Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[AdMan]

I have only been posting here a very short time so maybe I am confused, I thought you were a Doctor?

Didn't Patrick abandon that pretense a while ago?

It's very clear he has little medical knowledge--whatever he does profess to have he probably got through Google.

I am not a doctor and only have a pre-med/Bachelor of Science degree in biology, and I can easily catch his mistakes.

 

[JayUtah]

For what it's worth, Jay identified some of the elements, but not the "how", for which I'm grateful.

Actually I originally wrote the "how," then remembered your admonition, and removed them before submitting. I wanted to identify the NOVA program that seemed to be the source of his confusion without tipping the hand too much about how three-axis control really works. Sorry; I hope I didn't spoil the test.

 

[nomuse]

Apologies from me, also, except that due to the moderation of this thread I was in the middle of writing my post long before SUSpilot's was made visible.

For me it was more a matter of, well...a kid who watched NBC's "Voyagers!" back in the early 80's would have spotted something wrong with Patrick's story. The story of the box is just too darn famous.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I Still Think They Should Have "Sent" What's His Face,...... Shoemaker. It's not like the thing is real on any level so it makes the fraud simply more believable to send your best geologist.

The "returned" astronaut dudes don't look too stressed out. I mean, granted, running a fraud will bump your heart rate, BP, render ya' a bit tachypneic, but it is not as though you are actually going to go into some kinda' flull blown Addisonian CRISIS type dealy from acting.

I mean ya' might go full blown Addisonian if ya' really did go to the real moon and stressed trying to land something, or lift a rock, or sight a star that ya' couldn't find when your real life depended on it, but after all, this here wasn't real. Shoemaker coulda' handled the stress of the fraud fine I think.

Mistake that they did not "send" Shoemaker. They should have said, "We vaccinated the guy, so we know he won't get sick even though he's a quart low on cort". I guess they figured they couldn't coopt him, coopt Shoemaker, turn him to the dark side, so they sent the hyperobvious plant Harrisson Schmitt to play pretend geologist instead as he was a fraudster from the fake word "GO !!!!". Ya' know.......

It's not immediately clear what the point of this post is. The argument is patently illogical. I'm left to conclude its only purpose is to demonstrate its completely different writing style, with the intention of re-igniting a fuss over whether "Patrick1000" is actually a group of kids using the same account (and speculation over whether one works in a bike shop and another has a dad who's a doctor etc). With the utter demolition of all your arguments, it looks as if this may be the only idea you have left to mess around with the people responding to this thread.

 

[Garrison]

I Still Think They Should Have "Sent" What's His Face,...... Shoemaker. It's not like the thing is real on any level so it makes the fraud simply more believable to send your best geologist.

The "returned" astronaut dudes don't look too stressed out. I mean, granted, running a fraud will bump your heart rate, BP, render ya' a bit tachypneic, but it is not as though you are actually going to go into some kinda' flull blown Addisonian CRISIS type dealy from acting.

I mean ya' might go full blown Addisonian if ya' really did go to the real moon and stressed trying to land something, or lift a rock, or sight a star that ya' couldn't find when your real life depended on it, but after all, this here wasn't real. Shoemaker coulda' handled the stress of the fraud fine I think.

Mistake that they did not "send" Shoemaker. They should have said, "We vaccinated the guy, so we know he won't get sick even though he's a quart low on cort". I guess they figured they couldn't coopt him, coopt Shoemaker, turn him to the dark side, so they sent the hyperobvious plant Harrisson Schmitt to play pretend geologist instead as he was a fraudster from the fake word "GO !!!!". Ya' know.......

While the rest of Patrick's material can be faintly amusing I find these personal attacks he launches on anyone associated with Apollo really annoying. At the same time Patrick makes demonstrably false claims about his own education and achievements, plagiarizes the work of others, and never ever concedes even the most trivial mistake. Perhaps that's the root problem here, he simply assumes that everyone else lives down to his own low standards and thus the notion of all these people willingly indulging in a fraud that would destroy their lives if it were revealed seems plausible to him, even when all the evidence contradicts that belief.

 

[Multivac]

My sense is Multivac that they were up to other things primarily with Apollo....Like the other stuff I mentioned, say parking something in a libration point, Jim Lovell's Corvette for instance.

No. Why do you continue to post the same ideas, even though they have been proven to be false?

I would suggest at this time that Apollo was a program focusing on other aspects of our ICBM programs(offensively, defensively). Mercury seems to have been a warhead viability program, full contact missile flight program. Of course they need to test wardheads throughout, but by Apollo, one would think they have better things by and large to do with their insanely expensive launches and limited cargo hoisting abilities.

What? Mercury was simply America's first manned space program. Why would you think it was a disguised military program? This was the height of the cold war, so there would be no need to hide a weapons program as most Americans wanted to bigger and better missiles than the Russians. The American public would have approved of another waeapons program, so why ghide it?

With Mercury they had quite a few unmanned launches, those must have been with "live nukes". Perhaps nukes without triggers, but aside fram that, they were Atlas contraptions testing the weapon system's overall integrity in the context of an actual firing.

Of course there were unmannned launches, to test the mercury capsule. Also, the launch vehicles used, Redstone and Atlas, were not initally man-rated as they were ICBMs without the warheads. Wouldn't you want some confidence that the launch vehicles were safe enough to launch people into space?

So with say the unmanned Atlas or Redstone tests, they need not fake a recovery. With other tests, the ones that are allegedly manned, it is easy enough to drop a capsule from overhead carrying your dudes. Shove the thing out of a giant cargo plane and have the dudes pull a shoot, viola!, instant fake landing. Something like that anyway.

Sorry, but this is simply stupid! To fake the splashdown and recovery, you are involving even more people in the deception. There would be an aircraft crew, maintenance crew and an airbase involved in dropping the capsule. For the recovery wou would need the crew of the helicopter and aircraft carrier to not notice that the capsule had been dropped from another aircraft. Not to mention the reporters and camera crews who witnessed the splashdown.

Of all the things to stage Multivac, staging a landing seems easy to me.

With the whole world watching.

What do you think happened with Apollo 13 when they were trying to get Gene Hackman, erhhh, ahhh, I mean Jim Lovell back from Hollywood outer space? The dudes didn't shave for a few days and then they dropped them at, 21°38′24″S 165°21′42″W as they were then obligated to carry out some recruiting duties for the Washingtom Redskins and Houston Oilers.

What does Gene Hackman have to do with Apollo13? The astronauts were observed to enter the spacecraft. The spacecraft was tracked by NASA, professional astronomers as well as amateur astronomers and the radio signals were recieved by radio hams.

Actually, I am not sure yet which flights had guys and which did not. But staging a recovery, that is not hard, just ask Tom Hanks and Opie Taylor.

It is not hard if you are making a film. It IS hard if you are involving insane numbers ofpeople in the conspiracy and trying to fool the worlds scientints, engineers, radio hams and TV news crews.

 

[Multivac]

My point was that what is requisite for the understanding of Apollo, is not a knowledge of aerospace sciences as Apollo is not about aerospace science. Rather, Apollo is an ever so transparent phony story that seeks to cover military activities with a series of make believe tales about fighter pilots landing spaceships on the moon.

You still have not proved this. To say that Apollo is not about aerospace science is like saying that easter eggs are not about cholcolate.

Because the fraud is a bogus story that includes elements referencing the world of medical science, an understanding of medicine is one of the best ways to expose the pretended learned perpetrators for what they are, PHONIES.

This contradicts the point you made in your first paragraph.

Actually and quite quite obviously, its deepest level is one of FRAUD, one of MAKE BELIEVE. One need not have a degree or special training of any sort to simply read maps, and if one is a critical thinker of average intelligence, one cannot help but come to the conclusion that the Apollo 11 flown LAM-2 Map of Michael Collins is FRAUDULENT BEYOND A DOUBT. This, given its intentional misgridding featuring landing elipse central target coordinates; 00 42' 50" north and 23 42' 28" east instead of the appropriate and accurate 00 43' 53" north and 23 38' 51" east.

Critical thinkers of average intelligence know this statement is untrue.

So, the point about education is and is not important necessarily. It is not important at all in one sense as anyone can see the LAM-2 Map is fake, no special training needed there. And if the LAM-2 Map is fake, so is all of Apollo 11. The whole Mission is fake, has to be, which it is, no question. The bogus LAM-2 Map is absolute proof positive. No other reason to fake the map except to fake the mission.

But the map isn't fake. You are the only person who ses it is a fake.

For us, debating Apollo is an aesthetic choice. Practically speaking it is of course important that the public be made aware of its having been so profoundly scammed. However, the literary/romantic aspect of the fraud is what keeps my friends and myself going.

The public were not scammed.

I was reading another Apollo fraud thread several months ago wherein a very capable hoax/fraud theorist was defending himself/herself against a handful of detractors. The fraud advocate used the term "for Pete's sake", and a very intelligent official story apologist wrote something like, "what does that mean? Is that a reference to Pete Conrad? some kind of pun?". The fraud advocate had to explain it was a "biblical" reference, the term he/she used. Perhaps he/she was punning, I suspect so, though that was not stated explicitly, naturally not, as that would have undone the intended effect. It would be quite like laughing at one's own jokes.

What does this have to do with anything? I don't know the derivation of "for pete's sake" but it is generally used in frustration when the person you are talking to is failing to understand something simple and basic. For eaxmple, when talking to a hoax believer and they fail to understand the huge mountain of evidence which proves that 12 men walked on the moon.

So Apollo as fraud is DEEP on many levels. To say that the Apollo astronauts are "unintelligent" is not to say that they did not go to school and in school did not do well......

Hope that helps Garrison, it is an important point of mine and many other Apollo fraud advocates, an important point that is seldom discussed.....

It may be an important point to you, but I doubt that many people would agree with you.

 

[Multivac]

Since I made that nice list of 11 points which taken collectively, or in some cases individually(Borman illness) prove Apollo bogus, I though it would be worthwhile to also provide a year end summary of the perps I have heretofore so identified. I'll follow each perp's name with a little line giving the reason why the dude is a known/suspected fraud insider. This way, when next year rolls around I'll have a summary with which to compare, both "reason for fraud" wise and perp wise.

1) All of the Apollo astronauts flying on missions 8,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17 were fraud insiders. They knew that Apollo was one phony program manned lunar landing wise and one great ICBM military program.

Prove it.

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

Prove it.

3) Steve Bales and Jack Garman, one or the other and probably BOTH are fraud insiders because the 1202 program alarm decision point is NOT a decision point. there really are no legit decision points. As Bales and Garman both said "GO!!!" when the only thing one could say was "GO!!!" given this thing was a fraud, one recognizes the "GO!!!!" as a piece of script and not an authentic utterance. Garman and/or Bales, more than likely BOTH are fraudsters.

Of course there decision point. To claim otherwise is bizarre.

3) John Aaron, flight controller was undoubtedly in on the fraud.

Prove it.

4) George Mueller, Associate Administrator of the NASA Office of Manned Space Flight from September 1963 until December 1969. Mueller was a key figure in the decision to send Apollo 8 on its simulated mission to the moon after the Saturn V Apollo 6 problems were ignored and a Saturn IB rocket was used for Apollo 7. Were Apollo a real program, Mueller and colleagues would have tested the Saturn V UNMANNED after the Apollo 6 debacle.

The problems were not ignored.

5) Samuel Phillips, Director of NASA's Apollo Manned Lunar Landing Program from 1964 to 1969, the seventh Director of the National Security Agency, 1972-1973. Phillips gives the word for Apollo 8 to continue to the moon despite Borman's illness. His 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.

Simply repeating the same crap, does not prove it is true.

6) Emil Schiesser, mathematician, Apollo guidance/navigation/trajectory specialist. Knew all about the shenanigans with respect to the LAM-2 map and "Hiding the Eagle" with respect to the first landing. A major player. One of the Apollo fraud's key figures. Much depended on his skills. Unlike the astronauts, I would imagine Schiesser was an actor of some ability.

Prove that he knew the map was faked. This could be difficult as the map wasn't faked.

7) James Webb, Thomas Paine and John F. Kennedy. Webb and Paine were the chief NASA administrators during the years of the Apollo run. Kennedy was prez early in the 60s and gave the famous moon speech. More likely than not it was understood that these programs were primarily military from the get go and had little to do with actually landing men on the moon and returning them safely to earth.

The whole purpose of NASA during the 60s was to landi men on the moon.

I count 27 astronauts, Bales, Garman, Aaron, Mueller, Phillips, Schiesser, Webb, Paine, Kennedy as people probably in the know and therefore official fraudsters. That is 36 altogether. Not bad work for hunting down perps since only April of this past year. Who knows what 2012 shall bring.

You would also need to add the engineers who designed Apollo, the astronomers who tracked the spaccraft, the radio hams that listened to the radio transmissions, the tracking stations that followed the progress of the spacecraft and recieved the transmissions from them as well as the journalists and TV news crews.

You have score 0/7 but thankyou for playing.

 

[Multivac]

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. The engineers designing the LM were offered $1000 bonuses if they could reduce the weight of the LM by a few ounces. The more mass you add, the more fuel you need.

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.

But the stuff wasn't already on the shelf. Except for the Atlas, which merely had to be strengthened, it all had to be designed scpecifically for the appropriate program.

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.

Why are you still making these bizarre claims, even though they have been shown to be false?

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?

Nobody here agrees with you. If you have made an excellent point, then I've missed it in your walls of text.

 

[SpitfireIX]

I Still Think They Should Have "Sent" What's His Face,...... Shoemaker. It's not like the thing is real on any level so it makes the fraud simply more believable to send your best geologist.

You have not provided one single shred of real evidence that the moon landings were faked. All you've provided is ignorant supposition that has been thoroughly discredited by those with real knowledge. LL can correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe in law this is know as "improper foundation."

The "returned" astronaut dudes don't look too stressed out. I mean, granted, running a fraud will bump your heart rate, BP, render ya' a bit tachypneic, but it is not as though you are actually going to go into some kinda' flull blown Addisonian CRISIS type dealy from acting.

Ditto.

I mean ya' might go full blown Addisonian if ya' really did go to the real moon and stressed trying to land something, or lift a rock, or sight a star that ya' couldn't find when your real life depended on it, but after all, this here wasn't real. Shoemaker coulda' handled the stress of the fraud fine I think.

Your claim makes zero sense either way. This is why they didn't send him on a mission, and even had it been faked, "sending" him would have raised suspicion.

Mistake that they did not "send" Shoemaker. They should have said, "We vaccinated the guy, so we know he won't get sick even though he's a quart low on cort". I guess they figured they couldn't coopt him, coopt Shoemaker, turn him to the dark side, so they sent the hyperobvious plant Harrisson Schmitt to play pretend geologist instead as he was a fraudster from the fake word "GO !!!!". Ya' know.......

This is the root of many of the problems with your arguments, quite frankly.

 

[SpitfireIX]

What does Gene Hackman have to do with Apollo13?

Patrick is either accidentally or intentionally confusing Gene Hackman's role as an astronaut in the film Marooned with Tom Hanks's portrayal of Jim Lovell in Apollo 13.

 

[SpitfireIX]

He's not serious. I tried calling his bluff directly, but it kinda fell flat.

By "instant macular degeneration" he's referring to his belief that the Apollo crews suddenly and suspiciously become "blind" when asked to see stars out the spacecraft windows. He supposes the stars would be very brilliant, and would be so numerous as to preclude proper identification.

By "Lewy body dementia" he's referring to his mean-spirited jab at the flight crews, that they conspicuously "forget" what they're supposed to be lying about.

I see that now on rereading. I thought he was just trying to inflate his credentials again and mangling the terminology in so doing.

 

[Patrick1000]

Bales and Garman are perps Jay, like it or not....

Overwrought emotional language again, Patrick. No one cares how personally disgusted you are about Apollo, or how much you personally detest the astronauts. When you make emotionally-laden arguments, it reveals your position as intellectually and factually weak.



Then it's a good thing they didn't navigate by looking out the window. How many irrelevant comparisons are you going to post along these lines?



Explain how he would become dark-adapted while flying in a lighted spacecraft. Compute how much starlight is lost through atmospheric attenuation.



In other words, he reports that he is able to see his guide stars through the sextant -- the actual instrument used to take star sightings. Further, his description of the view through the sextant corresponds to the reports here of everyone who has made similar observations, the expectations of the design, and the needs of the mission.

The only material here that doesn't fit is your handwaving speculation for what the view "must" look like through the sextant: an unnavigable see of equally bright stars. When are you going to get it through your head that what you suppose to be true is not necessarily true? Have you figured out yet that the universe isn't obliged to conform to ignorant expectations?

Further, when Duke is describing performing the LM pre-launch alignment in the crew debriefing (p. 10-114), he confidently describes being able to identify and mark his guide stars, although he notes there is light pollution in some of the AOT detents. In other words, he reports what every astronomer reports about his experiences.

You quote a book you say was probably ghost-written, claiming that Duke couldn't see stars casually. From this you try to manufacture a dilemma about overall star visibility, or claim that navigation would have been impossible. But when Duke himself, in primary sources that you accept as authoritative, describes something different, you ignore it. Why? Because it doesn't fit what you've already decided you want to believe.



One only needs to locate stars when he is checking the platform alignment. When checking the alignment, one is looking through the sextant at bright guide stars.

You've already been busted for flip-flopping on the frequency of platform checks. You really need to go find out how often they really did check the IMU, and then you need to apply your allegedly superior mathematical skills and determine how much the platform had drifted in that interval. Then maybe you'll understand why it isn't strictly necessary for the navigator to be able to identify stars by constellation.



Yes, and so do all the relevantly qualified experts in the world. You -- the mere "layman with common sense" -- seem to be the only one having marked difficulty, and chiefly because we keep running up against things your "common sense" (i.e., uninformed intuition) isn't telling you.



You really don't get this. You would tell someone he's "lost" if he doesn't know whether he's on the south side of Main Street or the north side. You constantly inflate one astronaut's description after another in your quest to manufacture a discrepancy.

The "200 meter" estimate comes from the debriefing, where Duke estimated that based on known landmarks he'd seen while flying over, and John Young's callouts, they "had a good idea ... within a couple hundred meters" of where they'd landed. (ibid. p. 10-2)

Did they then go on to say that they were lost? Heavens, no! That's your interpretation of what actually happened -- your words, not theirs. Why are you always so reluctant to let your sources speak for themselves? Why must you rail-split and quote-mine them, and "summarize" them in your words (which inevitably changes the meaning)?

The astronauts went on to say that they found all the science stations they were supposed to visit on EVA-1. That is, they could use their LRV guidance system to find all the places the mission planners outlined for them. How would that constitute being "lost?"

No, once again what you're talking about is the effort to locate the LM right down to the meter. There is no magical guidance-system button you can push to get that. It has to be obtained by synthesis from various sources, each with its associated error. And that takes time. Going back to you Fattydash days, you still have not produce an error analysis for these methods to show that they should have been able to do what you say they could.

Months and months of you make the same claim, without showing that it is based on anything more substantial than your naive layman's expectations.



No, Patrick. You do not get to play the "poor, poor me!" card here. Not when you're willfully disregarding expert testimony, and when you're calling people like Steven Bales "perps" behind his back and don't have the nerve to address him in person. You voluntarily subject yourself to this study. There's no rhetorical mileage to be obtained over how distasteful it is. If you dislike Apollo, but want to study it anyway, then suck it up and quit complaining.

Bales and Garman are perps Jay, like it or not...Not sure what else to say, try and prove me wrong if you can.....

 

[JayUtah]

I see that now on rereading. I thought he was just trying to inflate his credentials again and mangling the terminology in so doing.

Well it may have been a little of both. I think he was just looking for a graceful exit from the Charles Duke quote-mining disaster, and he invented this new "task" as an excuse to be suddenly too busy to answer. It doesn't matter whether the excuse is bogus because he's not a doctor or because the title is just a pseudo-medical restatement of his other claims.

Obviously I didn't expect him to send me the name of his editor, and it may actually be the sort of request JREF frowns upon. But my point was to illustrate that any anonymous poster can trump exactly the same excuse. "I'm busy doing experty things..." is just words until you have to substantiate it, so one asks the question just to underscore the lack of substance. No one believes Patrick is writing scholarly chapters in medical textbooks, so his excuse falls flat anyway. There's just an extra layer of absurdity there that I think people were missing. Not everyone tried to understand what the fanciful chapter title was trying to say. They just thought he was being pretentious again.

I expect him to abandon the Duke star visibility claim fairly quickly, especially since there is a wealth of primary testimony from Duke about stars and stellar navigation on his Apollo mission. Isolated quotes from his ghost author notwithstanding, Duke comes across in the primary sources as a very competent navigator. Or Patrick may continue pushing it toward "Duke said he couldn't see stars in some circumstance, but we all 'know' he should have been able to." Every hoax believer has his own spin on the star visibility argument.

Either way, I expect he will try to conjure up another "lost bird" claim for Apollo 16, with more "intentionally misgridded" maps and such.

 

[Erock]

Bales and Garman are perps Jay, like it or not...Not sure what else to say, try and prove me wrong if your can.....

Using the same technique as you use No they aren't.

Since the burden of proof lies with you, not much more to say. Burden of opinion doesn't count.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Bales and Garman are perps Jay, like it or not...Not sure what else to say, try and prove me wrong if your can.....

Burden-of-proof shifting. You claim that they were involved in some sort of conspiracy to fake the Apollo missions; the burden of proof for that claim is squarely on you. It doesn't fall to Jay or anyone else to attempt to disprove your unproven assertion.

 

[JayUtah]

Bales and Garman are perps Jay, like it or not.

Brave words from someone who refuses to face the men he's accusing. I repeat my offer to facilitate your contact with Bales. The day you present your claims to him and adress his answer is the day I will begin to notice you. Until then your handwaving accusations are just self-congratulatory noise.

Not sure what else to say...

Really? You're not sure what else to say? You quoted my entire post, ignored almost all of it, and then simply restated your belief without changing anything.

If you're looking for something else to say, why not answer the rest of the post.

try and prove me wrong if you can.....

You're the accuser. You have the burden of proof. So far all you've shown us is insult and supposition. Running around calling people "perps" doesn't build a case.

 

[Garrison]

Bales and Garman are perps Jay, like it or not...Not sure what else to say, try and prove me wrong if you can.....

Why would anyone feel the need to do that? With practically every wall of text you post you make some new error to add to the pile that already exists and shows you are utterly inept. Every time you post about medical matters you discredit your claims to medical expertise, likewise with mathematics. You make outlandish claims about complex engineering based on nothing but guesswork and refuse to acknowledge your errors when contradicted by those who have the relevant expertise and skills. Indeed the only good reason for continuing to be involved in this thread is the chance to learn new things from those who do know about the subjects are so ignorant of.
No one fears your claims, because claims are all you have. All the objective evidence is against you and no one believes a word of your hoax nonsense Patrick1000. If you wish to go on being a case study in all the worst features of CTs that's your business but don't expect anyone to take your ideas seriously.

 

[Patrick1000]

Bales is a PERP, what is wall like about that?

Why would anyone feel the need to do that? With practically every wall of text you post you make some new error to add to the pile that already exists and shows you are utterly inept. Every time you post about medical matters you discredit your claims to medical expertise, likewise with mathematics. You make outlandish claims about complex engineering based on nothing but guesswork and refuse to acknowledge your errors when contradicted by those who have the relevant expertise and skills. Indeed the only good reason for continuing to be involved in this thread is the chance to learn new things from those who do know about the subjects are so ignorant of.
No one fears your claims, because claims are all you have. All the objective evidence is against you and no one believes a word of your hoax nonsense Patrick1000. If you wish to go on being a case study in all the worst features of CTs that's your business but don't expect anyone to take your ideas seriously.

Bales is a PERP,

what is wall like about that?

Garman is a PERP

Aaron is a PERP

Phillips is a ROYAL PERP

what is wall like about any of that? looks pretty simple to me, catch 'em lying and call 'em out..............

 

[Patrick1000]

Of course I have that worthless piece of kindling to be......

You claimed you have his book. You tell us. Or are you lying again?






I could if your premise wasn't hilariously wrong.

So which amateur astronomy club did you contact to verify your theory that stars cannot be identified through a telescope?

Of course I have that worthless piece of kindling to be......