Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
This Answers Many of The Questions So Far Posed About My Views On Apollo 13
There of course will be much much much more to say.
Rational for a Fraudulent Space Disaster
Actually, it is more than obvious to those of us doing serious Apollo research as to why the program directors of NASA's fraudulent Apollo Program thought it a good idea to "fake" a space disaster. I'll walk through some important points that have to do with the Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 Missions. In light of these points, it will become abundantly clear why it was desirable to stage this ultra fake, ever so ever so ever so super phony Apollo 13 disaster in space.
Consider the rather straight forward facts of the matter. Apollo 11 was "targeted" to land at the lunar location corresponding to 00 43' 53" north and 23 38' 51 east. These are the true coordinates that correspond to the point on the moon's surface that is at the center of those landing site ellipses depicted in the LAM-2 flown map and the more recently referenced Eagle descent monitoring chart. Now as the landing is fraudulent the maps are of course gridded bogusly as previously discussed, gridded bogusly such that the landing site ellipse center is marked erroneously, intentionally so by Department of Defense Map Makers; 00 42' 50" north and 23 42' 28" east.
Regardless of the true vs false coordinates as previously discussed , the "Honest Johns" of the Apollo Space Program, people like Eugene Shoemaker and the rest of the geology team, not to mention the non geologist map experts, these people of course had been preparing for the night of 07/20/1969 by intensely studying the targeted landing ellipse area, especially its center.
Now, say this had been a real Apollo 11 Mission. Say the thing was totally legit. And furthermore, let's say the astronauts did not run into any trouble with program alarms and what not on the way down. Let's say everything went ideally such that Aldrin and Armstrong landed at the targeted ellipse center. What would have happened differently that night?
Well many things, but with respect to the geologists and map specialists, even though the landing ellipse area was fairly "bland" as far as lunar terrain goes, nevertheless, the geologists and maps guys would have seen on tv the very area they had been studying with such insane diligence. They had images remember showing details of the landing site area. Relatively small rocks/boulders were discernible in these images, and other lunar features/objects as well. So despite the exotic barrenness, the lunar surface seen in on tv and ultimately in stills would have been FAMILIAR in some rather meaningful sense to Shoemaker and his colleagues, the map guys too. The terrain would have been RECOGNIZED AS THAT WHICH THEY HAD BEEN STUDYING SO ENTHUSIASTICALLY, RECOGNIZED AS TERRAIN THEY WERE ANTICIPATING.
As the whole thing was a big charade, they of course pretend the Eagle goes off course and then land in a featureless area, 5 miles from the intended targeted site. This way no one can say the area seen on tv and in the stills doesn't correspond with what had been anticipated. Hiding the bird is vital for several reasons. This issue here, avoidance of the anticipated terrain is obviously one of the more critical reasons as to why the Eagle had landed, but exactly where, well no one could say, not exactly anyway…….
Now keep in mind, the problem here with Apollo 11 was not the guidance and navigation. It was not as though the Eagle had a funky steering mechanism or something. The reason no one knew where the Eagle was had to do with the fact, so it was claimed anyway, that it simply wasn't tracked well, not by AGS, not by PNGS, not by MSFN. Of course this wasn't true in the pretended scenario. I have already emphasized that in the Mission Report table 5-IV one notes that they pretended they had tracked the Eagle quite well. So they SAID they did not know where the Eagle was, but the Apollo 11 Mission Report clearly shows they had generated consistent bogus data so the internal pretense as published anyway was that there had been good tracking all along. Their bogus scenario had it both ways, LOST BIRD and tracking fine all along……..
At the time of Apollo 12's launch, there was this perspective being pushed that the Apollo 11 landing had been botched, botched because the two "astronauts" Aldrin and Armstrong had landed 5 miles off target. This way, when they land right on top of the Surveyor 3, everyone in the phony world of NASA looks good. They have solved their problems, problems that never existed to begin with.
At any rate, the notion of their being a genuine guidance problem that lead toy the Eagle's going off course is more than not quite right now is it? As a matter of fact, such a notion is flat out incorrect. The truth is that were any of this real, one might very well anticipate, especially with regard to the first landing, the "astronauts" would not hit the targeted site. This or that might happen on the way down, and the "astronauts" would find themselves on the moon, but not where they had exactly planned. No big, right? So what ultimately strikes one as odd about all of this is NOT that the astronauts landed 5 miles off course, but rather that they simply weren't tracked to Tranquility Base. It was odd that the location of Tranquility Base was not known until after the astronauts returned from their pretended adventure. there never was a guidance problem in a meaningful sense. So the Eagle went late and so long…… So there was some residual radial velocity that carried the Eagle south……. The guidance system/navigation system performed well….. the bird was "lost", its place of rest not known,….. that was the real problem…. , the meaningful problem……
So Apollo 12 was supposed to show that they were able to do a pinpoint landing and drop a LM right next to an old Surveyor 3. But that whole pitch one can now see as rather misleading. This, as the problem with Apollo 11 was not so much that Armstrong wasn't guiding the Eagle well as he allegedly had to guide the bird manually, but rather once guided/navigated quite well as a matter of fact by Armstrong to the lunar surface, the TRACKING/LOCATING modalities were ALLEGED to have failed, failed in a relative sense. There was this perception, intentionally pressed and pushed by NASA that , "The Eagle was not full blown "LOST", it's around here somewhere, near such and such a place, we just do not know exactly where".
With Apollo 12 one sort of had the same situation as with Apollo 11 in some respects. The geologists and map makers knew the area around Surveyor 3 like the back of their hands. "What to do?", with regard to this was the question for the fraud perpetrators. When the fraudulent Apollo 12 Lander touched down on NASA's imaginary lunar surface, Shoemaker et al were expecting to see "such and such" on tv. So what does Bean do? He is no where near "such and such" . As such, he claims to break his television camera by pointing it at the sun. Now NASA doesn't have to deal with the production of a movie that includes a surveyor 3 replica that people will scrutinize to high holy heaven and so forth, not to mention scrutinize the well known topography of the area. The Apollo 12 costume crew did their staged photos and things have gone relatively well for them, well until now that is. Patrick1000 has unfortunately for Bean et al arrived to bust some astronaut chops here in 2012.
Now a live televised adventure broadcast from Fra Mauro would be an even more distinguishable event. The fraud perpetrators including the Apollo 13 "astronauts" themselves were not about to let Jim Lovell and Haise stage a landing at a mock Fra Mauro site. The NASA stage crew does not have phony moonscaping down well enough yet. They would be instantly busted for sure, pretending to land at such a readily identifiable site. Eugene Shoemaker would shout, "HEY!!!!!! THAT'S NOT FRA MAURO!!!!!!! THIS IS ALL SUPER PHONY!!!!!!!! " So what did they do?
They faked an explosion in an Apollo 13 Oxygen tank. And of course it is super fake. Teflon doesn't burn. Unless of course one is in a NASA lab trying to prove it does so that the whole scammy Apollo 13 Mission appears credible which of course it simply cannot be. Details about the scammy explosion in a later post as well as why one can now confidently name EECOM flight officer Sy Leibergot as a perpetrator. However, that is enough for one day. I'll end this by pointing out the explosion was supposed to be equivalent to 7 lbs of TNT and the combustable was alleged to have been TEFLON!!!!! Ever hear anything more ridiculous? I haven't………
Frying pans blowing up space ships???!!!
There of course will be much much much more to say.
Rational for a Fraudulent Space Disaster
Actually, it is more than obvious to those of us doing serious Apollo research as to why the program directors of NASA's fraudulent Apollo Program thought it a good idea to "fake" a space disaster. I'll walk through some important points that have to do with the Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 Missions. In light of these points, it will become abundantly clear why it was desirable to stage this ultra fake, ever so ever so ever so super phony Apollo 13 disaster in space.
Consider the rather straight forward facts of the matter. Apollo 11 was "targeted" to land at the lunar location corresponding to 00 43' 53" north and 23 38' 51 east. These are the true coordinates that correspond to the point on the moon's surface that is at the center of those landing site ellipses depicted in the LAM-2 flown map and the more recently referenced Eagle descent monitoring chart. Now as the landing is fraudulent the maps are of course gridded bogusly as previously discussed, gridded bogusly such that the landing site ellipse center is marked erroneously, intentionally so by Department of Defense Map Makers; 00 42' 50" north and 23 42' 28" east.
Regardless of the true vs false coordinates as previously discussed , the "Honest Johns" of the Apollo Space Program, people like Eugene Shoemaker and the rest of the geology team, not to mention the non geologist map experts, these people of course had been preparing for the night of 07/20/1969 by intensely studying the targeted landing ellipse area, especially its center.
Now, say this had been a real Apollo 11 Mission. Say the thing was totally legit. And furthermore, let's say the astronauts did not run into any trouble with program alarms and what not on the way down. Let's say everything went ideally such that Aldrin and Armstrong landed at the targeted ellipse center. What would have happened differently that night?
Well many things, but with respect to the geologists and map specialists, even though the landing ellipse area was fairly "bland" as far as lunar terrain goes, nevertheless, the geologists and maps guys would have seen on tv the very area they had been studying with such insane diligence. They had images remember showing details of the landing site area. Relatively small rocks/boulders were discernible in these images, and other lunar features/objects as well. So despite the exotic barrenness, the lunar surface seen in on tv and ultimately in stills would have been FAMILIAR in some rather meaningful sense to Shoemaker and his colleagues, the map guys too. The terrain would have been RECOGNIZED AS THAT WHICH THEY HAD BEEN STUDYING SO ENTHUSIASTICALLY, RECOGNIZED AS TERRAIN THEY WERE ANTICIPATING.
As the whole thing was a big charade, they of course pretend the Eagle goes off course and then land in a featureless area, 5 miles from the intended targeted site. This way no one can say the area seen on tv and in the stills doesn't correspond with what had been anticipated. Hiding the bird is vital for several reasons. This issue here, avoidance of the anticipated terrain is obviously one of the more critical reasons as to why the Eagle had landed, but exactly where, well no one could say, not exactly anyway…….
Now keep in mind, the problem here with Apollo 11 was not the guidance and navigation. It was not as though the Eagle had a funky steering mechanism or something. The reason no one knew where the Eagle was had to do with the fact, so it was claimed anyway, that it simply wasn't tracked well, not by AGS, not by PNGS, not by MSFN. Of course this wasn't true in the pretended scenario. I have already emphasized that in the Mission Report table 5-IV one notes that they pretended they had tracked the Eagle quite well. So they SAID they did not know where the Eagle was, but the Apollo 11 Mission Report clearly shows they had generated consistent bogus data so the internal pretense as published anyway was that there had been good tracking all along. Their bogus scenario had it both ways, LOST BIRD and tracking fine all along……..
At the time of Apollo 12's launch, there was this perspective being pushed that the Apollo 11 landing had been botched, botched because the two "astronauts" Aldrin and Armstrong had landed 5 miles off target. This way, when they land right on top of the Surveyor 3, everyone in the phony world of NASA looks good. They have solved their problems, problems that never existed to begin with.
At any rate, the notion of their being a genuine guidance problem that lead toy the Eagle's going off course is more than not quite right now is it? As a matter of fact, such a notion is flat out incorrect. The truth is that were any of this real, one might very well anticipate, especially with regard to the first landing, the "astronauts" would not hit the targeted site. This or that might happen on the way down, and the "astronauts" would find themselves on the moon, but not where they had exactly planned. No big, right? So what ultimately strikes one as odd about all of this is NOT that the astronauts landed 5 miles off course, but rather that they simply weren't tracked to Tranquility Base. It was odd that the location of Tranquility Base was not known until after the astronauts returned from their pretended adventure. there never was a guidance problem in a meaningful sense. So the Eagle went late and so long…… So there was some residual radial velocity that carried the Eagle south……. The guidance system/navigation system performed well….. the bird was "lost", its place of rest not known,….. that was the real problem…. , the meaningful problem……
So Apollo 12 was supposed to show that they were able to do a pinpoint landing and drop a LM right next to an old Surveyor 3. But that whole pitch one can now see as rather misleading. This, as the problem with Apollo 11 was not so much that Armstrong wasn't guiding the Eagle well as he allegedly had to guide the bird manually, but rather once guided/navigated quite well as a matter of fact by Armstrong to the lunar surface, the TRACKING/LOCATING modalities were ALLEGED to have failed, failed in a relative sense. There was this perception, intentionally pressed and pushed by NASA that , "The Eagle was not full blown "LOST", it's around here somewhere, near such and such a place, we just do not know exactly where".
With Apollo 12 one sort of had the same situation as with Apollo 11 in some respects. The geologists and map makers knew the area around Surveyor 3 like the back of their hands. "What to do?", with regard to this was the question for the fraud perpetrators. When the fraudulent Apollo 12 Lander touched down on NASA's imaginary lunar surface, Shoemaker et al were expecting to see "such and such" on tv. So what does Bean do? He is no where near "such and such" . As such, he claims to break his television camera by pointing it at the sun. Now NASA doesn't have to deal with the production of a movie that includes a surveyor 3 replica that people will scrutinize to high holy heaven and so forth, not to mention scrutinize the well known topography of the area. The Apollo 12 costume crew did their staged photos and things have gone relatively well for them, well until now that is. Patrick1000 has unfortunately for Bean et al arrived to bust some astronaut chops here in 2012.
Now a live televised adventure broadcast from Fra Mauro would be an even more distinguishable event. The fraud perpetrators including the Apollo 13 "astronauts" themselves were not about to let Jim Lovell and Haise stage a landing at a mock Fra Mauro site. The NASA stage crew does not have phony moonscaping down well enough yet. They would be instantly busted for sure, pretending to land at such a readily identifiable site. Eugene Shoemaker would shout, "HEY!!!!!! THAT'S NOT FRA MAURO!!!!!!! THIS IS ALL SUPER PHONY!!!!!!!! " So what did they do?
They faked an explosion in an Apollo 13 Oxygen tank. And of course it is super fake. Teflon doesn't burn. Unless of course one is in a NASA lab trying to prove it does so that the whole scammy Apollo 13 Mission appears credible which of course it simply cannot be. Details about the scammy explosion in a later post as well as why one can now confidently name EECOM flight officer Sy Leibergot as a perpetrator. However, that is enough for one day. I'll end this by pointing out the explosion was supposed to be equivalent to 7 lbs of TNT and the combustable was alleged to have been TEFLON!!!!! Ever hear anything more ridiculous? I haven't………
Frying pans blowing up space ships???!!!
