Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Garrison]

I don't think so Matt, you need lots of dudes to run the fraud....But all except a relative handful need to be in on it. I would imagine perhaps a hundred, two hundred people knew, and most of those would have NOT been directly involved as NASA employees.

NASA is a military front, and as such, the best way to keep it functional is to NOT let on any with respect to all of this.

It's all legit in a very meaningful sense matt, get it?????

All we get is your lack of understanding and evidence for your claims. You airly wave away the evidence of the moon rocks while insisting on the existence of mysterious automated military hardware for which you can offer not one shred of evidence. Now you insist only a couple of hundred people would have to know, ignoring the vast numbers who would have been needed to create that mountain of photographic, physical, and transmission, evidence(were it even possible to fake it, which it is not), not to mention the generations of politicians, engineers and military personnel who would have had to guard the secret in the decades since.

 

[Patrick1000]

I don't have the count correct yet even....

For Apollo to be a fraud you need a lot more than 36 people in on it.

You need the crews of the cargo planes you claimed dumped the manned capsules at the landing sites: 5 men per mission.
You need the MSFN tracking ships that were at the landing sites to monitor re-entry: 10 men.
You need the crews of the ARIA tracking aircraft that worked with the tracking ships: 10 men.
You need the radio and radar operators of the US Navy recovery ships: 10 men.
You need the Spanairds who helped operate the Madrid MSFN station: 10 men.
You need the Australians who helped operate the Honeysuckle Creek MSFN station: 10 men.
You need the Australians who operated the Parkes Radio Observatory: 20 men.
You need the men at Goldstone and all the 9 meter tracking stations: 200 men.
You need the capsule close-out crew who put the astronauts into the capsule: 10 men.
You need the engineers who installed your fantasy Moon equipment: 1000 men.
You need the men who built your fantasy Moon equipment: 10,000 men.

Let me know when this gets too unwieldedly for you.

I don't have the count correct yet even....I'll do that later today. I double counted some of the astronauts. For example, Lovell was on 8 and 13, so I should have only counted him once. So far, I have LESS THAN 36. Of course many more to come. It will be interesting to see when all is said and done, how many guys and gals it took to run the ruse.

 

[Patrick1000]

Well the Soviets buy in totally, well publicly they do anyway....

You need the entire Soviet Union - every qualified person in their rocketry, ICBM, SLBM, radio intercept, surveilance, and intelligence programs and all their bosses all the way up to the Chairman of the Party and the President for decades and decades because, according to you, the moon was broadcasting navigational information for years.

You need all of the same people in China incluiding the President and Prime Minister.

You need just close to every single geologist on earth, and certainly every geologist in Building 31, including but not limited to the authors of this paper, this one, this one; and this one.

According to you, Patrick, you also need the cooperation of the Israelis.

You'd need Jay Utah, who has actually been designing and conducting nuclear missile tests as well as spaceflight tests. He'd have to know that the information he needed could only be obtained in the insane ways you've described.

You'd need every navigator and rocket operator in the United States Military, who knew they were using communications from the moon to position themselves.

You'd need LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama. Notice that power changes hands nine times. Power switches parties six times at the level of the President. Power in one or more houses of congress switched additionally in 1998, 2008 and 2010 at least.

Let me know if I left anybody out.

Well the Soviets buy in totally, well publicly they do anyway.....They were/are doing/did the same things we were doing/did. It would be/was no different there than here. Any smart guy that caught on in the Soviet Union wasn't/isn't talking about this, or if they do, they are encouraged one way or the other not to. Just like we are here. No different.

The Soviets/Ruskies have/had basically the same program we have/had.

 

[JayUtah]

Since I made that nice list of 11 points which taken collectively, or in some cases individually(Borman illness) prove Apollo bogus...

No.

You listed eleven of your beliefs without providing any proof for them. You don't know the difference between belief and fact. You in fact posted that list twice, for no reason other than to avoid answering someone else's question. You behave as if all that's required to prove your belief is to state it.

Further, you posted that list especially for my benefit. And for each of those items I gave a detailed response. To date you have ignored that response. And I can guess why. In each case, I pointed out how the ball had been in your court the last time it was debated, and you had changed the subject in order to flee from accountability. I also pointed out exactly what the role of the applicable formal sciences were in your claim, and how you lacked knowledge of those sciences.

I though it would be worthwhile to also provide a year end summary of the perps I have heretofore so identified.

No, it's just another wall of text that changes the subject yet again. Since you've proven that you don't really listen to any of the responses people give, you don't get details for each claim now. They are dismissed easily by the same blanket rebuttal that they are your beliefs, not facts. You explicitly decline to prove practically anything that you claim.

1) ... One knows this to be the case as Apollo 8 has been identified as bogus given the phony Borman illness...

Simply restates a debunked claim -- rejected.

2) Harrison/Jack Schmitt deserves special attention/mention as an astronaut fraudster.

No proof provided, just a hunch -- rejected.

3) Steve Bales and Jack Garman, one or the other and probably BOTH are fraud insiders...

I offered to put you in contact with Bales so that you could accuse him in person of lying. You fearfully refused. Now you're back, raising the same accusation. Therefore I will extend the offer again to you, and this time demand to know why you refuse to let these men face their accuser directly.

As for the technical aspect, it is uninformed opinion masquerading as fact -- rejected.

3) John Aaron, flight controller was undoubtedly in on the fraud. He knew what was wrong with Apollo 12.

Indeed, therefore not proof of fraud. Your argument is circular -- rejected.

4) ...Were Apollo a real program, Mueller and colleagues would have tested the Saturn V UNMANNED after the Apollo 6 debacle.

Uninformed belief masquerading as fact -- rejected.

5) [Samuel Phillips]... decision is made outside of the context of meaningful medical input and as such, given the fraudulence of the illness, one may easily identify Phillips as a perp.

Dr. Berry's input is fully qualified. Yours is not. Uninformed belief masquerading as fact -- rejected.

6) Emil Schiesser ... shenanigans with respect to the LAM-2 map and "Hiding the Eagle" with respect to the first landing.

Based on an uninformed expectation -- rejected.

Unlike the astronauts, I would imagine Schiesser was an actor of some ability.

Conjecture presented as fact -- rejected.

7) ....More likely than not it was understood that these programs were primarily military

Conjecture presented as fact -- rejected.

That is 36 altogether.

Except that in the intervening time you've had to revise your estimate by an order of magnitude. So much for the "infallible" claims of Dr. Socks. It's also hilarious how you present those who you say would need to know about the alleged fraud because of their role, but you neglect to say how many would need to know in order to perpetrate an effect fraud. The difference between necessity and sufficiency is not something a mathematician would omit.

Not bad work for hunting down perps since only April of this past year.

Using how many false identities and backgrounds, across how many forums, using how many sock puppets? The only dishonesty in this whole exercise has been on your part, provably. You have no room to accuse others of impropriety, especially when your accusations are simply for violations of your uninformed expectations.

 

[JayUtah]

Any smart guy that caught on in the Soviet Union isn't talking about this, or if they do they are encouraged one way or the other not to.

Argument from silence -- rejected.

 

[Loss Leader]

How so? I can set up a camera with ordinary film in dark nighttime forest and, after a suitable length of exposure (several minutes), have a usable picture of the trees. However, no length of time sitting in the forest with eyes wide open will achieve the similar result. Why? Because the eye do not "accumulate" light like CCD sensors or photochemical film.

Thank you for confirming that ocular physiology and photography are things you know nothing about. Yes, earlier you did admit that you don't "do lighting," in context of photography, but I had no idea how deep your ignorance ran.

But the Soviets were, quite spectacularly, behind us in the race to the moon. And they lost a huge, huge PR battle because of it in the midst of the cold war - just when each nation is trying to secure as many allies as possible. What possible reason would our enemies have for keeping our secrets? It's not like we didn't make fun of Stalin every time someone disappeared from a picture.

Why would an enemy who has just lost a decisive advantage in the arms race keep quiet about that? Their best course of action would have been to: 1) complain very, very loudly that the US was violating the Partial Test Ban Treaty and the Space Warfare treaty; and 2) start pelting the moon with as many 10 kg balls as possible.

After all, they had no problem blowing the cover off the entire U2 program. And we had no problem showing photos of Soviet nukes on Cuban soil at the UN.

During Perestroika and the practically unilateral dismantling of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, the Russians would have had the perfect opportunity to demand that the US reveal its cold war secret space projects. Their secrets were coming out like rain, making them look like an inept and essentially broke bunch of posers. They would have loved to level the PR playing field just a little.

Your assertions have no basis in reality. Your political statements are as naively incorrect as your engineering ones. And your insistence that the Russians would keep such a secret is backed up by no evidence whatsoever.

 

[Garrison]

I don't have the count correct yet even....I'll do that later today. I double counted some of the astronauts. for example, Lovell was on 8 and 13, so I should have only counted him once. So far, I have LESS THAN 36. Of course many more to come. It will be interesting to see when all is said and done, how many guys and gals it took to run the ruse.

No it will simply be another demonstration of your lack of knowledge and possibily of your poor mathematical skills.

 

[frenat]

Actually it would be an easy way to settle this all.....A public debate as regards the diarrhea issues. NASA docs and myself.

You only suggest it because it is never going to happen. NASA doesn't read this forum. If something like this did happen it would expose you as the teenager with no medical training you really are.

 

[Patrick1000]

Only a handful of people are in on it Loss Leader.....

So of all the people we've listed in these posts, who definitely was not in on it?

Only a handful of people are in on it Loss Leader.....

Take a look at What the University of California Astronomy Professors wrote and continue to write about their experiences at Lick Observatory with respect to the Apollo Program. Lloyd Robinson, Joseph Miller, Joseph Wampler all recall the SECRECY. They were not to TELL ANYONE THE COORDINATES OF THE LANDING SITE ON THE BIG NIGHT.

Wampler emphasized that this had more than anything else to do with the fact that the distances across the great oceans were not known and could be obtained by laser ranging. Distances so obtained could then be used in ICBM targeting. This, per the astronomy professors.

On the night of the landing Professor Joseph Miller has his hands full. all of the reporters gathered there at Lick Observatory want to know the coordinates of the landing site, but he is NOT at liberty to disclose them. The military has instructed him not to.

None of this is in dispute, the fact that the military instructed the Lick scientists to keep their mouths shut. Now, what i would suggest what IS IN DISPUTE OR SHOULD BE IN DISPUTE WOULD BE THE REAL STORY BEHIND THE SECRECY.

Ask yourself Loss Leader if Joseph Wampler's story about the oceans makes sense. Not with regard to whether it makes sense to Wampler or not, but whether it makes sense generally. Does it?

I say NO.... The reason being, by 1969 we have lots of satellites and satellite geodesy though not a fully mature science has been roaring along. Did we know the distances across the great oceans with precision pre 1960? No.... Did we know it in 1968 with great accuracy by way of non LRRR dependent satellite geodesy? YES YES YES!!!!!!

That is not to say that LRRR measurements could not and were not useful in this regard, it is just that LRRR measurements were more useful to the military for other reasons such as measuring the "Newtonian" gravitational constant, measuring the Gaussian gravitational constant, determining gravitational variability and so forth.

So here you have 3 of the smartest guys on the planet, Miller Robinson, Wampler, all intimately involved with the Apollo Program. US military personal told the astronomers back in '69 why it was they were not to talk about landing site coordinate details, AND EVEN IN 2009 ON THE 40TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE APOLLO 11 LANDING, THE ASTRONOMERS WHEN INTERVIEWED REPEAT THE SAME STORY, THAT IT HAD TO DO WITH THE TRANSOCEANIC DISTANCE MEASUREMENT CONCERNS THAT THIS WAS ALL A BIG SECRET.

Now, it is rather obvious to those of us outside that such is not the case, was not the case. More than likely, the military wanted to keep the coordinates secret for other reasons AND if the astronomers knew just a little bit more about the history of satellite geodesy and the information that it provided, INCLUDING PRECISE MEASUREMENTS , ACCURATE TRANSOCEANIC MEASUREMENTS, they would realize that this ocean distance stuff wasn't at all the real reason, the main reason that they were instructed to button it.

Were the astronomers in on the fraud then, in on a cover up now? Of course not! One could not find a group of more sincere scientists.

So here is a great example of how easy it was and is to GAME VERY VERY SMART PEOPLE. Such continues to be the case. This was true of the Lick Observatory Astronomers and essentially everyone else in on the fraud. The last thing Joe Wampler was going to question was the authenticity of Apollo, and funny thing is, unbelievably smart as the guy was and is, one of the great telescope specialists of his era, he had not a clue that he was being played for such a CHUMP. So sad, really is. I for one am glad Wampler doesn't know. It would hurt him so badly to realize this at the end of his life now.

 

[Patrick1000]

Eyes have a wider range of light receptivity.....

How so? I can set up a camera with ordinary film in dark nighttime forest and, after a suitable length of exposure (several minutes), have a usable picture of the trees. However, no length of time sitting in the forest with eyes wide open will achieve the similar result. Why? Because the eye do not "accumulate" light like CCD sensors or photochemical film.

Thank you for confirming that ocular physiology and photography are things you know nothing about. Yes, earlier you did admit that you don't "do lighting," in context of photography, but I had no idea how deep your ignorance ran.

Eyes have a wider range of light receptivity, not fixed in the same sense as that of a camera.....That said,our point is a good one though Jay, but nevertheless it does not negate mine.....

 

[Patrick1000]

They are weaponizing space just as we are Loss Leader....

But the Soviets were, quite spectacularly, behind us in the race to the moon. And they lost a huge, huge PR battle because of it in the midst of the cold war - just when each nation is trying to secure as many allies as possible. What possible reason would our enemies have for keeping our secrets? It's not like we didn't make fun of Stalin every time someone disappeared from a picture.

Why would an enemy who has just lost a decisive advantage in the arms race keep quiet about that? Their best course of action would have been to: 1) complain very, very loudly that the US was violating the Partial Test Ban Treaty and the Space Warfare treaty; and 2) start pelting the moon with as many 10 kg balls as possible.

After all, they had no problem blowing the cover off the entire U2 program. And we had no problem showing photos of Soviet nukes on Cuban soil at the UN.

During Perestroika and the practically unilateral dismantling of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, the Russians would have had the perfect opportunity to demand that the US reveal its cold war secret space projects. Their secrets were coming out like rain, making them look like an inept and essentially broke bunch of posers. They would have loved to level the PR playing field just a little.

Your assertions have no basis in reality. Your political statements are as naively incorrect as your engineering ones. And your insistence that the Russians would keep such a secret is backed up by no evidence whatsoever.

They are/were weaponizing space just as we are/were Loss Leader....The last thing the Soviets are/were going to do is/was blow the whistle. You don't think the planet would FREAK if people knew the Ruskies and Uncle Sammys were planting bombs atop everyone's head?

 

[Patrick1000]

No different here in the USA Jay ....

Argument from silence -- rejected.

No different here in the USA Jay ....

 

[Patrick1000]

The LRRR is a pretty hard piece of evidence Garrison....

All we get is your lack of understanding and evidence for your claims. You airly wave away the evidence of the moon rocks while insisting on the existence of mysterious automated military hardware for which you can offer not one shred of evidence. Now you insist only a couple of hundred people would have to know, ignoring the vast numbers who would have been needed to create that mountain of photographic, physical, and transmission, evidence(were it even possible to fake it, which it is not), not to mention the generations of politicians, engineers and military personnel who would have had to guard the secret in the decades since.

The LRRR is a pretty hard piece of evidence Garrison....The last time I checked, they were still bouncing stuff off of it.....

 

[Erock]

For Apollo to be a fraud you need a lot more than 36 people in on it.

You need the crews of the cargo planes you claimed dumped the manned capsules at the landing sites: 5 men per mission.
You need the MSFN tracking ships that were at the landing sites to monitor re-entry: 10 men.
You need the crews of the ARIA tracking aircraft that worked with the tracking ships: 10 men.
You need the radio and radar operators of the US Navy recovery ships: 10 men.
You need the Spanairds who helped operate the Madrid MSFN station: 10 men.
You need the Australians who helped operate the Honeysuckle Creek MSFN station: 10 men.
You need the Australians who operated the Parkes Radio Observatory: 20 men.
You need the men at Goldstone and all the 9 meter tracking stations: 200 men.
You need the capsule close-out crew who put the astronauts into the capsule: 10 men.
You need the engineers who installed your fantasy Moon equipment: 1000 men.
You need the men who built your fantasy Moon equipment: 10,000 men.

Let me know when this gets too unwieldedly for you.

This is one of my favourites on the list of people needed...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyVJt857e7Q

All subsequent workers at NASA must come into play also. We then have to factor in all the numerous people arguing in favour of Apollo of necessity to be less clued up about the sciences involved......hmmmm. That last one demonstrably false in this thread.

What do you say Patrick? Are you smarter than all the people tearing your argument to pieces, or are you just juggling banjos on a bicycle*?


* beyond metaphors

 

[Patrick1000]

The hardware Garrison is the easy part....

It would probably be quicker to list who wouldn't have had to be in on it but you did forget the film crew who produced all that lunar footage, and the engineers who built all of Patrick's alleged miltary hardware.

The hardware Garrison is the easy part....Thomas Kelly built the LM to land on the moon, and so Kelly's LM could and so it did. The military guys just added a few gadgets. Get it?

With respect to the new topic, say Project Mercury, one could argue that the whole thing more likely than not was about those 6 unmanned Atlas launches. They were simply ballistic missile test launches utilizing live warheads. Who cares about the rest of the launches? The Atlas unmanned launches, THAT! was probably the real meat of Mercury. So there you have it Garrison, the military equipment employed in Mercury, Gemini, Apollo , Shuttle is the stuff already on the shelf; Atlas missile, Thomas Kelly's LM, von Braun's Saturn V, the space shuttle itself. This is what makes the fraud run, work , go go go.

You guys make this Space Program/Military Program stuff too difficult. It is rather easy you know Garrison, to dupe people like this, and for the very reason that one need NOT build anything special, anything overtly "military".. All of the military equipment IS/WAS BUILT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROGRAMS' PUBLIC FACES. Whether that be the public face of Mercury in which case the equipment was American ICBMs, Atlas missiles with their warheads, or as in the case of Apollo, things like LMs were built to instrument the moon.

I find it rather amusing that I consistently say the same thing over and over in this regard, and whether right or wrong about it, I cannot recall once someone from your side getting my point at least with respect to my general claim here, irrespective of whether it was/ is true or not, that the equipment utilized in the NASA Military Programs was the very equipment built for the pretended Manned Space Programs.

It is especially amusing to me as I have been emphasizing that this is how the fraud is in fact perpetrated, what makes it so effective. Are you telling me something indirectly here, that you actually agree with me and this is why you keep avoiding/ignoring my VERY VERY GOOD AND INDEED MOST EXCELLENT POINT?

 

[abaddon]

After all, they had no problem blowing the cover off the entire U2 program. And we had no problem showing photos of Soviet nukes on Cuban soil at the UN.

Apparently, the U2 was not worth as much wheat.

Or something.

US gives Russia the U2, Russia gives the US the Bay of Pigs.

But Apollo? , nah, We'll just take the wheat.

Makes so much sense, not.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Ir I wanted to know if my warhead could withstand a launch and re-entry I would launch a missile with an instrument pack to record the G Forces, Shacks and temperatures encountered.

Once I had this data I would design my warhead to withstand the conditions.

WHy would I design a warhead with random specification that I hoped was right and then launch it to see if it still worked?

 

[Erock]

I don't have the count correct yet even....

You don't actually have anything correct.

What makes you think the people arguing with your simplistic uninformed opinion, are not completely correct in dismantling what you say?

Why do you persistently ignore responses completely?

How can an academic conduct themselves the way you have, particularly with your antics on BAUT and Apollohoax with sockpuppets, but more importantly in forming a conclusion before you even begin the process?

It appears that your whole interest in this stemmed from an article on the Cornell Astronomy website in April this year, from a 'discrepancy' in what you attribute to Armstrong in cislunar space. That is truly a bizarre reason for your persistence in this matter. What was it about the reply, from an informed scientist(who has no problem with Apollo! ) didn't you like?

 

[JayUtah]

Eyes have a wider range of light receptivity, not fixed in the same sense as that of a camera...

Eyes and cameras do not work the same way in any sense. You propose to compare them, such that what is capable for one should necessarily be capable for the other.

That said, your point is a good one though Jay, but nevertheless it does not negate mine.....

Explain why it doesn't.

 

[Garrison]

The hardware Garrison is the easy part....Thomas Kelly built the LM to land on the moon, and so Kelly's LM could and so it did. The military guys just added a few gadgets. Get it?

I get that you are once again making claims you can't prove, based on your own ignorance of engineering maths and history. I can find plenty of evidence for the Apollo LM, show me one shred for your 'toys'.

With respect to the new topic, say Project Mercury, one could argue that the whole thing more likely than not was about those 6 unmanned Atlas launches. They were simply ballistic missile test launches utilizing live warheads. Who cares about the rest of the launches? The Atlas unmanned launches, THAT! was probably the real meat of Mercury. So there you have it Garrison, the military equipment employed in Mercury, Gemini, Apollo , Shuttle is the stuff already on the shelf; Atlas missile, Thomas Kelly's LM, von Braun's Saturn V, the space shuttle itself. This is what makes the fraud run, work , go go go.

Do you even read what you write? The above was little more than word salad, throwing in the names of various space and military programs does not constitute a coherent argument, let alone proof.

You guys make this Space Program/Military Program stuff too difficult. It is rather easy you know Garrison, to dupe people like this, and for the very reason that one need NOT build anything special, anything overtly "military".. All of the military equipment IS/WAS BUILT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROGRAMS' PUBLIC FACES. Whether that be the public face of Mercury in which case the equipment was American ICBMs, Atlas missiles with their warheads, or as in the case of Apollo, things like LMs were built to instrument the moon.

More word salad, still no evidence.

I find it rather amusing that I consistently say the same thing over and over in this regard, and whether right or wrong about it, I cannot recall once someone from your side getting my point at least with respect to my general claim here, irrespective of whether it was/ is true or not, that the equipment utilized in the NASA Military Programs was the very equipment built for the pretended Manned Space Programs.

You keep saying the same thing over and over, and it's wrong over and over. As I have pointed out before the USAF had their own plans for manned spaceflight, killed off in part because of Apollo. As for your lunar instrumentation program you still haven't made a case for why it should exist let what it consisted of.

It is especially amusing to me as I have been emphasizing that this is how the fraud is in fact perpetrated, what makes it so effective. Are you telling me something indirectly here, that you actually agree with me and this is why you keep avoiding/ignoring my VERY VERY GOOD AND INDEED MOST EXCELLENT POINT?

Patrick no one here agrees with, constantly trying to twist people's posts to imply that they somehow support you is fooling no one. So you can be under no illusion what I think of your argument. You are clueless about spaceflight, history, ICBMs, cartography, geology, and basic maths, you will never convince anyone here that Apollo was hoaxed with your half baked theories, clear?