Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Patrick1000]

I haven't seen a perp list like mine before, that is a big first.....

Oh, so you may have one or two claims not previously advanced by Dark Moon, or by Kaysing or Sibrel or any of the others.

Big whooping deal. Even Dave McGowan gets a few new claims in. The lowliest poster at GLP gets new claims in. Doesn't mean the claims are any good.

And has nothing at all to do with whether the core ideas are original.


In fact, the suitable quote here would be; "Your work is both good and original. However. The parts that are good are not original, and the parts that are original, aren't good."

Except that "original" here means the work of previous Apollo Deniers, and very little of that is "good" by any stretch.

I haven't seen a perp list like mine before, that is a big first....

Complete with rationale.....

 

[Patrick1000]

This is my favorite post of the thread......

No. As noted, no one else cares whether or not your ideas are original. You're just throwing out a large red herring in an attempt to change the subject, because you can't answer anyone's questions or provide any real evidence of a conspiracy.

Now kindly start attempting to answer our questions, or admit that you can't.

This is my favorite post of the thread......

Someone accuses me of plagiarism, I defend myself and then that defense is referenced/characterized as a "red herring", whatever that may mean.......

 

[Patrick1000]

How can you subject a warhead on the ground Jay to......

First, tritium is not an "explosive."

Second, you determine the viability of a warhead by subjecting it on the ground to the same effects it would experience in flight. I asked you some time ago to tell me what unknown forces it would experience in flight that we couldn't duplicate well enough on the ground. Why haven't you told us? It's rather important to your case, if you're going to claim that all-up testing is the only effective method.



The same way we know any device will work in its intended environment without subjecting it irretrievably and inscrutably to that environment. We apply our engineering knowledge base to determine qualitatively what the effects will be. We quantify those effects through models derived from the science and verified by a small number of instrument flights. Then we apply the affects to a test article.



No, it's the worst way to tell. If the warhead fails to detonate (either because it broke or because you didn't arm it), you may never find it. And the forces it suffered in its uncharacteristic impact with the ocean or the ground may mask anything that you would learn by a forensic disassembly. Further, your enemy may get to the warhead before you do!

If, on the other hand, the warhead detonates, it vaporizes any and all evidence of its performance. Engineers are interested in far more about the performance of a warhead than simply whether it goes boom. Let's say your warhead survived its plunge through the atmosphere and detonates. By what margin did it survive? 10 percent? 0.01 percent? How would you know whether you're operating safely, or on the razor's edge of failure?

You say we should instrument the warhead to tell us. That would work, because it's the numbers from the instruments that we'd be interested in. And in that case you leave out the nuclear material, since you're not going to react it. Do you have any idea how much that stuff costs? How difficult it is to produce?

And so we've come down to what we actually do. We fly instrument packages -- warhead frames packed with instruments instead of tritium. That lets us know that what we're doing on the ground in shake tables, vacuum chambers, and so forth is actually testing the warhead in a meaningful way.



No, that's exactly the opposite of the point of aerospace flight test.

Jay, do pray tell, how can one subject a warhead on the ground to passing through the atmosphere at 20 times the speed of sound??????

 

[Tomblvd]

Jay, do pray tell, how can one subject a warhead on the ground to passing through the atmosphere at 20 times the speed of sound??????

For crying out loud Patrick, he says it directly above your question!!!

You say we should instrument the warhead to tell us. That would work, because it's the numbers from the instruments that we'd be interested in. And in that case you leave out the nuclear material, since you're not going to react it. Do you have any idea how much that stuff costs? How difficult it is to produce?

And so we've come down to what we actually do. We fly instrument packages -- warhead frames packed with instruments instead of tritium. That lets us know that what we're doing on the ground in shake tables, vacuum chambers, and so forth is actually testing the warhead in a meaningful way.

 

[Loss Leader]

Jay, do pray tell, how can one subject a warhead on the ground to passing through the atmosphere at 20 times the speed of sound??????

He. Already. Told. You. How.

 

[matt.tansy]

The Bird is not "Lost" literally......

If the coordinates of the "bird" were known in earnest, then the MacDonald Observatory Astronomers would target it with their laser. First they would find the astronauts with a blue-green argon laser and ask, "can you see this". When the astronauts replied "yes", then the ruby red light would be fired and light up the LRRR.

So the Blue-green laser would be capable of locating the astronauts, marking them were they to chose or be asked to take a picture of it.

You claimed the LM was robotic and that it deployed the LRRR. So why pretend it was lost?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Plus we can heat things up and put them in wind tunnels down here on the surface. 1000 degrees and hypersonic in a wind tunnel is the same as 1000 degrees and hypersonic at 100,000 ft unless Patrick knows some reason it isn't?

 

[Garrison]

No one is forcing you to read my posts Garrison.....

If you find them a wast of time, spend it doing something else. Everything I write here I believe is worthwhile, even the satire. It all is meaningful and works toward exposing Apollo's fraudulence. If you view it differently, there are other threads.

Again please stop dodging and attempting to sidetrack the discussion. The rocks Patrick, the thing you are so desperately avoiding addressing because you know you have no meaningful explanation bar the one accepted by everyone else posting here; that they were brought to Earth by the Apollo astronauts.

 

[Garrison]

i haven't seen a perp list like mine before, that is a big first....

Complete with rationaleirrational speculation.....

ftfy

 

[Garrison]

Plus we can heat things up and put them in wind tunnels down here on the surface. 1000 degrees and hypersonic in a wind tunnel is the same as 1000 degrees and hypersonic at 100,000 ft unless Patrick knows some reason it isn't?

This is one of the astonishing things about Patrick1000, and CTs in general for that matter, faced with people who have relevant expertise and experience telling him that is idea is flatly contradicted by reality he still insists that his version must be correct.

 

[Patrick1000]

I am involved directly Jay with complex engineering projects.....

Of course you are.

You're telling people who actually do for a living the things you're talking about, that your frantic Googling is superior to their years of experience. Just how dumb do you think people are?



Your one convenience source does not constitute "everything."



A self-published book written by an IT project manager who has never served in the Navy and whose education is in public affairs and business. Please for the love of Davy Jones tell the world why you insist on confining yourself to the point-and-clickable convenience sources written by amateurs, when you have actual servicemen trying to correct you.



No, you don't get to pin your ignorance on Dr. Draper, especially when previously you said that "those guys at MIT" wouldn't know anything about looking at stars. Just because you have no clue what a Kalman filter is doesn't mean the rest of the world is equally benighted.

This reminds me of when you tried to tell everyone that if we asked every President of the U.S. a certain question, they'd all agree with you on the answer. How does it constitute proof if you simply speculate on what other people would say?

I am involved directly Jay with complex engineering projects.....

Though I am not a welder, I am involved in the design and creative execution of state of the art hand built bicycles.

As you may well be aware. Less is known about the phenomena of "bicycle balancing" than is known about the "balance" of airplanes.

And, as you may well be aware, the Wright Brothers were first and foremost, bicycle builders. And it was their knowledge of bicycle mechanics and their technical abilities as bicycle makers, that enabled them to create the first functional airplane.

You may think I am not being serious here. Au contraire, I am VERY VERY VERY serious. Granted, my involvement with bicycles is not rocket science, or aerospace engineering, but it is related, and my bicycles are as high tech and complex mechanically as any Stark Draper gyro ever was, or could be.

 

[Patrick1000]

You don't sight stars on a daily basis, only very occasionally.....

So, if we have to do star sightings from the middle of the ocean, why do we need SINS? The entire purpose of the SINS is to be able to navigate underwater without having to surface, broach, or anything else. Do you think we do star sightings from 600 feet? Huh? Just think about what you're saying, how it's totally at odds with my own personal experience, and that since you are completely and totally WRONG on this point it calls into question everything else you've plastered here.

A ballistic missile submarine that has to come to the surface to shoot stars isn't stealthy, and isn't any kind of deterrent.

Sheesh. Admit it. You're completely talking out your fundamental orifice, but are too arrogant to say "Oh, guess I'm wrong".

You don't sight stars on a daily basis, only very occasionally is it necessary. But the inertial system platform drifts out of alignment, slowly but surely. One can correct for some of the error in "drift" by packing more than one inertial system. On your submarine JimBenArm, they carried 3. After a time however, one must realign all of the platforms, and the only way in the 60s to do that was by sighting stars. Charles Stark Draper's Lab designed the SINS on your boat, and star sighting was required to align its platform. Your ship's guidance personal were capable of carrying out the appropriate sightings from anywhere on the ocean.

 

[Garrison]

I am involved directly Jay with complex engineering projects.....

Though I am not a welder, I am involved in the design and creative execution of state of the art hand built bicycles.

As you may well be aware. Less is known about the phenomena of "bicycle balancing" than is known about the "balance" of airplanes.

And, as you may well be aware, the Wright Brothers were first and foremost, bicycle builders. And it was their knowledge of bicycle mechanics and their technical abilities as bicycle makers, that enabled them to create the first functional airplane.

You may think I am not being serious here. Au contraire, I am VERY VERY VERY serious. Granted, my involvement with bicycles is not rocket science, or aerospace engineering, but it is related, and my bicycles are as high tech and complex mechanically as any Stark Draper gyro ever was, or could be.

And if we believed a word of the above it still has nothing to do with warhead testing or moon rocks and it does not make you qualified to contradict the information presented to you by people who do have expertise in these topics.

 

[Loss Leader]

I am involved directly Jay with complex engineering projects.....

Though I am not a welder, I am involved in the design and creative execution of state of the art hand built bicycles.

As you may well be aware. Less is known about the phenomena of "bicycle balancing" than is known about the "balance" of airplanes.

And, as you may well be aware, the Wright Brothers were first and foremost, bicycle builders. And it was their knowledge of bicycle mechanics and their technical abilities as bicycle makers, that enabled them to create the first functional airplane.

You may think I am not being serious here. Au contraire, I am VERY VERY VERY serious. Granted, my involvement with bicycles is not rocket science, or aerospace engineering, but it is related, and my bicycles are as high tech and complex mechanically as any Stark Draper gyro ever was, or could be.

Really, Patrick? Your 2,447th post and you now want to claim to have engineering expertise related to bicycles?

All that's going to happen is that people are going to ask you a lot of complex mathematical and engineering questions about bicycles. Are you really prepared to deal with gear ratios, torque, wind slippage, and whatever other subjects are about to hit you?

I beg you to please consider what you're doing.

 

[Patrick1000]

Think about this with respect to the "rocks" issue.......

Who was the most eager and qualified NASA affiliated geologist? Eugene Shoemaker without a question. Shoemaker wanted to go to the moon desperately. Why didn't they let him go? They said he had Addison's Disease and so it would be too dangerous. But so what? Big deal......, all he needs to do is take some cortisol every day. Kennedy had Addison's Disease, didn't stop him from being president. Trivial really. And, couldn't they vaccinate him?

Instead, they send Harrison Schmitt the obvious perp. They had to send one scientist to pretend Apollo was about science, The reason they don't send Shoemaker on 17, even though he is most qualified is that he is not military, fraud insider like Schmitt. No other reason.

 

[Patrick1000]

Bicycles are like airplanes , they turn the same way......

And if we believed a word of the above it still has nothing to do with warhead testing or moon rocks and it does not make you qualified to contradict the information presented to you by people who do have expertise in these topics.

Bicycles are like airplanes , they turn the same way, the same way the SHUTTLE turns, same dynamic. Ask the Wright Brothers. That was one of their big insights, the turning thing.

 

[Patrick1000]

I was not the principle builder, the welder, but one of my bikes from 2010 was....

Really, Patrick? Your 2,447th post and you now want to claim to have engineering expertise related to bicycles?

All that's going to happen is that people are going to ask you a lot of complex mathematical and engineering questions about bicycles. Are you really prepared to deal with gear ratios, torque, wind slippage, and whatever other subjects are about to hit you?

I beg you to please consider what you're doing.

I was not the principle builder, not the welder, but one of my bikes from 2010 was viewed as one of the best bicycles built in the world that year. My input, frame design, was roughly 25%-40% of the overall package, if one could put a number on something like that.

 

[Patrick1000]

OK Loss Leader, not a bad point......

Really, Patrick? Your 2,447th post and you now want to claim to have engineering expertise related to bicycles?

All that's going to happen is that people are going to ask you a lot of complex mathematical and engineering questions about bicycles. Are you really prepared to deal with gear ratios, torque, wind slippage, and whatever other subjects are about to hit you?

I beg you to please consider what you're doing.

OK Loss Leader, not a bad point......

Even though the story about the Wright Brothers is true, as is my involvement with bicycle design, best not to claim it is closely related to aerospace stuff, so I'll go along with your suggestion........

 

[abaddon]

I am involved directly Jay with complex engineering projects.....

Such as?

Though I am not a welder, I am involved in the design and creative execution of state of the art hand built bicycles.

I will just add that to your list of expertise, shall I?
Is there any topic of which you are not a master?

As you may well be aware. Less is known about the phenomena of "bicycle balancing" than is known about the "balance" of airplanes.

And, as you may well be aware, the Wright Brothers were first and foremost, bicycle builders. And it was their knowledge of bicycle mechanics and their technical abilities as bicycle makers, that enabled them to create the first functional airplane.

Off topic and also irrelevant. Orbital mechanics is not the same as aerodynamics.

You may think I am not being serious here.

Well, patrick, at last you got something right, and this is not an ad hom., but in this very thread you avoid/evade direct questions, and I want to know why that is. Have you no answers?

Au contraire, I am VERY VERY VERY serious.

Criticism. OK, this is constructive criticism, not having a go at you or anything.

First, you omitted the commas between all those "VERY"'s.
Second, it reads like a child wrote it. It makes you appear childlike, and given the length of this thread, you appear unaware of this.

Granted, my involvement with bicycles is not rocket science, or aerospace engineering, but it is related, and my bicycles are as high tech and complex mechanically as any Stark Draper gyro ever was, or could be.

Are you really comparing building a bike with an INS system?

 

[TjW]

I am involved directly Jay with complex engineering projects.....

And, as you may well be aware, the Wright Brothers were first and foremost, bicycle builders. And it was their knowledge of bicycle mechanics and their technical abilities as bicycle makers, that enabled them to create the first functional airplane.

You may think I am not being serious here. Au contraire,

No. While they certainly had mechanical skills, so did many others. Mechanical ability was not the ability that enabled them to create the first functional airplane.

That ability would be the ability to admit they were wrong.

Both of the Wrights had it. To such a degree that Orville said that when he and Wilbur were arguing late into the night at Kitty Hawk, as often as not, by the end of the evening each would be arguing for the other's original position.

You do not seem to have this ability.