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?
No.
Thomas Kelly built the LM to be landed on the Moon
by a human pilot. Numerous well-known and easily verified features make this requirement a necessity.
You instead argued that the LM could have landed itself, automatically. This was based on your poor reading of a single source, which actually contradicted your claims. You left that topic alone for several weeks hoping that we would all forget your mistake. Then you raised the topic again, abandoning your claim (without comment or acknowledgement) that the LM was fully automatic, and instead substituting the new claim that it was secretly modified by the military between delivery and launch.
I asked you several questions related to that claim, which you ignored.
I now ask them again:
1. Name the people who modified the lunar module, and show evidence of their involvement.
2. Describe precisely what "gadgets" were installed, and show evidence that they were actually manufactured and fitted as you claim.
3. For Apollo 11, LM-5, show when in the schedule the alleged fitting occurred.
4. Explain how the Grumman operators, including Tom Kelly, working in Mission Control during the mission were fooled into thinking their LM was operating as they had delivered it.
Of course you will ignore these questions again, but I ask them in order to underscore your inability to provide anything more than a vague fairy tale.
The "infallible" Dr. Socks now admits that the off-the-shelf lunar module can't have operated as he initially said it did. And in order to patch up the newly-realized hole in his theory, he has to simply invent more stuff that "must" have been done. Increasing the level of conjecture in one's theory makes it
less likely to be true, not more.
My version of Apollo requires the LM simply to have behaved as documented in the design. No conjecture needed.
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.
Additional conjecture presented as fact -- rejected.
They were simply ballistic missile test launches utilizing live warheads.
You've provided no actual evidence that any of the Mercury missions were anything other than what they claim to have been.
Your entire argument rests on the trumped-up "requirement" that missiles must be tested with live warheads. You've provided no rationale for this requirement beyond the layman's guess that this would be the "only way" to test. You completely ignore the detailed explanations from people
who actually do this, and rely instead on your uninformed supposition.
Who cares about the rest of the launches?
You did at one time. Are you now conceding that you have changed your "infallible" conclusion?
You guys make this Space Program/Military Program stuff too difficult.
No, we present the actual requirements. You ignore them because you don't have the proper training and expertise to realize that they are, in fact, requirements. You stay firmly rooted in your layman's caricature of aerospace flight test. And for any holes you can't sidestep, you simply invent a speculative, unevidenced process that "must" have been secretly accomplished to make your theory fit the facts.
I find it rather amusing that I consistently say the same thing over and over in this regard...
Yes, you repeat the same
beliefs over and over again without providing a shred of proof for any of them. You don't know the difference between conjecture and fact.
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?
No, Patrick. No one secretly or indirectly agrees with you. We dismiss your claims because you aren't willing to provide anything more substantial than a statement of ignorant belief, while ignoring the holes in your claims.
