPACE SECTION. However, reading the whole thing is so worth it. It is a very good brief discussion of some aspects of deep space tracking techniques and some things/details even the most well informed may not be aware of are included in this brief presentation.

I challenged Patrick to identify the errors in that link's first three paragraphs but he couldn't, of course.


So here's what's wrong with the first paragraph:

The Moon is roughly 238,000 miles from Earth. To get there the Apollo astronauts needed continuous telemetry from Mission Control to correct their course

Continuous telemetry was neither required nor possible.

, especially near the Moon and near the Earth, when the pull of gravity was strongest. There is some controversy about the "resolution" of Earth-based radars at the distance of the Moon

Radar was only used to track the Apollo spacecraft while they were in LEO.

,and whether they’d be able to discern the lunar orbiter

Properly referred to as the "CSM".

and the lunar excursion module (LEM)

"excursion" was dropped from the lunar module's name in the early 60s and its acronym was shortened to "LM".


Ok, Patrick, paragraphs 2 and 3 are all yours.

 

[Agatha]

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......

Most people can see bootprints, particularly if they study the hundreds of photographs available. If you cannot, might I suggest you consult a competent optician since your vision appears to be somewhat impaired.

The more you run away from addressing the rocks and the photographs the more you demonstrate that you are not prepared to address the evidence but you have started with a conclusion and are now discarding the facts and evidence which disprove that conclusion. As that is all of them, you are left with nothing but hot and insults.

 

[R.A.F.]

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.

Can you see the rover tracks EXACTLY where on the surface photographic evidence indicates they should be?

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

You are in no position to "suggest" anything.

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......

Because you are "begging the question" of individual footprints...NO ONE EVER CLAIMED THAT. They said that where the astronauts were known to walk, the regolith was darker, ie. disturbed by the astronauts as they walked.

Can you see the twin rover tracks...yes or no?

 

[R.A.F.]

How do you care to explain the way those tracks match up so exactly with logged and recorded EVA activities? That you can map via photographs and time analysis and the radio and video recording exactly where the astronauts walked, what equipment was deployed, and see both clearly in the patterns of the LRO images?

Yep...I'd like to see him answer that, too...


...and please, patrick, don't answer with another wall of text about maps.

 

[Loss Leader]

Here ya' go Tomblvd, consider this, the moon rocks may all be real in that they are ultimately of lunar origin, collected on the moon by hook or crook(wasn't it Nixon who said he wouldn't use these to get the rocks?) or discovered/found here on earth.

How were they collected, Patrick?

Without question, some things called "moon rocks" or "moon regolith" exist. Be they from the moon or Anaheim, they actually exist. They're studied by scientists, have tiny pieces vaporized, shown to tourists, radiometrically dated, and anything else anybody can think to do to them. They have different mineral compositions than earth rocks and show no exposure to water.

They exist.

So, where did they come from? How were they collected? How did they end up in the places they are now?

If these rocks are from the moon and Armstrong didn't pick them up (by weight, there's only about a 6% chance he or Aldrin did to begin with), how did they get where they are?

Failure to adequately explain actual physical evidence of a manned trip to the moon would tend to be fatal to your argument.

 

[JayUtah]

Not exactly. The positive proposition is that men walked on the moon.

The proposition I was addressing was that the Apollo 8 CM cabin was unsafe. Why wouldn't Patrick bear the burden of proof for that claim?

So, what is Patrick's burden? From a legal point of view, he bears the burden of introducing enough doubt to make us lose confidence in the truth of the original proposition.

Please correct my understanding of law. The plaintiff has the overall burden of proof, yes. The defense may undermine the strength of that proof to create reasonable doubt. Or the defense may also make an affirmative case that something else better explains the plaintiff's evidence, if not the defendant's actions. When the defense chooses that strategy, does not the defense bear the burden to prove the affirmed alternative?

Patrick is not merely claiming that the evidence isn't good enough to believe Apollo was real, he's making a counter claim about specifically what Apollo was instead. His late comments about not being able to fully appreciate his attacks on Apollo without embracing his theory about militarizing the Moon seems to indicate he connects the two. It seems to be an attempt an an affirmative rebuttal, however ineptly framed.

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

In historical circles, any accusation of fraud or forgery bears the burden of proof -- period. As to what standard of proof to apply to such an accusation: typically clear and convincing proof. That's because evidence of fraud or forgery by its nature tends to be clear and convincing, when it is found. It tends toward the smoking gun. Hence the burden of proof is placed to all but require a smoking gun.

In general, authenticity clears a very low barrier. If something is "plausible in its milieu," then it is considered authentic.

Unlike in law, historians don't need to come speedily to a conclusion. If there is a legitimate controversy on some point that doesn't have to do with authenticity, it is allowable for some experts to hold one tenet while others hold a different one, until more evidence can be developed.

 

[Erock]

Well I do work with rocks and pics, and do so in a very meaningful and revealing sense Tomblvd. My approach and findings are simply not to your liking......Nothing that I can do about that.......

Is that some sort of DASTARDLY Mr Metaphor language? Are you telling us you are a geologist?

Consider this Tomblvd, what I mean by way of narrative analysis. I say the Apollo 11 moonscapes are fake because Neil Armstrong is not featured.

I say they are real because the physical evidence internally and externally supports it.

You want me to argue about the lighting. I don't do lighting, I do narrative.

No you don't. You do unsupported conclusions that get torn apart by experts.

The Apollo 11 Flown(NOT) LAM-2 map is fake dude, admit it.

Because you don't understand datums and I and O appearing on the grid lines?

Here ya' go Tomblvd, consider this, the moon rocks may all be real in that they are ultimately of lunar origin, collected on the moon by hook or crook

From the Moon how exactly? Are you now claiming experts status in geology to contend they used meteorites? Really?? Or is this magic secret mission time?

I can say with utter certainty REGARDLESS OF ASSUMING THAT FACT TO BE THE CASE, ABSOLUTE LUNAR AUTHENTICITY OF THE STONES, that Neil Armstrong did not personally bring any of those rocks back, couldn't have. One can say this with absolute unmitigated metaphysical certainty.

I no longer believe you believe that. I think a scientist would have never arrived at that conclusion. Dastardly.

Now ask yourself this question Tomblvd, would you go to the moon with a guy carrying a mislabeled map?

Your definition of labelling is irrelevant. Your understanding of it is deeply uninformed. My gf thinks you are wrong, she understands map making.

 

[R.A.F.]

I say the Apollo 11 moonscapes are fake because Neil Armstrong is not featured.

Which is not a rational, evidence based argument.

You want me to argue about the lighting. I don't do lighting, I do narrative.

Your narrative is irrelevant. It is based on not evidence, but on how you "believe" things should have been done...it is an opinion that ignores anything proving the landings actually happened.

That is why you don't "do" images or rocks.

The Apollo 11 Flown(NOT) LAM-2 map is fake dude, admit it.

Why should anyone admit to something that has been totally DEBUNKED.

YOU are the one who needs to admit error.

I can say with utter certainty REGARDLESS OF ASSUMING THAT FACT TO BE THE CASE, ABSOLUTE LUNAR AUTHENTICITY OF THE STONES, that Neil Armstrong did not personally bring any of those rocks back, couldn't have. One can say this with absolute unmitigated metaphysical certainty.

I'll see that "metawhatever and raise you EVIDENCE...either produce evidence or stop making unsubstantiated claims.

 

[Garrison]

Consider this Tomblvd, what I mean by way of narrative analysis. I say the Apollo 11 moonscapes are fake because Neil Armstrong is not featured. You want me to argue about the lighting. I don't do lighting, I do narrative.

No, you may think you do narrative but it's just a collection of 'if I ran the zoo' assertions such as the above that amount to nothing. it's been patiently explained by posters with real knowledge of Apollo why your expectation is wrong. It's been made clear that in fact the pictures fit in well with the larger 'narrative' of the Apollo evidence, and indeed of evidence gathered since Apollo. It's been pointed out that even if Apollo 11 were a hoax there is nothing to stop them simply labelling a few pictures as Armstrong and avoiding the issue altogether, you choose to ignore all this and simply repeat the same erroneous claims, posting vast walls of text and then claiming that you don't have time to deal with every question asked of you.

 

[SpitfireIX]

From the Moon how exactly? Are you now claiming experts status in geology to contend they used meteorites? Really?? Or is this magic secret mission time?

Just to expand on this, Patrick, are you now claiming that the Apollo missions were conducted as cover for the militarization of the moon, but then other, completely secret, missions went to the moon to collect lunar samples? Can you see the utter absurdity of such a contention?

And another question for you, Patrick. You claim that the "anomalies" you've purportedly discovered in the Apollo record prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the missions were faked, at least as far as landing real astronauts on the Moon, and that these "anomalies" are so blindingly obvious (Borman's illness, for example) that anyone should be able to see the truth of your position. So I ask you, if these really were such dead giveaways, then why did TPTB write them into the script??

 

[JayUtah]

Well I do work with rocks and pics, and do so in a very meaningful and revealing sense Tomblvd.

No, you don't. You ignore them entirely and beg us to do likewise.

My approach and findings are simply not to your liking......Nothing that I can do about that...

They are your approach and findings. You're the only one who can do anything about that. Your "findings" are, bluntly stated, that you can't explain them. They form no part of your theory, therefore your theory is uselessly incomplete. You approach is to try to tell us that your waffling about with "narrative" is ultimately stronger evidence than scientifically testable findings.

I say the Apollo 11 moonscapes are fake because Neil Armstrong is not featured.

Non sequitur.

You want me to argue about the lighting. I don't do lighting, I do narrative.

Then tell us the narrative of how the 6,000 lunar surface photos came to be. Not how you conceive they "might" have come to be, but actually how they were created.

Is smoke coming out of your earballs?

Laughter is coming out of my mouth. Is that close enough?

While you guys fight, I have solved the problem...

No. As usual, you've fled from the problem. Your theory does not account for the physical evidence considered by the rest of the world to be the strongest in favor of Apollo's authenticity. You've "solved" the problem only by simplifying away the parts that don't fit your theory. That's cheating.

The other conspiracy theorists have realized that if they don't address all the evidence, they are immediately dismissed. That doesn't mean they address it with any sort of knowledge, but they've realized that the Ostrich Method (i.e., sticking one's head in the sand) doesn't really make a strong argument.

I solved it not completely, but in strong and irrefutable outline...

Bwahahahaha! Your theory is incomplete but irrefutable? That should be a Stundie nomination.

The Apollo 11 Flown(NOT) LAM-2 map is fake dude, admit it.

Begging the question. You have been repeatedly shown your error regarding this map, but you refuse to address it.

...the moon rocks may all be real in that they are ultimately of lunar origin, collected on the moon by hook or crook...

Until your theory describes and substantiates that "hook or crook," you haven't addressed the evidence.

(wasn't it Nixon who said he wouldn't use these to get the rocks?)

No. No one said any such thing.

...or discovered/found here on earth.

Armstrong did not personally bring any of those rocks back, couldn't have. One can say this with absolute unmitigated metaphysical certainty.[/quote

No, that's absolute circularity of reasoning. You don't get to assert your desired conclusion as a refutation of evidence that disfavors that conclusion.

One can say this because Michael Collins' map...

...has nothing to do with Moon rocks.

Now ask yourself this question Tomblvd, would you go to the moon with a guy carrying a mislabeled map?

Begging the question. You may not set up your personal misconceptions and subjective opinion as rules that everyone else has to follow.

My view is that Apollo is real for the most part so I am expecting lots and lots of real/fake pics...

Tell us which photographs are real, which ones are fake, and how you are able to tell the difference. Because the rest of the world considers them all real, and they show astronauts on the Moon contrary to your beliefs.

 

[Patrick1000]

I am not claiming that at all.....

Just to expand on this, Patrick, are you now claiming that the Apollo missions were conducted as cover for the militarization of the moon, but then other, completely secret, missions went to the moon to collect lunar samples? Can you see the utter absurdity of such a contention?

And another question for you, Patrick. You claim that the "anomalies" you've purportedly discovered in the Apollo record prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the missions were faked, at least as far as landing real astronauts on the Moon, and that these "anomalies" are so blindingly obvious (Borman's illness, for example) that anyone should be able to see the truth of your position. So I ask you, if these really were such dead giveaways, then why did TPTB write them into the script??

I am not claiming that at all.....

I am not a materials investigator/researcher. I am a narrative analyst. I haven't really looked at the rocks to be honest, by that I mean in any kind of detail.

My point was is and shall remain, were all the rocks vetted as authentically lunar, it doesn't impact my investigation, nor my conclusions. I don't work with rocdks, don't have a need for them one way or the other. I would expect at least some of them to be real moon rocks, but I do not know for a fact if any are or are not, nor do I care all that much if I care at all. I simply have a different orientation.

My point was/is, assume all of the rocks to be authentic, they all came from the moon, maybe NASA got some penguins to help them find the rocks like drug sniffing dogs you know, lunar stone sniffing penguins. One thing we do know with absolute certainty is that Armstrong did not collect the stones. How do we know that? Because Michael Collins flew with a map that had the center of its landing ellipse representation intentionally mislabelled with regard to the targeted landing site.

Look for yourself SpitfireIX in the Apollo 11 Mission Report section 5. Toward the end of theat section you will find a series of pictures/images. The image labeled "NASA-S-69-3719" is the famous/infamous depending on one's orientation; Lunar Map ORB-II-6 (100). Note the planned landing site at 00 43' 53" north and 23 38' 51" east. Yet here;http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/LAM2_CMP-flown.jpg, on the LAM-2 flown map, the targeted landing site IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ELLIPSE! is found not at 00 43' 53" north and 23 38' 51" east, but rather at the targeted landing site of the Press Kit Publication; 00 42' 50" north and 23 42' 28" east. We know this is not an innocent mistake because we see that the Lunar Map ORB II-6 (100) is properly gridded with the "targeted landing site" in the correct spot at true coordinates 00 43' 53" north and 23 38' 51" east, but in the case of the LAM-2 flown map, THOUGH THE CENTER OF THE ELLIPSE IS DIRECTLY OVER 00 43' 53" NORTH AND 23 38' 51" EAST, THE MAP IS NEVERTHELESS LABELED WITH THAT CENTER AT 00 42' 50" AND 23 42' 28" EAST.

As such, one can say with utterly absolute unmitigated metaphysical certitude that that the LAM-2 Flown Map was intentionally contrived, having its longitude lines shifted 3.37 minutes of arc (1.48 miles) westward. this was intentionally done so that the Press Kit announced landing site would appear to be in the center of the ellipse. Pretty dang cagey no??...

AND, given this, we know Apollo 11 was fake. Had to be, 'cuz the mislabeling, the misgridding is obviously intentional. The map is FAKE FAKE FAKE, ergo the mission is PHONY PHONY PHONY. Can't go to the moon without a real map now can ya' SpitfireIX? Of course ya' can't. Given that, we conclude no matter the lunar authenticity or inauthenticity of the "returned Apollo 11 stones", they are not rocks Armstrong and Aldrin picked up because the maps they carried were inaccurate, not only inaccurate, but fraudulently so.

 

[nomuse]

I'd like to propose a challenge. What about a conspiracy-minded narrative for Apollo that acknowledges the photographic record and the geological samples are genuine? Surely, if you have all these sophisticated robots and massive secret military operations going on, you can accommodate some picture taking and sample collection?

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

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.

How did some amateur radio guys pick up voice transmissions from the moon if there were no men there?

 

[slyjoe]

...snip

I am not a materials investigator/researcher. I am a narrative analyst. I haven't really looked at the rocks to be honest, by that I mean in any kind of detail.

...snip

Your problem is bolded above. That is not how science and engineering are done. Nor is evidence evaluation. When you do attempt to use calculations and numbers, your arguments fail miserably.

I believe you have looked at the other evidence - you just don't have an answer for it.