Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Patrick1000]

Anyway Loss Leader, not to let this thing get out of control....

Matt - Please try again. (You too, nomuse. I'm trying to get something done here.)

Anyway Loss Leader, not to let this thing get out of control....Once the "plagiarism thing" is cleared up, whatever that means, "plagiarism", as a good faith gesture on my part, I plan on looking into the moon rock issue since you all, and in particular you Loss Leader, seem so interested in my views.

Not to be patronizing either, the rocks are important, as much as I kid/joke about "not doing rocks", so I will check them out. I should.

That said, I have no intention necessarily of getting into a debate about rocks, though I might. That is quite possible given my background. On the other hand, and more likely, you may all wind up somewhat disappointed in what I have to say. There may ultimately be not much for us/me to debate in this regard, with respect to rocks. We shall see.

Also, rocks seem particularly difficult for the uninitiated. By that I mean one who has never studied them. That would include me. One thing I will not do is be pressured into taking some position one way or the other with regard too this or that with respect to the rocks without some study.

Anyway Loss Leader, my next post will have something to say about rocks, fair enough?

On the other hand, being accused of plagiarism is sort of like calling me out, fighting words, with respect to where I "come from", so even though this is JRANDI and not NEJM, I don't let that go. AND, I am not looking to make matt out to look bad. Not attempting to even suggest he does not understand the film or anything like that. I think he is wicked smart, honorable and actually I think he thought I was somehow stealing my Apollo fraud ideas from a sort of weird movie, a movie that in truth I watched for the first time 2 nights ago.

So my issue with this plagiarism stuff is not personal. I like matt fine and think he had his reasons for saying/writing what he did, and he was not being dishonest in any way with regard to his accusations. That said, that does not mean any of it is TRUE, that I watched this movie some months ago and it gave me insight and direction. That is ridiculous.

But Apollo is complicated. So as odd as it sounds, I understand that though ridiculous, it may not be unreasonable for someone like matt who knows my views fairly well and Apollo fairly well to watch such a film and imagine my getting some sense from Karel as to how it all went down, even though it is obviously satire. It still is not unreasonable for matt to have imagined things as he did.

So the charge, the accusation of plagiarism is frankly understandable even though I just also used the word "ridiculous" in reference to it. So it goes with Apollo, and so I believe Karel himself would understand such things possible under such interesting circumstances, ridiculous yet understandable, even in this most extraordinary and extraordinarily limited microcosm of it all, our JRANDI debate.

And so, I was and still am rather confused by it all. I did at first, but after my long posts and matt's responses, I now do not understand the charge.

Enough....I am off to swim.... P

 

[Patrick1000]

I do not understand your point Jay.....

Can you give me a good reason why I shouldn't consider this post a flagrant, intentional refusal to address what every poster here considers a thorough refutation of your claims?

I do not understand your point Jay.....

 

[JayUtah]

And you Jay miss the whole point of the post...

I wasn't responding to any of your posts. I was simply escalating the calls I've made at least daily for a week for you to take some sort of responsibility for your previous summary of claims. Others have been making similar calls.

It matters not a whit what you think of my now 12 points of fraud...
[...]
Your opinion matters to all of us a great deal Jay with respect to my points being valid or not.

You can't even stay consistent within a single post. Nervous yet?

But here, in this context, we are dealing with matt's charge of plagiarism, at least I am.

Give whatever excuse you want for your intellectual negligence. The fact remains that you are intentionally avoiding the refutation of your most central claims. That makes it sheer arrogance and dishonesty on your part to insist that your claims "stand well." Now it's clear that you know they don't.

 

[Patrick1000]

Fattydash is not one person......

Patrick1000 of course you are a plagiarist, you lifted the entire 'lost bird' concept, arguments and evidence from the thread Fattydash created at Apollohoax.net. Since you resolutely assure us Fattydash is not you then you have plagiarized his work haven't you?

Fattydash is not one person......Not that it should matter since this is another thread and web site. But for the record, I do share my "Lost Bird" and Borman illness themes with the Fattydash group, who by the way still post here and there actively. I know the Fattydashers.

However, despite the shared views with respect to the Lost Bird business and the Borman illness business, our views, mine and their's collectively, were developed independently, though I am sure we have influenced one another.

Also, with the exception of one person in that group, I have developed these 2 common themes way way way way beyond what they did, have done. ALL of the other themes presented here I don't believe have appeared elsewhere, even in any of the postings by any of the Fattydash group members, though I am not positive.

 

[EvilQuest]

The truth is that the moon landings were indeed definitely fake. They actually landed on Mars instead but didn't want to admit they'd lost their way.

 

[Patrick1000]

All Apollo era, 1960s, inertial platforms were aligned by way of star sightings......

Hey, I can refute this one!

Unlike you, Mr. Know-nothing, I actually served on nuclear submarines, and as a Qualified Submariner, I know how inertial navigation works. Unfortunately for you, there are no "computerized" star charts, or star charts of any kind involved. Of course, you'd have to understand inertia, gyroscopes and such complicated stuff like that. <snip>

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited for Rule 0

All Apollo era, 1960s, inertial platforms were aligned by way of star sightings. that includes all of the inertial platforms of the first great American Ballistic missile submarine fleet, 41 for Freedom, the George Washington and all that followed. These subs employed Charles Stark Draper/MIT Instrumentation Lab Inertial systems. Every single boat. The ships employed 3 platforms to diminish random error accumulation. The ONLY way to align the 3 platforms on such a boat in that era was by way of sighting stars, THE ONLY WAY. A star chart of some sophistication is needed to do this as well as a computer to read the chart.

According to MacKenzie in his INVENTING ACCURACY, CHAPTER 5, the section on UNISTAR, stellar-inertial guidance, for the weapons systems designers to ensure that even near-optimum stars would be available to a star seeking missile, the availability of a large accurate computerized star map was needed.

It is my contention that these star maps were made/created under the auspices of the American Manned Space Programs.

Later, post the fleet of 41, subs became capable as our subs are now, of reading the contours of the ocean floor and orienting themselves that way.

Any submarine launched ballistic missile that employs stellar-inertial guidance MUST by definition utilize a star chart, as the SR-71 did to find its way.

The first polaris missiles allegedly were inertial only affairs. No star charts need for those first pre stellar-inertial missiles. However, the submarines's own IMU/Inertial Platform required star sightings/charts to get themselves straightened out in order to operate properly.

 

[Erock]

Fattydash is not one person......

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7877024&postcount=118
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7877205&postcount=120

I find your behaviour and denial quite frankly laughable. Your propensity to divert and fail to respond to the thunderous responses at you is appalling.

 

[Toke]

Hey, I can refute this one!

Unlike you, Mr. Know-nothing, I actually served on nuclear submarines, and as a Qualified Submariner, I know how inertial navigation works. Unfortunately for you, there are no "computerized" star charts, or star charts of any kind involved. Of course, you'd have to understand inertia, gyroscopes and such complicated stuff like that. <snip>

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited for Rule 0

Just what we needed, JimBenArm coming along and claiming submarines do not navigate by the stars. Of course they do, why else would they have all those deep sea telescopes mounted.

On a more serious note I understand that gyroscopes react to the turning of the globe in order to point out north and if they are turned off too long during leak current hunt they will require some time to adjust again.

Could you explain the inertia bit, pretty please.

 

[JayUtah]

How is that a "strawman" argument Jay?????

Because Matt accused you of copying the same hoax motive as Karel proposed. Go back and look at his first post to that effect. But while conceding to that in the middle of a huge wall of distractionary text, you elaborately attempted to defend that by noting differences in method. Motive and method are not identical concepts.

When you rebut a different (and weaker) form of your opponent's claim than what he actual stated, you commit the straw-man fallacy.

 

[twinstead]

The truth is that the moon landings were indeed definitely fake. They actually landed on Mars instead but didn't want to admit they'd lost their way.

It's because men just can't ask for directions...

 

[PetersCreek]

However, despite the shared views with respect to the Lost Bird business and the Borman illness business, our views, mine and their's collectively, were developed independently, though I am sure we have influenced one another.

The first sentence of this thread's opening post is, word-for-word, identical to this post by fattydash at ApolloHoax, which predates this thread. The rest of this thread's OP was redacted by a moderator because it was copied from another source. A verbatim regurgitation hardly indicates that one has simply been "influenced" by another.

 

[Patrick1000]

This is such a silly post Jay......

I wasn't responding to any of your posts. I was simply escalating the calls I've made at least daily for a week for you to take some sort of responsibility for your previous summary of claims. Others have been making similar calls.



You can't even stay consistent within a single post. Nervous yet?



Give whatever excuse you want for your intellectual negligence. The fact remains that you are intentionally avoiding the refutation of your most central claims. That makes it sheer arrogance and dishonesty on your part to insist that your claims "stand well." Now it's clear that you know they don't.

This is such a silly post Jay......

What, are you saying Jay, Borman's feces were NOT AEROSOLIZED in the context of the Apollo 8 Mission? That's not what NASA says.........

Are you saying Jay that breathing in Borman's stool confirmed by NASA to be floating in the zero G Apollo 8 cabin would not pose a health risk? Doesn't sound too healthy to me Jay..... breathing in and ingesting feces from a man suspected of having some unknown type of PROBABLY INFECTIOUS GASTROENTERITIS AND THEN DOING NOTHING ABOUT IT SO THAT THE CREWS OF APOLLO 9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17 WOULDN'T GET PHONY SICK AS WEL.

Give me a royal break Jay. Your silly Apollo was real party is over. There is no legitimate answer anyone from your side has to the Borman illness issue. That was their biggest mistake because it is a medical mistake. they cannot pull rank. They cannot invoke their favorite, "What do you know about aerospace science Pat, your only a doctor" line in this case.

Well Jay , I know plenty about infectious diarrhea, and because I do, I know with absolute certainty that APOLLO IS ROARING FAKE my friend, and there isn't one expert that you can pull out of your space hat to refute this truth cuz' in this case I am the expert, and any doc looking at this thing seriously for a day or two, any doc that took the time to study this BULL, would come to the same conclusion as me.

So cut it with the bluffing Jay. You are a smart guy, but not a doc and sorry to tell you Armstrong is a fraud, but he is, a big fat flying phony fake.

The sooner you let go of this sully nonsense that we actually landed on the moon, landed people on the moon, the better off you'll be with regard to coming to terms with having been scammed. I suspect you will be one of the more angry when this thing finally blows.

 

[matt.tansy]

On the other hand, being accused of plagiarism is sort of like calling me out, fighting words, with respect to where I "come from", so even though this is JRANDI and not NEJM, I don't let that go.

You accuse thousands of people who worked and sacrificed to put people on the Moon of fraud and you're whining because you got caught stealing ideas from other people. Cry me an efing river.

AND, I am not looking to make matt out to look bad.

Good luck with that. Every time you've tried you've failed.

 

[matt.tansy]

Now Suspilot, even with your Buzz Aldrin autographed star chart featuring all of the 6 magnitude or less/naked eye visible stars you still will not be able to tell with any certainty often times, perhaps even the majority of the time, which star is which looking through your scope

Just plain wrong. Wrong way past the point of being delusional. You have never looked through a telescope in your life.

You can get to the moon. Don't get me wrong Suspilot. But with a Surveyor VII, not with a manned craft pretending to navigate by virtue of employing stellar inertial type guidance with or without help from the MSFN. Remember, they supposedly can do everything from MSFN except align the IMU. But they HAVE TO BE ABLE TO ACCURATELY ALIGN THE IMU TO GO TO THE MOON.

Al the unmanned spacecraft you keep saying went to the Moon had, guess what, IMUs. Their IMUs were aligned with star trackers.

 

[JayUtah]

Fattydash is not one person...

If you say so, Dr. Socks. None of what you write below has even the most tenuous shred of credibility. The whole saga of the "lost bird" has been plagued by identities known to be fabricated, duplicated, and dishonestly portrayed -- not here only, but also elsewhere.

Not that it should matter since this is another thread and web site.

Ordinarily it wouldn't matter. But now we're dealing with the question of scholarly originality. That necessarily involves other people, other writings, and other forums -- to test whether the other threads and other web sites were the true origin of claims you want to take sole credit for. If you can tell us how to investigate an accusation of plagiarism without looking at the other alleged sources, we'd be grateful. Otherwise you're just trying feebly to rule damning evidence inadmissible, without regard for truth.

But for the record, I do share my "Lost Bird" and Borman illness themes with the Fattydash group...

We don't need your agreement or admission in order to draw our own conclusions that the claims are nearly identical and argued according to the same idiomatic illogic. There is no question that they are the same peculiar claims and peculiar line of reasoning.

I know the Fattydashers.

Irrelevant. Either you are Fattydash in some form, or they copied you, or you copied him. Those are the only rational possibilities. Independent origin is not credible in this case. You're trying desperately to tap-dance along a fine line between your previous claims, creating an improbable fantasy that borrows just enough from "I am Fattydash" to explain the similarity without plagiarism. If you had just stuck to the truth, you wouldn't have so much trouble keeping all your previous lies straight.

...mine and their's collectively, were developed independently, though I am sure we have influenced one another.

Nonsense. Fattydash's claims at his demise at Apollohoax are identical to your claims upon arriving here, right down to the spelling errors. And we note that your arrival here follows fairly immediately after Apollohoax banned Fattydash.

If, notwithstanding that identity of argument, you insist that you are not Fattydash, then it is easier to believe that you copied Fattydash from Apollohoax when first writing here, than that you independently came to exactly the same peculiar ideas and ways of attempting to support them.

Also, with the exception of one person in that group, I have developed these 2 common themes way way way way beyond what they did, have done.

One's work need not be entirely plagiarized in order to be guilty of plagiarism. Fattydash's claims changed during his tenure at Apollohoax, and Patrick's claims change during his tenure at JREF. The precise fit at the seam is what is suspicious. Append the JREF debate to the end of the Apollohoax debate and you have a smooth progression.

 

[JayUtah]

I do not understand your point Jay.....

Really?

Let's see: I practically have to slap you across the face with my well-known and oft-referenced rebuttals to your claims -- the claims that you say stand so well, and which you've told others you summarized especially for me -- and you respond by quoting the post, ignoring the rebuttals as you have stubbornly done for the past week, and adding more unfounded and unrelated claptrap!

Really, the point escapes you?

Very well. I'll be blunt: You are deliberately and flagrantly ignoring information you know undermines your belief.

And from now on, every time you try to accuse everyone else of narrow- or closed-mindedness, a link to this part of the thread is going to appear, so that everyone can watch you rhetorically stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and say, "La! La! La! You can't change my belief! La! La! La!"

 

[nomuse]

...The 28 power magnification will not give you much additional ...magnifying a field won't increase one's star count..let's agree that most of the additional light we collect with our 40 mm lens is available to us..How many stars will you be able to "see" through the giant aperture..provide improved visibility..high grade military telescope..now look at through our sextant..any certainty often times..Betelgeuse..moon shine to deal with..computers to read their star charts..you look for Sirius..visibility is variable...

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for moderated thread.

1) People have no problem doing a dead reckoning on Earth under a wide variety of seeing conditions. (People also have no problem picking out constellations under a wide variety of viewing conditions, and before you go, "but space is different, there's more stars!" I point you towards two common technological artifacts; the planetarium and the star map. Both present many more stars than most of us are given a chance to see under average viewing conditions, and the latter presents them in unique forms...different projections and gridding, even!)

2) The system used in Apollo doesn't work like that. Not even slightly. The astronaut doesn't hand a star to the computer. The computer -- going off the inertial reckoning -- hands a star to the astronaut and asks for it to be confirmed. So you aren't looking in the field at thousands of possible stars, or being confused by constellations. You are looking at one star that meets the description and is close to the reticule.

 

[nomuse]

The first sentence of this thread's opening post is, word-for-word, identical to this post by fattydash at ApolloHoax, which predates this thread. The rest of this thread's OP was redacted by a moderator because it was copied from another source. A verbatim regurgitation hardly indicates that one has simply been "influenced" by another.

How about it, Patrick? Are you Fattydash? Or did you plagiarize his work?

I'd like to see a direct answer, for once in this thread.

 

[sts60]

So we can concede that a speculative film about an alleged conspiracy to fake one of the most publically carried out events in human history has no bearing to the nonsensical rantings you now espouse are the conspiracy behind one of the most publically carried out events in human history? Got it.

It's very funny that Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/etc. tries to leverage a movie specifically made to make fun of Apollo hoax believers as some sort of evidence for his hoax beliefs. The film is irrelevant to establishing the veracity of the Apollo record, but P1k/fd/DT/etc., who gets probably the least useful information per amount of energy expended of any "researcher" ever, can't help but start blathering about it because it provides yet another opportunity to avoid actually addressing his whopping errors and absolute lack of actual evidence.

Your contention that the thousands of people who have been involved in the space program, military testing, the various sciences arising from the landing, and a variety of other topics has been clearly demonstrated on several occasions to bear little to no resemblance to something reality based.

Actually, Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/etc. apparently thinks that relatively few people would have been required to sustain the hoax. This is because (a) he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about and (b) he hasn't actually thought about what a hoax would really entail. He just makes up stuff as he goes along without bothering to think about whether it makes any sense, or aligns even approximately with observed reality, or is even self-consistent. Hence, his tossing out names as "perps" (this coming from an allegedly 50-something adult... sure) according to whatever excerpt he found on Google Books.

The pattern of grabbing names according to free availability of the material and this or that notable event - rather than what actually might make sense given how things actually work - is very telling. It demonstrates very clearly (again) that he has no clue how spaceflight works, and has no idea how to construct an intelligent narrative. Or even, for that matter, a consistent one, as he has previously claimed at least one Apollo figure both innocent and guilty of being part of the alleged conspiracy.

Communications and mapping are done using satellites that orbit the planet, not the moon. The use of satellites is a natural extension of using air photos for mapping - and is cheaper and easier than your contention of using an unmanned moon base.

And the critical functions of missile detection and tracking, reconnaissance, signal intelligence, communications, and weather observation are all placed at a thorough disadvantage by Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/etc.'s fantasy scheme, as are the redundancy and replacement aspects. His alleged system is both much less robust and much less useful, but that's OK; there's some 1950s article about a military Moon base, which is much better than any, you know, evidence or other boring stuff.

Missile testing does not require live shots. Sensor packages with similar balance and density and stress tables will tell the engineers who build these things a lot more than sending up a nuclear weapon in hopes that it was built to take the stresses, and since none have been exploded in the atmosphere since 1963 we still wouldn't know if they work, if testing had to be done your way.

Not only is Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/etc. absolutely clueless about testing of missiles - I have some familiarity with how nosetip materials* are tested - but his "research" method of making stuff up has led him to contradict himself yet again. He insists that this critical military hardware must be tested "live". Yet in his fantasy scheme of critical, ultra-secret military hardware deployed on the Moon and elsewhere, none of it is tested live, including the autonomous guidance and landing system he fantasizes. By his own, ah, reasoning, his grand scheme simply cannot work, because both the hardware he claims was deployed, and the systems used to deploy it, are completely unreliable. Once again, P1k/fd/DT/etc. empties an entire clip into his own foot while bragging about his marksmanship.

Never mind the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever for any of it, nor that none of it makes any functional sense whatsoever. Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/etc.'s claims aren't even self-consistent. But a desire to get attention coupled with imperviousness to any sort of learning can keep this thread spinning in circles indefinitely. Fortunately, there are people like Jay, Matt, and others who are contributing interesting and useful information.


* Hint: they're good for other things than warheads.

 

[Patrick1000]

I am at work now Toke, but if I have free time, might be able to give you a word....

Just what we needed, JimBenArm coming along and claiming submarines do not navigate by the stars. Of course they do, why else would they have all those deep sea telescopes mounted.

On a more serious note I understand that gyroscopes react to the turning of the globe in order to point out north and if they are turned off too long during leak current hunt they will require some time to adjust again.

Could you explain the inertia bit, pretty please.

I am at work now Toke, but if I have free time, might be able to give you a word or two. I have a few good references on the subject. The Nautilus herself was lost a bit first time under the cap looking for the pole. Inertial systems are far from fool proof, hence my points with regard to Apollo0's system and its lack of credibility.

Don't be hard on JimBenArm Toke, as I am fond of saying , Apollo ain't easy, even for the initiated, there's lots to it; missiles, stars, lasers. eyes, vomit, heat, lack of heat, maps, rocks, pics, gyros, acceleromters and integrating twice, accelerometers and integrating once, ephemerides, Gravitational constants of two kinds no less, harmonics, boats and that is but the tip of the spaceberg.