Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Patrick1000]

that is what they would like you to believe

Actually, according to the article, the reentry vehicle was packed with scientific equipment to measure whatever important aspects need to be measured,. That's better than a real warhead. If the real warhead fails, all they would know is that it failed. With precise measurements of temperature, pressure, g-forces, etc., engineers can build and test warheads in whole and in parts for the specific conditions that will be experienced.





They test missiles publicly to hide the fact that they test them secretly? Then why do they have to test them secretly at all? If everyone - all of our friends and enemies and all of our citizens - know the tests are taking place, what aspect of them needs to be secret?





The US has admitted to nuking its own citizens and actually paid them compensation. What exact reason would the Powers That Be have for hiding the weapons tests that didn't give anyone cancer?






You perhaps missed the point where the article was from 2009. Why would we have wanted to scare the Russians in 2009? That particular missile test, if I'm not mistaken, was probably intended to scare North Korea. North Korea is a country located across the Pacific. Also, a missile coming into NK off the Pacific doesn't stand a chance of violating Russian or Chinese airspace, which might be kind of a big deal.

It is NOT a nuke. The only way to test the nuke would be to put it in the missile. That was all the more true in 1962, nonetheless, is still true today.

 

[JayUtah]

....what you need are LIVE nukes cuz' they are gonna' go cold and hot flying through space then back through the atmosphere.

Loss Leader understands the testing. You do not.

So this test is not what we are looking for Loss Leader...

What are your qualifications in aerospace engineering?

We know they must have carried this junk into space and then let the bombs fall back through the atmosphere for post space cold exposure cold and atmospheric testing. It is just the powers that be cannot tell us that.

This is what you call "airtight" proof? It's clearly phrased as supposition, and that's all you've presented -- supposition. Consider that you can find no proof for Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and STS having been retasked like this not because the "powers that be" cannot tell us, but because it never happened.

A big problem according to some(not all) ICBM guidance specialists back in the 60s and even today...

No.

Now thanks to LRRR work...

No.

However, how does one know if your guidance systems will perform well heading from say a launcher in Montana to now Saint Petersburg, then Leningrad? Most certainly not by way of launching an ICBM with dummy warheads from Vandenberg west to the Marshalls.

If you had read the Roger Bate reference I've recommended to you countless times, you'd know how silly this statement is. But it's not in Google Books, so it doesn't factor into your thinking.

General Hepfer considered by many to be the father of the MX points out and I quote, "aligning a Minuteman to accomplish its intended mission is like threading a needle from 400 feet away".

Yes, that's reasonably true. But it's not a condition that requires all-up testing.

Bringing up Hepfer here is worthwhile because it emphasizes all the subtleties of this.

No, it's irrelevant. You bring him up because your limited sources feature him, not because he has anything to say that justifies your claim of all-up testing or your theory that every manned space program was a military cover. You want to drop names and concepts to make it seem like you know something about this science, not because there's actually anything there that matters.

The only way one might test for this type of thing would be multiple test launches with mirror accuracy taken into consideration. The manned space flight program of the United States provided such information and a heck of a lot more.

Since the manned space flight uses an entirely different method, how would it be any sort of meaningful test?

 

[SpitfireIX]

Sure I have, my proof is airtight......We have 4 acknowledged ICBM tests, Ruskies pre 1963, USA and Operation Frigate Bird 1962, China 1966 and 1976. Can't be very confident with that now can ya'? No matter how much terrestrial testing one does now can ya'?

As has been explained to you ad nauseam, you are totally unqualified to make any such determination, and you are simply wrong.

They are designing and bringing on line new weapons all of the time. They have to be sure that they work and this means live firings, live missile firings short of full fledged warhead detonations.

See above.

There was/is a test ban treaty prohibiting the militaries from doing this and so how did they and how do they today get the job done? Under the guise of manned space programs.

You have provided no evidence whatsoever to support this claim.

It is the only option, and so by the process of elimination, it must be true.

It is most certainly not "the only option," and, again, you are not even remotely qualified to determine what is or is not required to test the potential reliability of ICBM and SLBM warheads. Further, you have repeatedly been told that you are wrong by people who are qualified, yet you persist in claiming that you must be right. Your elimination is incomplete; you have proven nothing.

It is rather obvious actually. Surprising no one else has previously written about this as directly as i am now.

Which is the more likely explanation, Patrick: that no one has written about this because no one else has ever thought of it, or that no one has written about it because it's not true?

That said, this is another one of those things that is no secret. Any country that has a half way decent intelligence service would have learned about this. Again, the Israelis are no slouches. They would have known this was true of the Mercury Project, that it was a cover for Atlas ICBM testing. Even way back in the 1960s they would have figured it out.

So my saying the only ones that knew were the Ruskies us and the prez is a bit tongue in cheek. Anyone familiar with world realities, intelligence agencies, they would be on to this fairly early on. I would imagine by the end of the 60s most major players knew on some level.

So if the Soviets knew about these gross violations of the Outer Space Treaty^WP, why didn't they expose them?

 

[A'isha]

If the only way to be sure that the nuclear ICBM fleet would actually work as intended was to fake a manned moon mission, how did the Soviets test their missiles? How did the British? How did the French?

How did the Chinese?

 

[JayUtah]

It is NOT a nuke. The only way to test the nuke would be to put it in the missile. That was all the more true in 1962, nonetheless, is still true today.

No, Patrick. Once again you're just making up new "requirements" that don't exist.

 

[Patrick1000]

I'd say an Eagle Scout losing a space ship is pretty good proof Jay....

In every thread at JREF you insist on posting these lengthy, irrelevant biographical sketches. No one wants to hear about your philosophical "journey" through your conspiracy theories. We just want proof.

I'd say an Eagle Scout losing a space ship is pretty good proof Jay....Wouldn't you?......?.....?.....?

 

[JayUtah]

I'd say an Eagle Scout losing a space ship is pretty good proof Jay....Wouldn't you?......?.....?.....?

You continue to confuse proof with the statement to be proven. That's like mistaking the gurney for the patient.

How about answering my oft-emboldened question about your qualifications in aerospace engineering?

 

[Patrick1000]

Well one hardly needs any aerospace training for any of this Jay....

Loss Leader understands the testing. You do not.



What are your qualifications in aerospace engineering?

Well one hardly needs any aerospace training for any of this Jay...

It is ever so not very complicated, not rocket science in any sense of the term, literal or figurative.

We have missiles that have to be, MUST MUST MUST BE TESTED, and a treaty that prohibits their testing. YET!!!, we KNOW they work.....

We have invested too much money, blood sweat, tears and TIME producing phony pretend space programs to leave this thing to chance. Ergo, the missiles were tested in the context of the phony NASA manned Space Programs, all of the programs to some greater or lesser degree.

Let's summarize in outline what we have on Apollo itself now, the facts, the certainties proving its fraudulence;

1) Apollo 6 has multiple problems; pogo, second stage engine failures(two engines), non starting TLI burn

2) Fake Borman vomit and diarrhea, we need not go over that again, we have already, ad nauseam....

3) Astronauts pretend they cannot see stars or lasers when one knows that they could/should/would were they really in cislunar space, BUSTED!!!!

4) Eagle Scout loses his space ship. Even on the way home from fake moon mission the location of the Eagle is the $64,000 question. FAKE, BUSTED!!! If this thing got any more charade like it would require the astronauts wear phony moustaches.

5) Star sighting system connected to the Apollo Guidance Computer obviously cannot sight stars given cislunar circumstances and lack of computerized star chart capable of discerning stars for all reasonably well anticipated constellation/stellar contingencies. HUGE PROBLEM FOR THE NASA CLOWNS....

6) Astronauts do not act like they have been to the moon(see Apollo 11 post flight press conference in particular), and so obviously they have not been to the moon. As time goes on, one finds most of the astronauts to be of average or below average intelligence at best. I won't be cruel and will refrain from giving specifics here. Read their books(even though they do not write them for the most part, that says a lot right there) and listen to their interviews. You'll see and hear what I mean. These guys couldn't find the moon if their lives depended on it, and their lives didn't, so they didn't have to.

7) Apollo 12 gets hit by lightening and they still send it to the moon.

8) Bean busts the Apollo 12 TV camera on purpose so there is no chance of more evidence piling up demonstrating what a joke this thing is.

9) Partial test ban treaty signed by Kennedy, October of 1963, just before he is bumped off, not that that had anything to do with it. No way to check the full functionality of ICBM missiles except to continue as they had been doing with project Mercury, using the Manned Space Program as a cover for weapons/ICBM testing

10) Apollo billed as a peaceful mission, at the absolute minimum we know Apollo's science had some military applications by way of the LRRR and its role in determining gravitational field values, astronomic/physical constants such as k squared/the Gaussian gravitational constant/transoceanic distance measurements(probably less important than the others given satellites) and so forth and so on and on and on and on.

What more proof do ya' need Jay, its falling down on us, raining down like some fake warhead duds launched from a bogus booster test.....

 

[SUSpilot]

I'd say an Eagle Scout losing a space ship is pretty good proof Jay....Wouldn't you?......?.....?.....?

And, so, we have come full circle.

Patrick, it was never lost. The LM's precise position just wasn't known. And, as everyone has asked, what is "precise" in this context? Millimetric? Angstrom-level? What level of accuracy was needed*?

--------------------

*For heaven's sake, don't bother answering. I can go back to the beginning of this thread and re-read your debunked theories on my own.

However I am grateful to the real experts here for pointing me at some great books I hadn't heard of before. Just finished In the Shadow of the Moon and am starting Digital Apollo.

 

[Patrick1000]

The Chinese test them for sure live I bet....

If the only way to be sure that the nuclear ICBM fleet would actually work as intended was to fake a manned moon mission, how did the Soviets test their missiles? How did the British? How did the French?

How did the Chinese?

The Chinese tested ICBMs for sure live I bet....More than twice as reported(1966 and 1976). They, the Chinese, aint't/weren't gonna' take any jive from the Ruskies and US in that regard. Good for them, BRAVO!, at least they have some backbone and integrity.



I would imagine the US and Ruskies don't need as much phony manned space program testing as they did way back, though that is a guess on my part.

 

[Patrick1000]

Well it would seem I was/am in pretty good company.....

As has been explained to you ad nauseam, you are totally unqualified to make any such determination, and you are simply wrong.




See above.




You have provided no evidence whatsoever to support this claim.




It is most certainly not "the only option," and, again, you are not even remotely qualified to determine what is or is not required to test the potential reliability of ICBM and SLBM warheads. Further, you have repeatedly been told that you are wrong by people who are qualified, yet you persist in claiming that you must be right. Your elimination is incomplete; you have proven nothing.




Which is the more likely explanation, Patrick: that no one has written about this because no one else has ever thought of it, or that no one has written about it because it's not true?




So if the Soviets knew about these gross violations of the Outer Space Treaty^WP, why didn't they expose them?

Well it would seem I was/am in pretty good company.....

No less a modern era weapons stud than RAND luminary and guidance system mavin Hyman Schulman had plenty of experience with Minuteman test firing analysis and viewed our scanty to say the least sample size with respect to meaningful tests as "small", and this raised concerns in Schulman's mind with respect to missile accuracy, not to mention concerns with regard to other matters as well.

Schulman's accuracy/missile dependability concerns had a major influence on none other than then RAND Director of Strategic Studies and later SECRETARY OF DEFENSE James Schlesinger who wrote in 1974 as Secretary of Defense;

I believe there is some misunderstanding about the degree of reliability and accuracy of missiles... As you know, we have acquired from the western test range(Vandenberg-Kwajalein) a fairly precise accuracy, but in the real world we would have to fly from operational bases to targets in the Soviet Union. the parameters of the flight from the western test range are not really helpful in determining those accuracies to the Soviet Union. We can never know what degrees of accuracy can be achieved in the real world."

So testing, was and continues to be suspect in terms of what it tells us about our weapons' dependability/reliability. OF course the more real world type testing we could do, the more testing done that might approximate real world/battle conditions, the more confident we would be and apparently are given programs Mercury/Gemini/Apollo/Shuttle. Lots of military testing, ICBM related testing going on there, tons of it my friends.

 

[Multivac]

Getting the hang of this, are you?! YES! THAT IS CORRECT! One simply would pretend as though one's manned flights were peaceful. Instead, one might perhaps pretend guys were on board but instead have a nuke on board. Let the thing float back in through the earth's atmosphere and now you can see what happened to this warhead as it passed through the atmosphere. THIS OF COURSE IS ESSENTIAL INFORMATION. Did everything work out OK? Do your MIRVs work, the bus that carries them and on and on and on and on. The only way to test this stuff is to test it in space(no actual detonations of course, but short of that everything goes) under the guise of Mercury/Gemini/Apollo. This does not mean that all of these missions were unmanned. It does mean that every mission was in some sense to some greater or lesser degree about testing our strategic war making equipment, not to mention planting some equipment on the moon as was the case with the LRRR and other interesting items such as planting LMs retrofitted to do more than taxi phony astronauts around.

Patrick: the apollo launches, and splash downs, were watched live on TV by hundredsof millions of people all around the world. Don't you think people might have noticed if the astronauts did not get out of the capsule after splashdown? Don't you think people would have noticed a nuclear warhead being wheeled out instead?

The radio transmissions from the spacecraft were monitored by observatories, tracking stations and millions of amatuers all around the world. If the astronauts were not aboard Apollo, where did the radio transmissions come from? They could not have come from anywhere on earth as the lack of light-speed delay would have been noticed.

On an engineering note, what would be the point of taking a nuclear warhead into space if it is inside an Apollo capsule? It would not be subjected to the full temperature range of space and re-entry, so what would you learn from such a test?

How do the lunar rovers fit into your theory? I asked this question a few pages ago, when we were discussing the returned moon rocks, but you haven't yet replied. You also haven't mentioned the returned moon rocks since I asked you to explain the difference in mass between the samples returned by six Apollo missions and three Russsian Luna robot missions. You may remember that Apollo returned 382Kg, while Luna returned 0.32Kg. You were then claiming that apollo was unmanned, that the LM landed on the moon and somehow collected the samples and returned them to earth automatically. Now you are saying that some Apollo missions were unmanned so that they could test fly nuclear warheads. Or are you saying that the supposed unmanned missions did both simultaneously?

 

[Multivac]

It is NOT a nuke. The only way to test the nuke would be to put it in the missile. That was all the more true in 1962, nonetheless, is still true today.

Untrue. I have never worked in the space, or nuclear, industry but test methodology is something that I do know about as I spend a large part of my working life designing and implementing test cases for elctronic components, sub-assemblies and finished assemblies. This is for consumer equipment rather than aerospace, although I did work in the aerospace industry for a couple of years testing avionics used on Airbus, Nimrod, Chinook and other aircraft. Temperature and vibration testing to prove functionality and reliability are an everyday part of my working life.

 

[Multivac]

I'd say an Eagle Scout losing a space ship is pretty good proof Jay....Wouldn't you?......?.....?.....?

You would be right......if they had actually lost the spacecraft. Not knowing the exact position of something is not the same as losing it. Neil and Buzz were able to find their way back to the LM and rendezvous with Michael Collins, so nobody was lost.

 

[Erock]

I'd say an Eagle Scout losing a space ship is pretty good proof Jay....Wouldn't you?......?.....?.....?

No. Your whole premise asserts that they made up the Apollo 11 position and landing problems to hide the position of the LRRR, yet facepalmingly tell us they handed out the position to LICK? Huh?

This is the most bizarre of circular logic, that builds a 'logic' flow around the houses and back to Apollo 11. Every claim you have made has been refuted and explained to you, and you stand there saying how you and only you are correct! Experts in their field have shown all your contentions to be made up, badly thought out, or just plain wrong.

At what point does the 'degree holder' in you concede that maybe your googled stumblings may not be quite as good as you consistently crow about?

In a way I'm thankful to your crazy theories, because it is great to see detailed explanations for things I had no idea about from proper experts. I am surprised at how resilient the posters replying to are, despite you ignoring so many of them.

 

[Border Reiver]

Well one hardly needs any aerospace training for any of this Jay...

Good thing for you then, although some reading comprenhension would be nice.

It is ever so not very complicated, not rocket science in any sense of the term, literal or figurative.

We have missiles that have to be, MUST MUST MUST BE TESTED, and a treaty that prohibits their testing. YET!!!, we KNOW they work.....

You do realize that missile testing does not require that it be loaded with nukes right? Missiles are tested as necessary, no muss no fuss, no violation of the 1963 Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty - because they don't carry the package.

We have invested too much money, blood sweat, tears and TIME producing phony pretend space programs to leave this thing to chance. Ergo, the missiles were tested in the context of the phony NASA manned Space Programs, all of the programs to some greater or lesser degree.

Explain then why the modern space program isn't being done with civilian versions of current ICBMs - or how you test a nuclear payload carrier by using live people in lieu of something that explodes (given your theory that you can only test a missile by live-firing)?

Let's summarize in outline what we have on Apollo itself now, the facts, the certainties proving its fraudulence;

1) Apollo 6 has multiple problems; pogo, second stage engine failures(two engines), non starting TLI burn

Corrected for later missions

2) Fake Borman vomit and diarrhea, we need not go over that again, we have already, ad nauseam....

Again your feelings of what is a reasonable risk is not what a qualified MD, a qualified astronaut feel are reasonable.

3) Astronauts pretend they cannot see stars or lasers when one knows that they could/should/would were they really in cislunar space, BUSTED!!!!

Jay's done a wonderful job of explaining why they could not, and your disbelief of the science behind it arises from "That doesn't make sense to me!" rather than a scientific explanation.

4) Eagle Scout loses his space ship. Even on the way home from fake moon mission the location of the Eagle is the $64,000 question. FAKE, BUSTED!!! If this thing got any more charade like it would require the astronauts wear phony moustaches.

Given that they found ieach other, the point is moot.

5) Star sighting system connected to the Apollo Guidance Computer obviously cannot sight stars given cislunar circumstances and lack of computerized star chart capable of discerning stars for all reasonably well anticipated constellation/stellar contingencies. HUGE PROBLEM FOR THE NASA CLOWNS....

You've done the math then and seen that the distance from Earth to the ship doesn't change the perspective to any appreciable degree, and that being in cislunar space isn't a deal breaker for navigation.

And it has been demonstrated that you not need to map every star to do a guidance system.

6) Astronauts do not act like they have been to the moon(see Apollo 11 post flight press conference in particular), and so obviously they have not been to the moon. As time goes on, one finds most of the astronauts to be of average or below average intelligence at best. I won't be cruel and will refrain from giving specifics here. Read their books(even though they do not write them for the most part, that says a lot right there) and listen to their interviews. You'll see and hear what I mean. These guys couldn't find the moon if their lives depended on it, and their lives didn't, so they didn't have to.

I believe that many of us would like to make similar points here about a specific poster, but forum rules frown it and in the end, I don't think he'd understand.

7) Apollo 12 gets hit by lightening and they still send it to the moon.

Given that the diagnostics showed no problems, and the alternative is to scrap the mission with no chance of reuse, what would be gained by aborting? Unlike an aircraft, these are reusable.

8) Bean busts the Apollo 12 TV camera on purpose so there is no chance of more evidence piling up demonstrating what a joke this thing is.

Because accidents never happen.

9) Partial test ban treaty signed by Kennedy, October of 1963, just before he is bumped off, not that that had anything to do with it. No way to check the full functionality of ICBM missiles except to continue as they had been doing with project Mercury, using the Manned Space Program as a cover for weapons/ICBM testing

Missile testing has been going on since WWII - given that NO nukes have been exploded in the atmosphere since the implementation of the Treaty, your theory is twaddle.

10) Apollo billed as a peaceful mission, at the absolute minimum we know Apollo's science had some military applications by way of the LRRR and its role in determining gravitational field values, astronomic/physical constants such as k squared/the Gaussian gravitational constant/transoceanic distance measurements(probably less important than the others given satellites) and so forth and so on and on and on and on.

What more proof do ya' need Jay, its falling down on us, raining down like some fake warhead duds launched from a bogus booster test.....

This one has been done to death, and I'm just going to leave it alone.

 

[Patrick1000]

What's not to comprehend?....

Good thing for you then, although some reading comprenhension would be nice.

What's not to comprehend Border Reiver?....The CapCom, fraud insider McCandless, says right there in the Apollo 11 Simulated Mission voice Transcript, right there while the astronauts are "returning" by way of a pretended cislunar avenue to the earth more than a day post simulated lunar EVA that the location of the Eagle was still UNKOWN and as a matter of fact quite literally per McCandless the bogus CapCom/fraud insider, the $64,000 question.

Seems pretty straightforward. The Eagle Scout lost his Eagle. I think we all agree that no one knew where the Eagle had landed at that point, not McCandless, not Armstrong, not Shoemaker and the Geology boys, not Wampler and the Lick boys, no one knew.

I really don't think any of us here posting at JRandi on the Lost Bird Thread read it any differently than McCandless and Armstrong, do you Border Reiver?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Why couldn't they warm up and cool down a warhead in a lab? what's different about the heat and cold of orbit and re-entry?

Same for shock loading and vibration, what's different to any conditions that can be applied in a lab?

Once you knowwhat your warhead will experience you can build it to meet those conditions.

 

[abaddon]

What's not to comprehend Border Reiver?....The CapCom, fraud insider McCandless, says right there in the Apollo 11 Simulated Mission voice Transcript, right there while the astronauts are "returning" by way of a pretended cislunar avenue to the earth more than a day post simulated lunar EVA that the location of the Eagle was still UNKOWN and as a matter of fact quite literally per McCandless the bogus CapCom/fraud insider, the $64,000 question.

You have already been demonstrated to be dead wrong in this thread. All you have done is switched horses and then returned to this topic, in the vain hope that nobody would notice. Ain't gonna happen.

Seems pretty straightforward. The Eagle Scout lost his Eagle.

Drop this "Eagle Scout" malarkey. It is insulting, and makes you appear like a child.

I think we all agree that no one knew where the Eagle had landed at that point, not McCandless, not Armstrong, not Shoemaker and the Geology boys, not Wampler and the Lick boys, no one knew.

You still haven't figured out the difference between precision and accuracy.
Recall your noun 43 debacle.

I really don't think any of us here posting at JRandi on the Lost Bird Thread read it any differently than McCandless and Armstrong, do you Border Reiver?

Name any member posting here who agrees with your various self contradictory speculations.

Do not refer to "us" when there is only you and your imagined "theories".
By referring to "us" you are simply using a rhetorical device to add weight to your claims.

There is only you, in isolation, against all the science. Be told.

 

[PetersCreek]

Add clandestine operations to the list of things Patrick doesn't understand. His "cover story" is wildly and laughably at odds with how the military actually conceals secret activities. The baseline method of keeping a military secret is to say nothing, when saying nothing will suffice. If something must be said, say as little as possible. If a cover story must be employed, keep it simple and keep the people telling to as few as possible.

Patrick's fantasy violates every philosophy of military secret keeping. Instead of diverting attention away from the activity, it attracts worldwide attention. Instead of being simple, it is hopelessly complex, bursting at the seams with details that can be questioned and compared to other known facts. Instead of limiting public statements to key individuals, nearly 400,000 people can speak freely about the part they played.

Another non-starter.