Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[R.A.F.]

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

You can't explain anything to us for the reason you, yourself, gave...you are not a scientist, nor do you understand scientific reasoning.

 

[Garrison]

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.

And is that figure in 1969 or 2011 dollars since you never have cleared up exactly how much you thought was actually spent on Apollo.

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

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.

So how many unmanned soft landings leaving this "military" equipment on the moon preceded the Apollo landings?

And how were these missions kept secret from all the people you say were involved with the moon landing effort but were "duped" by a relatively small group of conspirators?

And how is the people who built all this equipment were completely in the dark as to all these "hidden" capabilities built into the stuff they had spent years designing and building?

 

[Garrison]

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.

Wait you've previously claimed that Apollo was the cover for an umanned program to instrument the moon. Now you're saying they instrumented the moon in advance of Apollo with equipment powerful and sophisticated enough to decieve all of those who recieved and tracked the Apollo radio signals? So if they could do that why exactly did they need Apollo and the Saturn V again?
But of course this is all academic until you can explain where the rocks came from...

 

[Garrison]

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?????

Another example of you quoting a post and answering completely different questions. You were asked by haibut for the evidence that the signal relay actually occurred, not vague handwaving about it being possible. You were asked how the rocks, which indisputably come from the moon, were brought to Earth, not where they originated. Why do you keep answering questions you weren't asked, and failing to answer the ones you were?

 

[haibut]

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?????

It's not the air you "breath" since you don't seem to know a whole lot about it. It's more complex to RELAY a signal than it is to produce it, partiicularly since you know have 2 missions going on, one so secret no-one ever knew about it or saw these landers being built or departing, and one that you are faking.

The rocks clearly came from "space or earth", since that is all there is. Since the are obviously FROM THE MOON, how did we get them?

 

[nomuse]

Patrick -- with your lack of careful attribution, I have to ask in this format. Is it your claim that this:

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

And this:

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

Are suspiciously similar? Such as the statement quoted below:

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?

Because I would directly challenge that they are from the same negative, or that they are otherwise "identical."

 

[R.A.F.]

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

How would you know? It's not like you have any experience scientifically evaluating a question....yet you pretend you do.

I remain not impressed...

 

[R.A.F.]

Patrick...since your claim is that Aldrin was never "on the Moon", then why are you so "upset" that he took communion there?

 

[nomuse]

Jay reminded me and I should amplify that my own explorations of London, Tokyo, etc., etc., were guided by combinations of "maps," many of which didn't match the surface or each other, and some of which didn't "map' in any traditional way anyhow.

Such as my method of getting around Paris, which was almost entirely a notebook filled with lines like; "Jourdain 11 -> Mairie des lilas, porte des lilas, blue 3, gambetta brown 3 -> chatelet, Rue st-maur." (Yes...often abbreviated and mis-spelled, too!)

For museum-hopping, it was enough to get within a block or two and hunt for a sign or ask direction (or just look for the big impressive building). And for navigating the metro, no understanding of the surface layout was necessary. For all that it mattered, the intermediate stops could have been on the Moon.

The primary needs of the astronauts on EVA was to find their ride home (the LM) and to find their ride home (the CSM). Where exactly they were in regards to the local terrain was immaterial.



Which still doesn't change that they had maps, good maps, and maps that were clearly marked as to the projection, datum, and intended use. The differences between the maps might confuse some people, but they did not confuse the astronauts.

 

[Loss Leader]

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

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.

Well, that's a shame. The medical questions I found were from an online quiz to help doctors do a basic review of internal medicine. Not only that, the interactive quiz let you see the right answers. So, all you had to do was google any of the text, click on some answers, and report them here. And you couldn't even do that.

There is no chance whatsoever that you are a medical doctor.

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.

So, the fact that you have uncovered these "problems" is evidence that the missions both real and fake? You are saying that a real mission would have problems. So, finding those problems means the mission was fabricated?

Do you ever sit back from the keyboard and just think about yourself?

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.

I'll know. You registered on this forum with your real name. So, should any of this ever come to light in any meaningful way, I will be certain that you get full credit.

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

I'm glad. I found your answers to be worthless.

 

[haibut]

It's not the air you "breath" since you don't seem to know a whole lot about it. It's more complex to RELAY a signal than it is to produce it, partiicularly since you know have 2 missions going on, one so secret no-one ever knew about it or saw these landers being built or departing, and one that you are faking.

The rocks clearly came from "space or earth", since that is all there is. Since the are obviously FROM THE MOON, how did we get them?

In fairness here, I should point out that having highlighted Patrick's typo of "breath" for "breathe" I then went on to put "know" instead of "now". I think this is some kind of law.

 

[Loss Leader]

Jay reminded me and I should amplify that my own explorations of London, Tokyo, etc., etc., were guided by combinations of "maps," many of which didn't match the surface or each other, and some of which didn't "map' in any traditional way anyhow.

Such as my method of getting around Paris, which was almost entirely a notebook filled with lines like; "Jourdain 11 -> Mairie des lilas, porte des lilas, blue 3, gambetta brown 3 -> chatelet, Rue st-maur." (Yes...often abbreviated and mis-spelled, too!)

For museum-hopping, it was enough to get within a block or two and hunt for a sign or ask direction (or just look for the big impressive building). And for navigating the metro, no understanding of the surface layout was necessary. For all that it mattered, the intermediate stops could have been on the Moon.

Well into the middle ages, that's pretty much what maps were for people who didn't sail. They just had a list of towns they'd come to between their home and their destination. It wasn't until embarasingly late in their history that Italians realized their country was shaped like a boot. (Europe, 1602.)

Why no accurate maps? Except for sailors, people didn't need them.

So what's the most accurate map you need of the moon?

 

[JayUtah]

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

That wasn't his point. You claim now that additional space technology had to be employed to make unmanned pseudo-Apollo missions look like real manned Apollo missions. Your scenario grows ever more elaborate and unprovable as you struggle to accommodate the evidence.

The rocks come from space or earth.

That wasn't his point. First, you seem to want to avoid talking about whether Antarctic meteorites would fool geologists. Keep in mind we're not talking about facsimiles to fool laymen, but specimens to fool life-long practitioners.

Second, if the Apollo samples come from space, you have to include something in your theory that explains how they got to Earth. All the experts agree that they were collected by hand on the lunar surface, for reasons I've already explained. But you say no such collection occurred. That's a gap you have the onus to bridge.

 

[JayUtah]

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

If David Percy is your benchmark for image analysis, this will be very amusing. Percy has no qualifications whatsoever in that field, and demonstrably no skill. He has been invited by third parties to defend his claims against my specific rebuttal, on commercial television (e.g., National Geographic, History Channel, Channel 4 UK), and he has categorically refused, leaving my demonstrations on those programs to go entirely unchallenged.

One might argue that taking pics from those heights, 30 to 60 miles, the ratios of measurements should pretty much always match up...

No, one might argue instead that a number of factors determine whether a control network should be identical from one photograph to another, most of which aren't apparent to the layman and his "common sense."

A quick look at the numbners reveals such logic/reasoning is misplaced.

Your "quick look" at the numbers omits any sort of photogrammetric fiducial, any sort of photogrammetric rectification model, any sort of error analysis, and any mention whatsoever of projective geometry. In short, it commits all the classic errors of a novice trying to do a photogrammetric analysis without any education or experience in the field.

So yes, we've found yet another thing that you're quite willing to simply wave your hands about without displaying any actual knowledge.

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.

And what other factors affect the aspect of photographed features, and what did you do to control for them?

I agree, it's not clear whether you're talking about affine-to-projective issues or barrel distortion. Please clearly identify the basis of your theory, and please use the accepted terminology.

This is a huge difference...

The error analysis supporting this conclusion is missing from your presentation.

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.

What well-known property of the Zeiss Biogon lens (i.e., the lens used to photograph AS11-37-5447) affects your theory?

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".

Bzzt! The LO-II image is a set of both crossrange and rangewise composites. The Harland image is from a single 70mm shot. What makes you think you can assume a coherent or even compatible lens model between those?

Additionally, the two birds, one real and one imagined would have been at two decidedly different longitudes when the photos were taken

Evidence for this claim, please?

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.

No. The sun elevation angle in AS11-37-5447 is clearly much lower than in the LO-II photograph. You cited "similar" shading earlier as part of your evidence, but you fail to explain why one photo exhibits shading and and shadowing, but the other exhibits only shading. The shading-only picture reveals that the sun is much higher in the sky for that shot.

Indeed, the "negative(s)" would be that/those of the Lunar Orbiter II image(s) itself/themselves.

And where are the LO-II negatives stored?

The source image for Harland's construction is claimed to be Roll 37, which detail matches exactly. Roll 37 is provably the Ektachrome E-3 emulsion. Does that use negatives?

Are those photographic technologies compatible? Why or why not?

1966 with the Columbia's image photoshopped/added...

This is an affirmative claim of forgery. Please show evidence from the photo of the compositing method you believe was used.

 

[Patrick1000]

Don't know, just did a down and dirty quick calculation....

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.

My point is the ratios so referred to, the ones I calculated, would be/will be affected by perspective, the point from which the image is/was shot.. When I measured ratios on the lunar maps and images, the numbers I was coming up with were ridiculously close to one another. For all intents and purposes the same. So they must be all the same image, almost have for me.

The LAM-2 map is fake regardless of the meaning of my most recent discoveries as regards the image distance ratios, but this is interesting and I believe it is valid. Still a few more things tha I am working on though so do not want to make a full fledged claim and say it is a stone cold lock like the bogus gridding. Not yet anyway.

 

[Laton]

Massive photogrammetry fail by Patrick. (Note, as its obviously not worth addressing him directly any more I'll just write out some general notes.)

The LAM2 flown map is, as I've pointed out at least twice, a photomosaic map. That is, it is a composite of multiple large scale photographs (most likely hundreds of photos). Even a cursory glance at the LAM2 wil show this, I count at least 27 'photo runs', the banding that runs at a shallow angle down from L-->R is a classic tell that this is what you're looking at.

You can also see at about N.5 and 13.2 a corner where two composites have been mosaiced together and the lighter shaded border that runs down to the edge of the map about 1/2 way between 10 & 11. You'll also note the mismatch in the photo run banding along that border. I can see at least two other mosaiced sections, top left and the darker shaded areas top right.

All of Patricks 'calculations' about scale and FOV are completely wrong as you need detailed information about the camera focal length, frame size and altitude in order to determine scales and perform the rectification for producing a map.

Rectification is the process of removing scale variations across a photo (due to the distances involved in taking airphotos the scale at the centre of a photo is different from the scale at the edges, for a lunar orbiter these scale differences would be even larger -another reason you can't just take measurements from one photo and try to directly compare them to another).

Rectification of a series of images also puts them in their correct orientation and spatial location in the elevation model/datum being used.

Once rectification is complete the photos are then photographicly enlarged or shrunk to reach the desired map scale (the calculations for the rectification process give the scaling factor needed.)

There is no way at all in any frame of reference or connection with reality that the LAM2 map and the other photo Patrick has chosen are sourced from the same image or nagatives.

Also....photo's of the same part of the Moon look the same!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Patrick1000]

Way off target with the bouncing thing.....

You implied it here...



...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.



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



[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.




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


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


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.

Way off target with the bouncing thing.....

A favorite point of mine has been, "why bounce when ya' can actively relay?". No big deal here, just wanted to remind everyone here.

 

[Patrick1000]

Well that is the figure everyone kicks around.....

And is that figure in 1969 or 2011 dollars since you never have cleared up exactly how much you thought was actually spent on Apollo.

Well that is the figure everyone kicks around.....That is the public figure $130,000,000,000 . It is more symbolic than anything.

20 % of an annual US Federal budget is more representative of the "true cost", but even then the monetary cost of Apollo probably will never be known Garrison.

 

[Patrick1000]

See your point Jay, allow me to correct myself and patch my logic....

Yes.



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.



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.



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



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



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



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



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



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?



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.



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?



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.



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.



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."



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



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.

The guy piloting your airplane needs a good map as to where Beijing is, might be found, especially the first time he/she flies there.

How's that? Make sense now for ya', and much more consistent analogy wise with Collins/Armstrong's/Aldrin's task, no Jay?