Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Patrick1000]

Same thing pretty much Laton, slightly different focus, approach on this next go...

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

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

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

Same thing pretty much Laton, slightly different focus, slightly different approach with this go 'round mate...

Here is our old friend the Apollo 11 Mission "Flown"(NOT) LAM-2 Map that we all know and love;

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

Though this does not seem to be a point of discussion in any meaningful sense, it seems rather clear now that this map and the flown(NOT) map of the Apollo 10 Mission were of Lunar Orbiter II image origins. They used the November 1966 Lunar Orbiter II images to make the flown maps, not unreasonable so far. But boy does this ever get interesting....


Here again is another now favorite, an image allegedly taken by Aldrin/Armstrong of the Columbia while they were in the Eagle before the boy scout and his free wheeling "navigator" descended. The youngsters have yet to become "moonwalkers". This is the Harland rotated and ellipse superposed version of the well known shot from 07/20/1969, or so it is claimed that this shot was taken on that day anyway. We now know otherwise.

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/ALS-2_vertical_w-ellipse.jpg

Collins and Armstrong are 60 miles up with the Columbia give or take, one hundred kilometers. It is early in the lunar day, earth day 07/20/1969, with the sun angle very low to the moon's horizon at 10 or 12 degreesish. The Eagle and the Columbia track a course one degree north of the lunar equator as they roll east to west..

Remember, that LAM-2 map is of Lunar Orbiter II image vintage, November 1966. How come it looks just like the image taken from the Eagle on 07/20/1969, an image made/taken allegedly 2 and one half plus years and a different sun angle altogether later?????????

Take a good look at the pics Laton, fold them, measure them up against one another. The images are identical at least very very very close to identical. This, despite the Orbiter being said to have been only half as high up as the Eagle supposedly was when it snapped this shot of Collins hot rodding 'round the moon.. The Orbiter was 50 kilometers/30 miles up. The Eagle was presumably/allegedly roughly as "high" as the Columbia, 100 kilometers/60 miles up, when the Eagle "photographed" its partner on this most interesting of all days, 07/20/1969.

Back in Nobvember of 1966 when the LAM-2 map image was taken/made, the Lunar Orbiter II tracked at about 0.75 degrees north of the equator, a quarter of a degree "below"/south of where the Eagle was said to have been tracking before descent. But one would never know the Eagle was supposed to be tracking a quater of a degree to the north of the Orbiter II's old track and flying 30 miles higher, not given these images. No no No Sir Ree. The landmark ratios are IDENTICAL, no measurable difference, and the shadowing pattern is more or less indistinguishable. That is, you wouldn't know that in the Orbiter II/LAM-2 image, the sun's azimuth was 90.80 degress with an incident angle of roughly 60 degrees.

If the images are not identical, if they do not derive from a common ancestor, a common negative Laton, why do they look identical I would like to ask?

 

[KA9Q]

So patrick1000 is clueless about ham radio too. Surprise!

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

So now you've shown that ham radio is yet another topic you haven't a clue about.

The equipment used for EME (earth-moon-earth or "moonbounce", using the moon as a passive reflector) is quite different than the equipment used to receive Apollo signals. So are EME signals. The irregular lunar surface characteristically distorts reflected signals. This distortion is not present on signals transmitted directly from a spacecraft on or orbiting the moon.

This same distortion, by the way, lets us easily distinguish laser pulses reflected by the natural lunar surface from laser pulses returning from artificial reflectors such as those deployed by the astronauts at the Apollo 11, 14 and 15 sites.

 

[KA9Q]

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........

Would you then mind if we were to conclude that your entire hoax argument was intended as a joke? It sure doesn't make any sense either.

I mean, really...some initial confusion as to the exact location of the Apollo 11 landing site, soon cleared up, somehow proves the entire program was a hoax? That sure sounds like a joke to me.

 

[Patrick1000]

No of course not......

Would you then mind if we were to conclude that your entire hoax argument was intended as a joke? It sure doesn't make any sense either.

I mean, really...some initial confusion as to the exact location of the Apollo 11 landing site, soon cleared up, somehow proves the entire program was a hoax? That sure sounds like a joke to me.

No of course not......

The term is /was meant in a joking way, but it does apply in a sense. I mean what else would ya' call it? Busting a story?..... Sure ain't what Sibrel, White, Rene and Kaysing did and do at any rate, so perhaps it does deserve its own name......

A genre/method of Apollo research in search of a label, a formal identity....

 

[Patrick1000]

Modification....

With regard to my post at #5359, I had recommended working with Lunar Orbiter image 2087. However, 2085 in retrospect seems the better choice, everything else is as previous.....

Here's the link, have fun....I sure did.....

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/lunarorbiter/frame/?2085

 

[Patrick1000]

More on the Map Fraud Laton.....

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

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

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

Here's a bit of photo analysis that will make Percy envious KA9Q...

One might argue that taking pics from those heights, 30 to 60 miles, the ratios of measurements should pretty much always match up more or less if the birds are relatively close latitude/longitude/tracking wise, as the distances above the moon seem so great at first blush compared to the distances/dimensions on the ground with which we are dealing.

A quick look at the numbners reveals such logic/reasoning is misplaced. For openers, take a look at the Apollo 11 Flown(NOT) LAM-2 Map of Michael Collins;

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

Each small square is roughly one square kilometer. The map is 22 kilometers across/13.75 miles by 20 kilometers/12.50 miles give or take and so is 440 square kilometers in dimension or equivalently represents 172 square miles of lunar surface area. The Lunar Orbiter was 30 miles up when taking the shot(s), so looking for the angle from the camera to the field of view we have were the bird/Orbiter directly overhead; 13.75 miles/2 equals 6.875 miles. 6.875 divided by 30 gives .2291. asin of 0.2291 is 13.244 degrees. That is half of our angle in the say east/west direction and so we have 26.48 degrees. Let's call it 26.5 degrees.

From 30 miles up the angle from the camera to the field of view for the LAM-2 shot is 26.5 degrees in the east/west direction and roughly the same north/south as well(bit less there, but no big).

I'll do the same for 60 miles up. One finds 6.875/60 equal .11458. asin of 0.11458 is 6.58 degrees. Again, this is only half the angle we are looking for so I double that to find 13.16 degrees. So from 60 miles up the angle from the camera to the LAM-2 field of view east/west is roughly 13.16 degrees.

Now I had 26.5 degrees for the Lunar Orbiter II and 13.16 degrees for camera to field of view for the Eagle taking an equivalent picture. This is a huge difference, twice the angle is required at half the distance so the differential in the foreshortening of distances over the 172 square miles of LAM-2 Map territory will be most considerable given the significant difference in angles from the camera to field of view in the two situations, Orbiter 30 miles up and Eagle 60 miles up.

The only way possible that the LAM-2 map and the Apollo 11 Mission aerial shot referenced could have matching distance ratios as they do with the Orbiter at 30 miles and the Eagle at 60 miles would be if at the time "the photos were snapped", the Eagle and Orbiter were both exactly over the center of the map field and its equivalent on the Apollo 11 Mission simulated shot. But even then, there would be a measurable difference especially when comparing the ratios taken from the edges of the images with those from the center which would be more "true". However, one notes the birds are not at all in the same local, not at all both directly over the head of the LAM-2 site or its imagined July 20 1969 equivalent. The Orbiter was roughly at latitude .75 north in November of 1966 when it took those famous shots, and the Eagle was purported to be roughly one degree north per the Mission Report when it photographed the Columbia before powered descent. Additionally, the two birds, one real and one imagined would have been at two decidedly different longitudes when the photos were taken, one for reals, one for fakes, and again the heights/altitudes were different in the cases of the real Orbiter and the pretended soaring (NOT) Eagle. As so very well and so easily demonstrated above, the angle from camera to field of view would have been double in the Orbiter case as opposed to that of the imaginary Eagle.

One concludes that in all probability these two images, that taken by the Orbiter in 1966 and that purportedly taken by the Eagle in 1969 are derived from a common negative. Indeed, the "negative(s)" would be that/those of the Lunar Orbiter II image(s) itself/themselves. One concludes that with near certainty at this time and with full certainty now imminent, with only the completion/results of a few additional verification studies pending, it is more than reasonable to assume that as the "Eagle's photograph of the Columbia" was not taken in 1969, but rather in 1966 with the Columbia's image photoshopped/added in 1969 on the occasion of the first pretended manned lunar landing, the entirety of the Apollo 11 Mission may reliably be confirmed as full on fraudulent, and with it, the entirety of the Apollo Program banished to the realm of shameful charade, bogus farce, embarrassing fradulent scammy up the whammy rip off ROYAL RUSE JOB......

 

[JayUtah]

A genre/method of Apollo research in search of a label, a formal identity....

It's called pseudohistory.

 

[Patrick1000]

So glad it's all straightened out KA9Q.....

Would you then mind if we were to conclude that your entire hoax argument was intended as a joke? It sure doesn't make any sense either.

I mean, really...some initial confusion as to the exact location of the Apollo 11 landing site, soon cleared up, somehow proves the entire program was a hoax? That sure sounds like a joke to me.

So glad it's all straightened out KA9Q.....For a minute there I thought we'd lost a rocket ship, got bilked for $130,000,000,000, or both.

Have you contacted H. David Reed by the way and "cleared it up" ?.....

Just curious ya' know. Can hardly wait for your book to come out, yours and H. David's cluing us all in as to how the two of you guys finally figured it all out..

 

[Patrick1000]

I did not say , nor did I imply the signals were BOUNCED(no no no no) off the moon..

So now you've shown that ham radio is yet another topic you haven't a clue about.

The equipment used for EME (earth-moon-earth or "moonbounce", using the moon as a passive reflector) is quite different than the equipment used to receive Apollo signals. So are EME signals. The irregular lunar surface characteristically distorts reflected signals. This distortion is not present on signals transmitted directly from a spacecraft on or orbiting the moon.

This same distortion, by the way, lets us easily distinguish laser pulses reflected by the natural lunar surface from laser pulses returning from artificial reflectors such as those deployed by the astronauts at the Apollo 11, 14 and 15 sites.

I did not say , nor did I imply the signals were bounced off the moon....The Apollo 11 signals were ACTIVELY RELAYED to and then from the lunar surface. What do you think the Russian unmanneds were doing up there KA9Q, "looking for life", picking their robotic noses? When the Ruskies or Americans park something like a Surveyor or what not on the moon, it is parked as a piece of very functional MILITARY EQUIPMENT. We were relaying messages ACTIVELY to and from the lunar surface from the time we first soft landed a piece of equipment there. By the time Apollo 11 roles around, this is piece of cake stuff, going on for ages.

Seems as though I hardly should need to explain this to you guys. You know the science in a sense better than me.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The images are identical at least very very very close to identical. This, despite the Orbiter being said to have been only half as high up as the Eagle supposedly was when it snapped this shot of Collins hot rodding 'round the moon.. The Orbiter was 50 kilometers/30 miles up. The Eagle was presumably/allegedly roughly as "high" as the Columbia, 100 kilometers/60 miles up, when the Eagle "photographed" its partner on this most interesting of all days, 07/20/1969.

OK. I looked at the pictures. They show the same portion of the moon's surface, except that in the Apollo picture, the surface appears to be illuminated by sunlight from a lower angle. That's exactly what you imply we ought to see, right?

I have no idea what difference you expected to see due to a 100km vs 50 km altitude. Maybe you should explain what visible difference you think that would make.

 

[Patrick1000]

I'll buy that, mine is as agood as anyone else's Jay

It's called pseudohistory.

I'll buy that, mine is as agood as anyone else's Jay....

 

[Loss Leader]

Patrick, you've posted no less than eight times since my last post and managed to answer a grand total of zero of my questions. Please answer:

1. Are you saying that most or all lunar samples are from lunar meteorites that hit the earth?

2. If not, what percentage and or weight of lunar samples do you believe were collected on the moon and returned to earth by any means?


3. Do you know the geological differences noted on moon meteorites as compared to lunar samples returned from the moon?

4. Do you believe any people have ever walked on the moon, sent by any country at any time for any purpose?

5. Do you claim that the Apollo 11 map "problem" means that none of the Apollo missions ever put humans on the moon?

6. Regardless of the map, do you believe the Apollo missions ever at any point put any astronauts on the moon?

7. Why can't you go to the moon without a real map?

8. Which of the following procedures would be the most sensitive in detecting early iron overload?

a. Quantitative iron determination in a liver biopsy specimen
b. Urinary iron excretion in response to a test dose of desferrioxamine
c. cerum ferriten concentration
d. Serum iron concentration, total iron binding capacity, and calculated transferrin saturation
e.Iron stain of a bone marrow aspirate

9. Which of the following statements best characterizes the hemolysis associated with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency?

a. It is more severe in affected blacks than in affected persons of Mediterranean ancestry
b. It is more severe in females than in males
c. It causes the appearance of Heinz bodies on Wright staining of a peripheral smear
d. It most often is precipitatied by infection
e. The best time to perform the diagnostic test is during a hemolytic crisis

10. A 53 year old woman presents to the emergency room with abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, hypotensive, tachycardia and disoriented. A FSG check comes back as >500. You quickly get a urine sample and analyze it with a dipstick. It shows the following results:

Specific Gravity=1.005/pH=5.5/1+protein/4+glucose/+ketones/0 RBC,WBC, epithelials cells.

You promptly get IV access and draw the necessary blood studies. Your next step would be to:

a.Give a Normal Saline bolus and run IV fluids wide open
b. Do (1) and give 10 units of regular insulin IV and start an insulin drip at 0.1units/kg/hr
c. Do (1) and give 10 units of NPH and start an insulin drip at 0.1 units/kg/hr
d. Do (1) and start on Diabeta 10 mg
e. Do (1) await lab results and observe

11. Wouldn't the American people have been happy sending cool robots to the moon?

12. Why was there any need for a cover-up at all?

13. Wouldn't Americans have loved knowing we had robots protecting us on the moon?

14. How is a city different from the surface of the moon?

15. If the landings were scripted, then why were so many mistakes made? Why no pictures of Armstrong (or somebody pretending to be him)? Why the map "mistake"? Why pretend to fly a mission with a sick Borman? Why pretend Apollo 13 failed? Why do things that would expose the narrative to scrutiny.?

 

[haibut]

I did not say , nor did I imply the signals were bounced off the moon....The Apollo 11 signals were ACTIVELY RELAYED to and then from the lunar surface. What do you think the Russian unmanneds were doing up there KA9Q, "looking for life", picking their robotic noses? When the Ruskies or Americans park something like a Surveyor or what not on the moon, it is parked as a piece of very functional MILITARY EQUIPMENT. We were relaying messages ACTIVELY to and from the lunar surface from the time we first soft landed a piece of equipment there. By the time Apollo 11 roles around, this is piece of cake stuff, going on for ages.

Seems as though I hardly should need to explain this to you guys. You know the science in a sense better than me.

So now you have got them carrying out a mission that is more complex than apollo, in order to fake apollo. Where is the evidence of any of this? And how did we get the rocks?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Now I had 26.5 degrees for the Lunar Orbiter II and 13.16 degrees for camera to field of view for the Eagle taking an equivalent picture. This is a huge difference, twice the angle is required at half the distance so the differential in the foreshortening of distances over the 172 square miles of LAM-2 Map territory will be most considerable given the significant difference in angles from the camera to field of view in the two situations, Orbiter 30 miles up and Eagle 60 miles up.

You appear to be describing pincushion distortion rather than foreshortening, and seem to be ascribing a very large amount of distortion to the Orbiter's camera lens. To put it in perspective (sorry) the two angles of view you calculated are, in 35mm camera terms, roughly equivalent to 100mm vs 200mm telephoto lenses. Visible pincushion distortion is a familiar characteristic of wideangle lenses.

I wonder if you'd like to tell us how much distortion you expected to measure at the edge of the frames of the two pictures.

 

[Patrick1000]

Thanks for being so patient Loss Leader, here ya' go.....

Patrick, you've posted no less than eight times since my last post and managed to answer a grand total of zero of my questions. Please answer:

1) I know some rocks found on Earth are of lunar origin, whether any or all of the rocks "from the Apollo Missions" are lunar/terrestrial I could not say. I have not studied this subject yet, but do intend to. Not a priority for me now.

2) Have not studied this.

3) Do not know.

4) No

5) The map problem is damning for all of Apollo, but not fatal. The map issue definitely eliminates Apollo 11 as "real"/manned. The Borman health issue absolutely proves all of Apollo fraudulent, every manned lunar landing mission including Apollo 13. The Borman issue not being adequately addressed in the context of later missions is irrefutable evidence of/for Apollo Program scamming/fraud. The entire program of manned landing is busted without recourse right there.

6) No

7) A map is representative of where one understands oneself to be going in the context of any adventure. It is not the map per se so much, though not having a good map would be a practical concern for Collins were he really a CM pilot. he of course is not. More importantly, it is the fact that the map was intentionlly misgridded. The astronauts should be viewed given my discoveries with regard to the map as reflective of their not understanding themselves to be going anywhere.

8) I won't "do medicine" with you like that Loss Leader. It would be a very bad/foolish precident to set. That there is a great understatement. But when this is over, our Apollo debate, I will show you my license, my board scores, and my award from the mayor of San Francisco. If not impressed, bet you at least smile.

9) Same. FYI, it is sort of foolish in a sense to go that route Loss Leader. For what it is worth, it would be extremely difficult to discredit me on the basis of proving me to not be a doc, or trying anyway to show me to not be one. Your approach would backfire were I to choose to show this or that.

You should ask your friends who are docs about my claims. See what they say. If no one agrees with me, well then you may tell the others here on the forum such was the case. You should ask your own doc if he thinks given the story as NASA likes to tell it whether or not Borman is square and along with him Berry... No matter what happens in this, I have made a decision to maintain my anonymity, hence my approach here about my profession.

10) Same

11) American people would freak out if they knew space was weaponized to the degree that it is and so would everyone else on this planet and with good reason. Perhaps once upon a Cold War it was in a sense justified to keep this quiet, but this is absurd now and I have personally lost my patience with Armstrong and the others. The lot of them should be ashamed of themselves. Children they are, with a most wrong headed allegiance. Idiots, fools, not honorable soldiers.

12) Space remains actively weaponized. We were/are signatories to a treaty, a treaty signed in 1967. We agreed not to do this sort of thing, use space to kill people.

Getting busted for Apollo would be the greatest humiliation of modern times for the USA. It would make the Vietnam thing look like the biggest yawn of all time. That said, this humiliation it must be endured Loss Leader. Perhaps Obama and the astronauts cannot countenance it, but you and I can. Better now, better now, better now..

13) No because whatever we are doing so too are the Russians. Knowing of the reality of the weaponization of space would frighten people to no end.

14) I do not understand the question. Here is what i can say.

I am a swimmer more than I am anything else and so I will say I could not swim on the moon and would be sad. I could not ride my bicylce on the moon and would be sad. I could not play my piano on the moon and would be sad. I do all of these things most days in my city.

15) Well no scam is perfect. Why did NATO ultimately botch Gladio? If you look at the NATO Secret Army State Sponsored Terrorism issue one realizes that mistakes are inevitable with this type of thing. We are not dumb, "we" meaning Joe citizen.

For the most part things like illnesses and "problems" served to make the phony missions more "realistic". If at every turn things are "nominal" as the "astronauts" seemed to like to say, it would have engendered at least some suspicion.

Things like the Armstrong picture issue are reflective of some deep rooted problem. It is hard to say what exactly that means except it will be an insanely exciting , "A-HAH!!!!, NOW I GET IT I GET IT I GEIT IT" when the truth comes to light there. Perhaps they took pics and botched them. There may have been a tip off that the thing was fake Loss Leader based on the pics such as something having to do with the camera, or its mount. Of course with a real first moon landing you'd have Aldrin packing a camera too out there. This is so laughable. Perhaps it shall be me who discovers the truth behind the "man under the hood", why not? I can solve Apollo and disappear back into the scenery here swimming, biking, piano playing, reading and no one will ever know. It is a beautiful thought.

Thanx for the questions. I found them thought provoking, quite good.

P

 

[JayUtah]

Ever been to Beijing? Shanghai, Saint Petersburg, New York, Paris, London?

Yes.

One needs a good map to find his or her away around for the first time especially.

No.

In fact, the maps given to tourists and the maps supplied in public-transportation hubs are intentionally distorted and simplified. These are deemed far more useful than maps drawn to scale. Fallacy of limited depth.

These guys were going to the moon...

Agreed. The undeveloped lunar surface is as about as different from a cityscape, or even undeveloped Earth landscape, as one can possibly imagine. Irrelevant analogy.

...and there map was VERY inaccurate given the circumstances

Begging the question. "Very inaccurate" according to what standards? Compared to what other kinds of maps?

...the precision required , DEMANED NO LESS BY THIS SITUATION.

Begging the question. What specifically was the precision that was required, and how did you determine that?

The center is the area the astronauts "had studied", pretended to study anyway...

What is your evidence for the claim that the Apollo astronauts only pretended to study the lunar terrain?

the map is rotated intentionally/fraudulently with the expressed purpose of deceiving...

You say this intent is "expressed." Please show me where it was expressed.

...the expressed intent to mislead and confound, confound the Apollo workers themselves...

Ditto this claim. How, when, and where was this intent expressed?

a' la the gaming of FIDO H. David Reed and his FLIGHT DYNAMICS team.

What is your evidence that the experience of H.D. Reed and others is the result of intentional "gaming" instead of, say, the uncertainties and problems associated with experimental manned space flight?

You are welcome to your opinion, by all means...

Thank you. I'll stay with my opinion, and that of my fellow experts. You've shown us nothing that compels us to believe otherwise.

...the objective data continues to mount against your side.

Where is this objective data? In your arguments I see nothing but laughable attempts to interpret technical information according to your very limited and uninformed expectations. How is that even remotely objective?

And what metric are you using to measure the accumulation and/or credibility of evidence?

As I said, every one of these facts with respect must FIT and fit exactly as the story was told for Apollo 11's official story to hold up as authentic.

Loaded dice. Conspiracy theorists always insist on this "rule," which effectively creates a double standard. In the conspiracy theorist's approach, his pet theory is held up as the default that must hold if the "official story" cannot be proven to the utmost, even if his own theory is riddled with much more egregious errors. In this way, the burden of proof is subtly shifted to require little if any test of the incoming new theory, and a ponderous burden for the prevailing theory.

The flawed basis of this approach, aside from the obvious shift in the burden of proof, is the assumption that the record of a true event may not contain error. Especially in a body of evidence so frankly voluminous as Apollo's, there is no guarantee of total consistency. That's simply not how history works. And finally, the standard of proof to which the official version is subjected must be reasonable. "It's not what I would have expected," is far insufficient.

History differs from law here. Law is predicated on the need in all cases to render a decision. Hence a presumption is held to favor one litigant, and the the opposing litigant is given the task of overturning it. If the opponent fails to convince a judge or jury, the presumption is ruled upon as the outcome of the case and the parties allowed to resume their lives. History has no such limits on time and certainty. If there is a legitimate controversy, we can take as long as needed to work through it, holding different theories with comparable credibility along the way.

But in cases where there is little if any controversy, new theories attempting to overturn the well-established status quo with an extraordinary hypothesis incur an extraordinary burden of proof. They most certainly do not get to be held as the default while the status quo undergoes an exhaustive revalidation. Especially when the incoming theory involves allegations of overt acts such as fraud and forgery, explicit direct proof must appear. But in all challenges to well-established historical narratives, the incoming theory must in fact prove itself to be a better explanation of the observations than the prevailing theory, by a very substantial and convincing margin. It cannot even be merely equal; it must clearly prevail according to its ability to explain more facts using simpler mechanisms than the incumbent.

Apollo is just such a well-established status quo. Patrick must do far more than simply erode faith in it according to his personal incredulity and ignorance; he must show us a theory that explains more with less.

I like it no more than anyone...

Nonsense. You want to be written up in the history books as the guy who undid Apollo. You never stop crowing and thumping your chest. You've even prided yourself on stirring up controversy and thinking of yourself as some sort of "snowflake." Sorry, but conspiracy theorists always try to show themselves as former staunch believers who were reluctantly dragged kicking and screaming to their nutty conclusions by the supposedly irresistible strength of the evidence. That characterization always falls flat when you see just how tenaciously they cling to their beliefs.

...but I ain't running from the truth here as you guys are.

Nonsense. You've resisted each and every attempt to test your knowledge of the material you use in your arguments. You've responded to carefully-prepared rebuttals with a tedious repetition of your original claims in wall-of-text form, along with indications that this is what you plan to do in every such situation. You're clearly evading, and your definition of truth seems to be, "Whatever Patrick believes this week."

Sorry, I am just the messenger here. I did not perpetrate this nonsense.......

So you say now. Last week you were telling us something entirely different.

Taken together with the rest of the Apollo narrative "facts", the lack of a good Armstrong photo, one that would have shown him on the moon proudly standing in front of his "new car", will one day become a piece of evidence undermining the bogus old official story, a piece of evidence that helps to proclaim the truths of the real story, MY STORY, THE IMPOSSIBLE TO LOSE BUT NEVERTHELESS LOST LOST LOST EAGLE STORY.

Sounded back then like you were quite willing to take credit. It seems you only distance yourself from the intellectual responsibility for your claims when the challenge to them becomes more than you can weasel out of.

 

[Patrick1000]

It's not complicated to relay radio signals......

So now you have got them carrying out a mission that is more complex than apollo, in order to fake apollo. Where is the evidence of any of this? And how did we get the rocks?

It's not complicated to relay radio signals haibut......It's the air we breath dude.... Where have ya' been? Signals are bouncing around us every which way and they were way back in the day of Apollo too.

The rocks come from space or earth. They are extra-planetary or terrestrial. That sums it up I think. Can they come form anywhere else?????

 

[JayUtah]

I did not say , nor did I imply the signals were bounced off the moon...

You implied it here...

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

...but then went on to describe only active relays. Therefore I'm comfortable believing that you did not intend to suggest that the Soviets were spoofed by signals simply bounced off the Moon.

What do you think the Russian unmanneds were doing up there KA9Q, "looking for life", picking their robotic noses?

Please provide evidence that the Soviet unmanned lunar landers/rovers carried out the mission you imply they did.

When the Ruskies or Americans park something like a Surveyor or what not on the moon, it is parked as a piece of very functional MILITARY EQUIPMENT.

[citation needed]

No, you've simply extended your hypothesis to require additional missions to be retasked away from their well-evidenced purpose toward some nefarious, hidden plot. You haven't proven anything; you've only enlarged the scope of that which you need to prove.

Are you claiming that the Surveyor spacecraft were actually relays for Apollo data? Have you actually worked out those technical details, or is this another one of your theories that's infallible while yet in outline form?

Here is a summary of the Soviet activity. http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/271/03.shtml Please reconcile your theory with its claims.

We were relaying messages ACTIVELY to and from the lunar surface from the time we first soft landed a piece of equipment there.

We were communicating with equipment on the Moon. How does that equate to using that equipment relay entirely different kinds of signals?

...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.

Why do you need to encrypt the outgoing messages? Think carefully before you answer.

Seems as though I hardly should need to explain this to you guys. You know the science in a sense better than me.

Much better, indeed, in all respects. That's how we can tell you that your theory here is comically naive. For some strange reason you expect qualified people to recognize and reward your "natural" talent and genius. You can't rationally recognize that people are better at you than something, then reject their assessment of your poor performance.

 

[sts60]

So now you have got them carrying out a mission that is more complex than apollo, in order to fake apollo. Where is the evidence of any of this? And how did we get the rocks?

Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/etc. is now up to three Apollo-class missions going on simultaneously:
1. The real missions, which he calls fake, but which undisputably built, tested, and launched the hardware, employed up to 400,000 people, and is the most thoroughly and carefully documented scientific and engineering project ever undertaken. He says that they never went to the Moon, but there is no arguing that the missions happened even if you granted his general proposition for amusement's sake.
2. A completely secret project using Apollo hardware to land military equipment on the Moon, and to install military equipment at the Earth-Moon Lagrangian points.
3. A completely secret project to collect and return the highly differentiated lunar samples, which required Apollo-class delivery and return capability.

Of course, Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/etc. hasn't figured this out, because he is simply making up stuff constantly without pausing to think whether any of it makes any sense, or even if it contradicts itself. He has contradicted himself many times, and his claim that #1 couldn't have happened because the astronauts couldn't astrogate is contradicted by both #2 and #3, which require a fully autonomous unmanned guidance, landing, and return capability which could have carried the astronauts without their having to lift a finger.

Inconsistent, and therefore untrue. But Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/etc. apparently won't apply his own standard to himself. It doesn't matter; it's been painfully obvious from the start that he has no idea what he's talking about, and has none of the credentials he's claimed. So his own numerous self-contradictions, while amusing, don't even matter, since his ever-changing story never has made any sense, nor accounted for the actual evidence.

Of course, there is also no evidence - none whatsoever - for the various alternative scenarios he's fantasized. Lost in his frantic, self-congratulatory handwaving, he doesn't care - if he's even aware - that he's invoked two additional, simultaneous Apollo-equivalent projects which have magically left no trace whatsoever for nearly five decades - not a budget item, not a scrap of technology, not a stray test report or a single credible anecdote from something over a million man-years of effort. And, best of all - somehow people never noticed all those additional Saturn Vs being built and launched. Because a Saturn V launch, after all, was never noticed by Space Coast residents unless they happened to be looking in the right direction with powerful binoculars.

Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/etc.'s frantic flailing has resulted in a fail-fest of Brobdingnagian proportions; it makes Men in Black look like a sober government-produced documentary. And that's without even getting to the (relatively) picky details like the entirely separate isotope power program necessary to power the lunar "military hardware", nor the ongoing program necessary to replace all this fantasy hardware ever the years. It's a case study in blissful ignorance and unawareness, refreshed by the cool breeze of non-stop handwaving.

 

[R.A.F.]

I am quite consistant.....

Hogwash...you can't remain consistent within a single post.