Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[haibut]

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

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.

Not a very good try, that. How DID we get the rocks? Because they are fatal to your case. The fact you, personally, can't read a map becomes irrelevant.

 

[JayUtah]

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

Not to mention the Soviets. Just a few years ago there was an article in a Russian astronomy journal describing how Soviet scientists had managed to decipher and tap into the Apollo 11 television signal. They were watching the Moon landings live too -- on their own equipment, not fed from Mission Control.

Patrick?

 

[JayUtah]

I am not a materials investigator/researcher. I am a narrative analyst.

The difference is that one of those is a real occupation; the other one isn't.

I haven't really looked at the rocks to be honest, by that I mean in any kind of detail.

So not only do you admit not having the expertise to properly evaluate the strongest evidence against your claim, you admit not even studying the evidence itself. How is that not a gross dereliction of the scholar's duty?

This is especially obnoxious when we recall your excuse for why the qualified experts all disagree with you. You told us that it was because they didn't know what you knew; that they were essentially in the dark. Thank you for admitting there are things your critics know that you don't. Will you now please provide another reason for why you discount the unanimous opinion of qualified experts?

My point was is and shall remain, were all the rocks vetted as authentically lunar, it doesn't impact my investigation, nor my conclusions.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, even if my client did murder her husband, that shouldn't affect your verdict."

My point is and shall remain that if your theory doesn't account for all the evidence, it's a non-starter.

I don't work with rocks, 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.

Then that would be yet another huge difference between you and the legions of qualified scientists, all of whom accept the Apollo landings as genuine. Not only do they accept them as genuine, they accept the means by which they were obtained because they understand how the two are inseparable.

If you had studied the evidence, you would have realized a couple of things. First, that prominent geologists hand-picked the samples they wanted by directing the astronauts according to the TV feed. Second, that many of the samples were collected by mechanisms and means (e.g., core sampling) that can only be done by hand.

And your theory explains none of that. Immediate fail.

I simply have a different orientation.

Ignoring substantial evidence is not an "orientation." It's an evasion. You seem to be trying to dignify your selective attention to the data by saying it marks you as some kind of specialized scholar. You are that: an armchair scholar. The professionals disagree with you, and you can't explain that.

What should we do with a doctor who ignores pertinent test results that dispute his diagnosis, who says he just has a different "orientation?" Is he a better or worse doctor than one who pays attention to all the symptoms?

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.

That's your theory? So if I may read between the lines, you're claiming that the genuine Moon rocks came from Antarctica in the form of meteorites? Or are you offering some other theory? Didn't you just copy that theory from the other hoax theorists -- the ones you say are misguided for talking about rocks? Are you aware of the problems with that theory, and are you willing to defend it?

Clearly now you're willing to discuss and theorize about it, so let the games begin.

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...

Circular reasoning.

 

[Patrick1000]

The astronaut pics have to be fake given the LAM-2 fraudulence...

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?

The astronaut/moonscape pics have to be fake given the LAM-2 fraudulence..Other stuff could be "real", may well be

 

[Patrick1000]

Relayed....

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

relayed, even before the moon was instrumented they were bouncing signals off of it......By 07/20/1969 messages could have been directly/nonpassively relayed

 

[Patrick1000]

The term is used tongue in cheek of course......

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.

The term is used tongue in cheek of course......

I am of course doing science here. I claim to be a medical expert as you are well aware. My opinion as regards the Borman case should be viewed as authoritative.....

 

[R.A.F.]

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

I'd really like for you to "find" a claim and stick to it...as opposed to the half dozen "claims" that you've "floated" on this board.

...we know Apollo 11 was fake.

In the religious thread, you admit that Aldrin took communion on the Moon, and you think that was a "publicity stunt".

How can you believe multiple, inconsistent claims??

 

[Patrick1000]

No the LAM-2 map is fatal to the official version of things....

Not a very good try, that. How DID we get the rocks? Because they are fatal to your case. The fact you, personally, can't read a map becomes irrelevant.

No...... the doctored LAM-2 map is fatal to the official version of things...

This is the beauty of being on this side of the fence haibut. IF WE FIND ONE THING, ONLY ONE THING OUT OF LINE LIKE A LAM-2 MAP, the official story cannot tolerate it. The official story collapses right there. EVERYTHING on your side must hold up my friend EVERYTHING....

Now back to my point.... The LAM-2 map is fake and so I say, "what if all the rocks are lunar, every one is lunar, SO WHAT? WHO CARES!?!???!!!! Armstrong never walked on the moon and I have a phony Michael Collins Apollo 11 Flown LAM-2 Map to prove it...."

 

[Patrick1000]

same to you Jay, the messages are relayed....

Not to mention the Soviets. Just a few years ago there was an article in a Russian astronomy journal describing how Soviet scientists had managed to decipher and tap into the Apollo 11 television signal. They were watching the Moon landings live too -- on their own equipment, not fed from Mission Control.

Patrick?

same to you Jay, the messages are relayed....And if they wanted to play it cute, it would be an easy thing to have the messages coded on the way in and decoded, sent loud and clear on the trip back out, piece of cake really....l.

 

[Patrick1000]

The "narrative analyst is said tongue in cheek Jay, don't you get it?....

The difference is that one of those is a real occupation; the other one isn't.



So not only do you admit not having the expertise to properly evaluate the strongest evidence against your claim, you admit not even studying the evidence itself. How is that not a gross dereliction of the scholar's duty?

This is especially obnoxious when we recall your excuse for why the qualified experts all disagree with you. You told us that it was because they didn't know what you knew; that they were essentially in the dark. Thank you for admitting there are things your critics know that you don't. Will you now please provide another reason for why you discount the unanimous opinion of qualified experts?



"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, even if my client did murder her husband, that shouldn't affect your verdict."

My point is and shall remain that if your theory doesn't account for all the evidence, it's a non-starter.



Then that would be yet another huge difference between you and the legions of qualified scientists, all of whom accept the Apollo landings as genuine. Not only do they accept them as genuine, they accept the means by which they were obtained because they understand how the two are inseparable.

If you had studied the evidence, you would have realized a couple of things. First, that prominent geologists hand-picked the samples they wanted by directing the astronauts according to the TV feed. Second, that many of the samples were collected by mechanisms and means (e.g., core sampling) that can only be done by hand.

And your theory explains none of that. Immediate fail.



Ignoring substantial evidence is not an "orientation." It's an evasion. You seem to be trying to dignify your selective attention to the data by saying it marks you as some kind of specialized scholar. You are that: an armchair scholar. The professionals disagree with you, and you can't explain that.

What should we do with a doctor who ignores pertinent test results that dispute his diagnosis, who says he just has a different "orientation?" Is he a better or worse doctor than one who pays attention to all the symptoms?



That's your theory? So if I may read between the lines, you're claiming that the genuine Moon rocks came from Antarctica in the form of meteorites? Or are you offering some other theory? Didn't you just copy that theory from the other hoax theorists -- the ones you say are misguided for talking about rocks? Are you aware of the problems with that theory, and are you willing to defend it?

Clearly now you're willing to discuss and theorize about it, so let the games begin.



Circular reasoning.

The "narrative analyst" bit is said tongue in cheek Jay, don't you get it?....It was intended as a joke. What the heck is a "narrative analyst"? It doesn't make any sense........

 

[R.A.F.]

This is especially obnoxious when we recall your excuse for why the qualified experts all disagree with you. You told us that it was because they didn't know what you knew; that they were essentially in the dark.

It's becoming clear and clearer how disingenuous Patrick is about discussing this subject.

He'll say practically anything...even if it directly contradicts what he has previously posted.

So Patrick...what exactly "is" your claim??

...and be specific...

 

[SUSpilot]

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.

OK, You're still saying the map was wrong, so the landing was faked.

Right.

First, even if you're right (you're not), you're falling into the trap of "B follows A, C follows B, therefore A caused C."

Second, why do you need an accurate map? All you need, as shown long ago, is the relative position of the LM and the CSM.

Quite frankly, if this were a conversation in any setting other than this forum, you'd have been excluded long ago. Even to a layman like me, it's been abindantly clear you don't know what you're talking about.

Speaking of that, how's the lightning strike study coming along? And what about those rocks?

 

[tsig]

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

Here's one account:



The nearly forgotten story of how a radio amateur successfully detected transmissions from the first men to land on the Moon.

In July of 1969 a ham radio operator and amateur radio-astronomer by the name of Larry Baysinger, W4EJA, accomplished an amazing feat. He independently detected radio transmissions from the Apollo 11 astronauts on the lunar surface. Fortunately, his accomplishments were recorded by Glenn Rutherford, a young reporter for the Louisville (Kentucky) Courier-Journal. “Lunar Eavesdropping: Louisvillians hear moon walk talk on homemade equipment,” sporting Rutherford’s byline, appeared in the Wednesday, July 23, 1969 issue of that paper — front page of section B, the local news section (see Figure 1).



http://www.arrl.org/eavesdropping-on-apollo-11

 

[Garrison]

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.

Patrick you do not analyze the narrative; you simply pick a few small pieces of the historical record and saying, 'well that's not what I would have done'. And since you have clearly demonstrated no expertise in engineering, maths, cartography, or medicine those assertions have no worth in attacking the reality of Apollo.

My point was is and shall remain, were all the rocks vetted as authentically lunar, it doesn't impact my investigation, nor my conclusions.

It rather does since lunar meteorites were not identified until years after Apollo AND the Apollo rocks have physical characteristics that the meteorites don't and that can't be replicated by earthly means, specifically 'zap pits' on the surface produced by the continual bombardment of the lunar surface by micrometeoric dust. these features are destroyed by the heat and friction of entering the Earth's atmosphere. Thus if your theory offers no credible explanation for how the rocks reached Earth it fails, or I should say fails again as it has already failed every other test of it.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Why do all the worlds scientists who have studied samples from the Moon think they are real and came from the moon as described?

Here is a description and analysis of one sample, it includes it's mineral make up, chemical composition, micrographs of prepared samples and a list of all the Papers that have been preapred from it.

http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/lsc/12002.pdf

here is the link to the main index of the Sample Compendium. it lists all the samples and has links to a PDF of every one of them similar to the one above.

http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/compendium.cfm

If you can make a good case they will even send you a sample to work on.

Thousands of scientists from all around thw world from dozens of universities have recieved samples and tested and analyzed them in all kinds of ways.

Were they all fooled?
http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/lsc/12017.pdf

 

[Andy_Ross]

You will notice that a number of the samples are Core Samples drilled out of the Lunar regolith

here is an example of one of them

http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/compendium.cfm

there are over 54ft of core samples in total

 

[Patrick1000]

I am quite consistant.....

I'd really like for you to "find" a claim and stick to it...as opposed to the half dozen "claims" that you've "floated" on this board.




In the religious thread, you admit that Aldrin took communion on the Moon, and you think that was a "publicity stunt".

How can you believe multiple, inconsistent claims??

I am quite consistant.....Apollo was a nonmanned program to weaponize space. The astronauts are actors, not real spacefarers. Essentially everyone involved, all 400,000 , with the exception of very very very few, buy ain and believe this to be really a manned program. It is that aspect of the con that makes the thing work, the effectiveness of "duping the Apollo workers from the inside" if you will.

 

[haibut]

No...... the doctored LAM-2 map is fatal to the official version of things...

what if all the rocks are lunar, every one is lunar, SO WHAT?

So we have therefore proven beyond any possible doubt that we sent men to the moon. That is so what.

 

[Patrick1000]

see my answer to your 5327.....

It's becoming clear and clearer how disingenuous Patrick is about discussing this subject.

He'll say practically anything...even if it directly contradicts what he has previously posted.

So Patrick...what exactly "is" your claim??

...and be specific...

see my answer/response to your #5327.....

Tell you what RAF, in the next week or so, I'll come up with a nice synopsis for you, summarize my position so it will make it easy for you yto see what my claims are and are not. In this way, you will be able to hold me to my claims as explicity stated in the synopsis......Sound good?

 

[Garrison]

No...... the doctored LAM-2 map is fatal to the official version of things...

This is the beauty of being on this side of the fence haibut. IF WE FIND ONE THING, ONLY ONE THING OUT OF LINE LIKE A LAM-2 MAP, the official story cannot tolerate it. The official story collapses right there. EVERYTHING on your side must hold up my friend EVERYTHING....

Now back to my point.... The LAM-2 map is fake and so I say, "what if all the rocks are lunar, every one is lunar, SO WHAT? WHO CARES!?!???!!!! Armstrong never walked on the moon and I have a phony Michael Collins Apollo 11 Flown LAM-2 Map to prove it...."

But Patrick1000 you have proven nothing except that you don't know anything about maps; really since the 'Julian Co-ordinates' fiasco do you actually think anyone is going to take your map analysis seriously?