Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Patrick1000]

I am not entirely sure that I understand your post/point.....

Don't take physics or learn orbital mechanics, it will ruin your fantasy lies and delusions. You sure do post massive amounts of idiotic spam which doesn't support your fantasy.

How are you able to keep a straight face spewing so much nonsense? Do you have problems with higher math? Could be the problem aiding in the inability to comprehend the moon mission; need a lot of math for orbital mechanics, and space flight. Need some help with the EOMs? Do you prefer spreading lies, or is your goal reality?

I am not entirely sure that I understand your post/point.....Is what you are saying intended to mean that were I to know more about physics and orbital mechanics I would realize that the Apollo 12 through 17 pretended landing sites were in fact not any more difficult technically to negotiate simulated landing wise than was the pretended Apollo 11 site?

 

[JayUtah]

I am not entirely sure that I understand your post/point.....Is what you are saying intended to mean that were I to know more about physics and orbital mechanics I would realize that the Apollo 12 through 17 pretended landing sites were in fact not any more difficult technically to negotiate simulated landing wise than was the pretended Apollo 11 site?

If you knew more about physics and orbital mechanics, you wouldn't have to ask what his point was.

 

[vtbub]

I am not entirely sure that I understand your post/point.....Is what you are saying intended to mean that were I to know more about physics and orbital mechanics I would realize that the Apollo 12 through 17 pretended landing sites were in fact not any more difficult technically to negotiate simulated landing wise than was the pretended Apollo 11 site?

If you had a basic understanding of avioncs, you would know that all the moon landings were hand flown and not fully done on autopilot. Armstrong's computer missed by a mile and he nearly ran out of fuel to correct it.

 

[Patrick1000]

You are off with your numbers and logic vtbub.....

If you had a basic understanding of avioncs, you would know that all the moon landings were hand flown and not fully done on autopilot. Armstrong's computer missed by a mile and he nearly ran out of fuel to correct it.

You are off with your numbers and logic vtbub.....

"The computer" did not "miss". The landing sequence was started late. This was the genesis of the simulated targeted landing site miss. The computer program for the landing was "fine", such as one can call a program fine for a simulated landing such as that of Apollo 11's mythological "eagle".

The PNGS was not programmed to hit a specific target per se, vtbub, e.g. the PNGS was not "programmed" to specifically hit the Fraudulent 07/06/1969 Apollo Press Kit published targeted landing site at 00 42' 50" north and 23 42' 28" east.

The Apollo 11 LM PNGS was alleged to have been programmed to have the mythical ship touch down downrange by so much of a distance once the lunar module landing sequence began in earnest. See the book "DIGITAL APOLLO" for a brief, though quite adequate basic outline of the details regarding the LM landing sequence programs and the corresponding simulated events that run parallel to the computer program sequences comprising the simulated lunar landing event.

In the case of the alleged Apollo 11 lunar module landing, this simulated landing sequence started "late" and so the Eagle began its simulated descent "long". At better than 5,000 feet per second, if one began his landing sequence simulation a second late vtbub, the "astronaut" would already be better than a mile long. Two seconds late, better than 2 miles long, and so forth. This is simply a rough outline of what occurred with the Apollo 11 simulated landing targeted landing site "miss". Check the Apollo 11 Mission Report section 5 for some of the details.

There are claims here and there that the "miss" was due to theretofore unrecognized masconic effects. However, more often than not, when reading about the first simulated manned lunar landing on the occasion of the Apollo 11 mission, what the principals(guidance specialists, flight officers etc.) emphasize is that the targeting error was introduced with the "late" and therefore long start start with respect to the Eagle's simulated landing sequence.

Regardless of the pretended etiology of the pretended long/west landing, the alleged targeted landing site per the Mission report was 00 43' 53" north and 23 38' 51" east. Again, recall the fraudulent Apollo 11 Press Kit targeted site was different; 00 42' 50" north and 23 42' 28". This "switching of targeted landing sites" is in and of itself tremendously strong evidence of Apollonian FRAUD. At any rate, the Eagle was alleged to have simulated a touch down at Tranquility Base coordinates 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east. (These numbers have been subsequently modified by the legendary Merton Davies of RAND.)

With respect to the November 1969 Apollo 11 Mission Report figures, the Eagle was long/west by 12.85 minutes of arc or 4.03 miles. Assuming a targeted north coordinate as per the Mission Report of 00 43' 53" the Eagle was 2.63 minutes of arc south or equivalently .83 miles south. As such, if one runs the numbers based on the fraudulent Apollo 11 Mission Report published targeted landing site coordinates, Armstrong simulated a lunar touchdown at a distance 4.32 miles from the alleged targeted landing site.

If one chooses to use the fraudulent Apollo 11 Press Kit targeted landing site numbers; 00 42' 50" north and 23 42' 28" east, Armstrong is all the more off target. In this case, the once a genuine Eagle scout is 16.46 minutes of arc long, or 5.17 miles west of the center of the landing ellipse as represented on the fraudulent LAM-2 flown Map of Michael Collins. With respect to the southward "drift", in the case of the Press Kit targeted site, Armstrong makes his simulated landing 1.7 minutes of arc south of the intended pretended targeted latitude That's .534 miles south . Overall, if one uses the bogus Press Kit numbers, Armstrong land's 5.2 miles off course give or take.

Either way vtbub, your numbers and "logic" are off. The computer did not "miss". The landing sequence started late and so the pretend astronauts began their simulated landing from a simulated "long" position in simulated perilunar space. As such, the pretend astronauts wound up a simulated 4 or 5 pretended miles off course not one simulated pretended alleged mile.

 

[nomuse]

Once again, Patrick has his conspiracy pretending to make the error that he later uncovers to unmask them.

And he doesn't see the contradiction.

 

[Patrick1000]

Elaborate if you could nomuse, I don't get your point. Thanks

Once again, Patrick has his conspiracy pretending to make the error that he later uncovers to unmask them.

And he doesn't see the contradiction.

Elaborate if you could nomuse, I don't get your point. Thanks

 

[Patrick1000]

Correction/retraction

In my post at 5043 I had indicated inaccurately that the missile launched in Operation Frigate Bird actually hit Christmas Island. Matt had pointed out and most correctly so, that this was incorrect/not accurate. Indeed, Christmas Island was/is populated.

My understanding now is that the Operation Frigate Bird missile actually was targeted 480 nautical miles away from the island. The source of my error was my reading an article in Aviation Week in which the author wrote the warhead hit right in the "pickle barrel". I was under the impression the author was referencing the island itself.

Thanks to matt for the correction. Sorry it took me so long to getting around to this.

The substance of the rest of my post stands and stands well as do my points about the Mercury Program, the American manned space program in general, and ICBM/weapons systems testings and deployments in the context of the American manned space programs Mercury/Gemini/Apollo/Shuttle.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7865043#post7865043

 

[Patrick1000]

What does orbital mechanics have to do with.....

If you knew more about physics and orbital mechanics, you wouldn't have to ask what his point was.

What does orbital mechanics have to do with Armstrong's allegedly being surprised by large boulders and west crater Jay? The simulated trip down took them long because the landing sequence started late. The crater and boulder problem(s), at least for Apollo 11, had nothing to do with the Eagle's simulated orbit. Your comment as do those of the others with respect to this topic does not make sense Jay.

I may not be an orbital mechanics expert, but orbital mechanics is not a concern with respect to the point I made about the Apollo Program simulated landing sites(11,12,14,15,16,17) and their ease or lack thereof with respect to the element of surprise affecting simulated landing site negotiability.

Please elaborate......

 

[JayUtah]

You are off with your numbers and logic vtbub.....

"The computer" did not "miss". The landing sequence was started late.

...thereby causing the computer to miss the intended target. Open-loop control is famous for missing targets and not knowing it has missed.

What a non-answer.

And really? You don't see nomuse's point? Probably because you have yet to answer any of the questions asking you why NASA committed all these egregious "errors" that have gone unnoticed for decades by legions of highly-trained professionals, just so some anonymous self-proclaimed doctor could discover them.

 

[Patrick1000]

Actually the mathematics of the fraud is quite simple....

Don't take physics or learn orbital mechanics, it will ruin your fantasy lies and delusions. You sure do post massive amounts of idiotic spam which doesn't support your fantasy.

How are you able to keep a straight face spewing so much nonsense? Do you have problems with higher math? Could be the problem aiding in the inability to comprehend the moon mission; need a lot of math for orbital mechanics, and space flight. Need some help with the EOMs? Do you prefer spreading lies, or is your goal reality?

Actually beachnut, the "mathematics" of the Apollo fraud is quite simple....

One doesn't even need "mathematics" per se. One need simply be able to read numbers and understand what they mean in the context of a map, nothing else. Not a single calculation is necessary. Middle school students are fully capable of appreciating the significance of these numbers and with it, appreciating fully this one simple incontrovertible proof of Apollonian Fraud.

The Apollo 11 LAM-2 flown Map of Michael Collins is gridded inacurately and intentionally so. The center of the landing ellipse is at coordinates 00 43' 51" north and 23 38' 51" east. However the map is gridded fraudulently so that the landing ellipse center is marked by coordinates 00 42' 50" north and 23 42' 28" east. The former coordinates correspond to the coordinates given in the November 1969 Apollo 11 Mission Report publication. The latter numbers correspond to the coordinates given in the 6 July 1969 Apollo 11 Press Kit publication.

As the location of the pretended landing site cannot/must not be disclosed on the evening of the staged landing for reasons already discussed, discovery of the fraud by virtue of the LRRR teams/astronomers hunting for the Eagle, just to mention one rationale for bird hiding, various means/methods/duplicities were employed to achieve this end of keeping the landing site location secret post simulated landing. The bogus labeling/gridding of the LAM-2 map was one tool employed in fooling those not involved in the fraud.

One hardly needs to understand anything more than what coordinates mean and viola', instant incontrovertible proof of one expensive and altogether heinous crime.

 

[vtbub]

I'd quote the wall of text directed at me, but there really isn't any point for repeating it again.

Yes, my target information was wrong. Armstrong was around 4 miles off where his guidance computer told him to land. My logic, however, still stands.

I'm not really sure on the best way to explain why the lack of aviation knowledge pretty much destroys the fraud notion, but it goes hand in hand with the lack of orbital science, medical knowledge shown, knowledge of computers and their tolerance in extreme conditions, and all the other things have have been presented by those who have a much more intimate knowledge of NASA and Apollo than this fan will ever have.

I do know through flight simulation how basics of flight and pilot in command works and what Armstrong did that day on the moon was a pretty damn good job of being a pilot under incredibly stressful conditions.

An unmanned probe would have crashed into that large crater as the guidance computer was trying to process two sources of radar returns and choking on the amount of data it was trying to process, if my understanding is correct. Under Patrick's theory of the week, it would have ended there with an elevated risk of not completing the mission and returning pretty much anything safely to the command module.

Instead, Armstrong the pilot realized the error, took over full command of his probe, and guided it safely to a flatter area better suited to complete the mission. As the pilot, he used the same visual training to assess and change the target based on all his hours of training including all his hours in the LM simulator. He was ready for any contingency and performed to his expectations.

Pilots land every hour of every day on airfields that they don't know in areas that do not have flight towers and in weather conditions that vary a great deal. While weather was not a factor for the moon landing, trying to fly a craft in unfamiliar situations in the heat of the moment is certainly something Armstrong shares with all pilots.

You cannot rely on instruments alone. At some point during a landing, a person has to confirm to themselves that what they see is true, regardless of compass settings, altimeters, and instrument panels tell you, the pilot still has to make the final call.

They weren't controlling that craft from Houston as they did not have any live pictures until Armstrong was ready to walk. The only way to pull that landing off was with a pilot inside.

This, of course, will be handwaved away.

 

[Patrick1000]

The point about the bet between the engineers and the pilots has to do with.....

According to your own source:




Your own source. You use the quote on one Grumman test pilot as evidence that the LM definitely should have been forced to land itself. Yet the very same quote says that the engineers didn't really expect it to happen. They would have shared a case of champagne if it ever did happen; that's how remote they thought the possibility was.

Patrick, did you not read the entire quote? Did you not understand it?

Or were you just reading articles one after another looking for anything at all that appeared to support your delusion? Perhaps you got so excited when you found something you could spin into your story, that you actually left off reading in the middle of a paragraph.

The fact that you believe nonsense doesn't bother me. I'm a Jew on Christmas; I'm surrounded by nonsense. But at least be honest about it.

The point about the bet between the Grumman engineers and the Grumman pilots has to do with the perception on their part of at least the POSSIBILITY, HOWEVER LIKELY OR REMOTE, of an automated/non humanly piloted lunar module landing Loss Leader.

The equipment was viewed by the engineers and pilots at Grumman and the character played by Jim Lovell in the fraud's script as having the capacity to land without pilot input, however likely or unlikely such an event's actual occurrence might have been as viewed by those in and out of the Apollo fraud know, not to mention however likely or unlikely such an event's actual occurrence might have been viewed by the Grumman pilots and engineers themselves, those involved in the "famous" wager.

Are you arguing that in the article the Jim Lovell character is presented as having said something other than that the lunar module had the capacity to land without human piloting? Are you arguing Loss Leader that the Grumman pilots and engineers were NOT of the opinion that the lunar module could be landed without human piloting?

 

[Patrick1000]

Well Rene pressed the Apollo issue in a way that it had not been pressed before...

The man who claims pi is equal to 3.146264 and who claims that since the gravitational attraction of the the Sun on the Moon is stronger than the Earth's gravitational on the Moon the Moon should be pulled out of its orbit and sucked into the Sun. Yeah. He's a real genius, that guy.





The man who claims objects on the Moon have 1/216th the weight as objects on the Earth.

It should come as no surprise to the forum that you hold those two idiots up as talented and gifted.






By "first" you mean you plagiarized the motive from Dark Side of the Moon.

Well Rene pressed the Apollo issue in a way that it had not been pressed before..He was not an unintelligent man matt. He was quite capable and made some very good points.

 

[Patrick1000]

I never read that book.....

The man who claims pi is equal to 3.146264 and who claims that since the gravitational attraction of the the Sun on the Moon is stronger than the Earth's gravitational on the Moon the Moon should be pulled out of its orbit and sucked into the Sun. Yeah. He's a real genius, that guy.





The man who claims objects on the Moon have 1/216th the weight as objects on the Earth.

It should come as no surprise to the forum that you hold those two idiots up as talented and gifted.






By "first" you mean you plagiarized the motive from Dark Side of the Moon.

I never read that book.....Do the authors say that Mercury was a cover for Atlas missile testing, testing replete with live warheads? Do they talk about using the LRRR to calculate G, k squared, the earth sun distance, the variation in barycenter location of the earth moon system over time? Do they talk about planting equipment on the moon by way of landing LMs, not to mention parking stuff at earth-moon libration points? I will have to check it out to see. I actually own a copy. I will report back.

I have listed my 11 points of fraud and my incomplete list of perpetrators. Let's see how well the Dark Moon book does when stacked up against my research/analysis.

 

[Patrick1000]

Uninitiated means someone who has never looked at the SCIENCE articles previously....

I may be mistaken here, but how do you qualify as 'initiated'? Your repetition and posturing as an authority when you most certainly and demonstrably are not - now that is a bit bewildering

I'm still goggle eyed about your assertion concerning the blinding laser arriving at the Moon and your bodget calculations.

Again - Why do you think your opinion carries more weight than experts dismantling your hopeless arguments?

Explain how 840lbs of Moon rocks came about that, convinced experts in the relevant fields of their veracity.

It is just so facepalmingly obvious why you never answer 90% of the posts back at you, or hardly any of the questions. You are out of your depth.

Uninitiated means someone who has never looked at the original SCIENCE articles previously....

 

[Patrick1000]

Nuclear weapons may or may not be in space....

No. In your scenario, one side or the other had to have taken the first step. Possibly you believe Sputnik 1 carried a small nuclear warhead. But regardless of which side began "weaponizing space" in your scenario, why didn't the other side immediately proclaim the fact? If, as you contend, the entire planet would "freak" at the knowledge that nuclear weapons were in space, this would have been a propaganda coup of unmatched proportions. Further, the non-offending side could immediately have announced, "We hate to do it, but the Communist/Capitalist aggressors' actions leave us no choice but to begin our own program of outer-space weapons testing." Please explain why this never happened.

Nuclear weapons may or may not be in space in any kind of permanent arrangement....

I would say that more likely than not nukes ARE NOT positioned in such a way that they orbit above our heads 24/7, though I do not know that to not be the case for a fact. They, nukes, might be floating above us 24/7, as unlikely as I personally think that to be the case.

Nukes did fly through space regularly on the front end of missiles during extensive testing in the 1960s. Much of this testing occurred under the guise of the American manned space programs given the terms of the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, not to mention public safety concerns. They had to have been tested in such a way. Otherwise, we would never know, we never would have known, that these missiles/ICBMs/SLBMs were functional to begin with, and that given their "live warhead" flight tested functionality, we were safe from a Ruskie attack.

Our nuclear arsenal was and is a well tested arsenal. Battlefield tested, meaning SPACE TESTED. THIS MUST MUST MUST MUST MUST BE THE CASE. IT CANNOT BE OTHERWISE.

Mercury was a program that tested ICBMs. I did not say that it was a program that parked ICBMs in space.

By the way, this places the 7 Mercury Program astronauts provisionally on my list of perps. More likely than not, these 7 knew of Mercury's military roots/intentions. These 7 astronauts may not have known that Apollo was fraudulent, but more likely than not would have. Another way to say this is that John Glenn probably knows Apollo was fake, and knew it all along. This, given his role in NASA's Mercury Program, a "civilian front" for an ICBM testing program. Ditto for the Gemini astronauts. These men are soldiers, front to back, top to bottom.

Space IS WEAPONIZED SpitfireIX. THE LRRR IS A WEAPON. It was used to obtain data employed in the targeting of ICBMs. IT IS A WEAPON PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

Something need not be a nuke to be a weapon.

 

[Patrick1000]

Dark Moon

The man who claims pi is equal to 3.146264 and who claims that since the gravitational attraction of the the Sun on the Moon is stronger than the Earth's gravitational on the Moon the Moon should be pulled out of its orbit and sucked into the Sun. Yeah. He's a real genius, that guy.





The man who claims objects on the Moon have 1/216th the weight as objects on the Earth.

It should come as no surprise to the forum that you hold those two idiots up as talented and gifted.






By "first" you mean you plagiarized the motive from Dark Side of the Moon.

I have made the claim that I am the first to propose a meaningful motive for the Apollo Program fraud, actually for fraud in the context of all the American manned space programs. The programs are civilian covers for weapons testing and weapons deployment in outer space.

Mercury/Gemini/Apollo/Shuttle sought to test ICBMs themselves such as was the case with the Mercury Program, set up equipment to track ICBMs, set up equipment to assist with ICBM targeting among many many many other things. My previous posts are already rather detailed in providing examples of American manned space program weapons testing and weapons deployment. There is much more to come from me in this regard.

Others such as Sibrel have proposed meaningless motives such as "American vanity", our trying to "one-up" the Ruskie's technologically. This makes little if any sense at all.

Matt claimed in his post at 5721 that I plagiarized Mary Bennet's and David S. Percy's DARK MOON(APOLLO AND THE WHISTLE BLOWERS), Adventures Unlimited Press, 1999, 20002, 2009. I had never looked at the book previously but own a copy and now have it here before me.

I find nothing in the book about testing nuclear warheads, ICBMs, planting military equipment on the moon, or in libration points. As a matter of fact, in chapter 4 matt, the authors even question if the LM could have landed under any circumstances given its construction and so forth. Keep in mind I am of the opinion that the LM landed and landed quite well. Matter of fact, at this point in my research, I view the lunar module designed by Kelly and the Grumman team as THE piece of machinery that carried the military instruments referenced in my previous posts to the moon.

I do not want to waste anyone's time, least of all my own. This book is near worthless. But just to lay matt's charge to rest, toward the end of the book's chapter 5, MASTER'S OF INFINITY, the authors vaguely discuss motive. I honestly cannot understand this ridiculous stuff, but will provide a bit to give the curious a sense for the nutty motives provided by Bennett and Percy. In the section at the end of chapter 5 entitled "Pigments From Our Palettes", page 201 of my paperback 2009 edition, the authors write that as their working premise they assume some group, "the masters of infinity" commissioned a "space portrait", whatever that means resulting in a work similar to that of the Mona Lisa. And it goes on and on and I cannot for the life of me figure any of it out. Maybe I just do not get it, but none of this has anything to do with my stuff. check it out for yourselves.

Perhaps matt might enlighten us, but as best i can tell, Bennett and Percy's theories with respect to Apollo has nothing to do with a role played by LRRRs. I looked up LRRR(abbreviated and spelled out in full) in the book's index and it was no where to be found. Perhaps LRRRs are covered in the book, but planting one on the moon and using the device to measure the strength of the earth;'s gravitational field is the farthest thing in the minds of the book's authors with respect to accounting for Apollo's motives as something can be. With respect to their Apollo Program farmd orientation, these guys live on another planet, certainly not mine.

Check it out for yourself matt if you have not read this book for yourself. IT IS BEYOND FUNNY!!!!! this book is. Not to mention absolutely worthless when it comes to understanding Apollo.

 

[Patrick1000]

Before I throw the Dark Moon book in the garbage can.....

The man who claims pi is equal to 3.146264 and who claims that since the gravitational attraction of the the Sun on the Moon is stronger than the Earth's gravitational on the Moon the Moon should be pulled out of its orbit and sucked into the Sun. Yeah. He's a real genius, that guy.





The man who claims objects on the Moon have 1/216th the weight as objects on the Earth.

It should come as no surprise to the forum that you hold those two idiots up as talented and gifted.






By "first" you mean you plagiarized the motive from Dark Side of the Moon.

Before I throw the Dark Moon book in the garbage can, literally....I found in the prologue that these yo-yos think Apollo has something to do with extraterrestrials. Honestly, I am not kidding, I did not make that up.

Matt, I thought I mentioned, I don't do moon rocks, bogus Apollo pictures, nor extraterrestrials. These dudes, the Dark Moon authors are whacked!!!!! TOO TOO TOO TOO TOO TOO TOO FUNNY.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In all honesty, it looks like Sibrel type disinformation stuff to me. These people cannot possibly be serious. Read a bit for yourselves, most would agree that these authors cannot possibly be serious. They are dealing in disinformation......some type of bad bad bad misdirection...


EXTRATERRESTRIALS??????!!!!

Do aliens test nukes?

 

[Loss Leader]

Are you arguing Loss Leader that the Grumman pilots and engineers were NOT of the opinion that the lunar module could be landed without human piloting?

I am arguing that you should print out any ten pages of this thread, show them to a family member, and ask for help.

 

[Agatha]

Patrick, why do you quote a post, such as the one by matt.tansy, in several posts (such as #5753, #5754, #5757 and #5758) and yet completely fail to actually address the post which you quote every single time?

Further, you are still claiming "intentional misgridding" of Collins' map, despite it being patiently explained to you several times that there waas no misgridding at all, simply two different maps with different grids. Every time you claim "intentional misgridding" you expose your lack of understanding of cartography, and in doing so, your argument fails even further. Can you not see that by repeating something shown several times to be nothing but a product of your own ignorance, your posts become more risible?