Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
Patrick1000 said:
Fascinating, no? , and nothing less than hard evidence of Apollo Program fraudulance. One cannot possibly read/hear this interesting tidbit any other way.......
Click to expand...

There are a number of questions waiting to be answered Patrick. Why don't you answer them before changing the subject?
 
Patrick1000 said:
Fascinating, no? , and nothing less than hard evidence of Apollo Program fraudulance. One cannot possibly read/hear this interesting tidbit any other way.......
Click to expand...

How many times have you said that about something? And how often has anyone agreed with you?

You have outstanding questions about Teflon, Oxygen, and meeting those you've accused of perpetrating a hoax among many others, please concentrate on those before adding any more mistakes.
 
Post #6833, Patrick...


Can you address that post?... or will you continue to ignore your obvious error?
 
Patrick....still awaiting the answer to my question, re...

Were Armstrong's X-15 flights "fake".

The "almost" disasterous flight of Gemini 8...was that "fake", too???



To avoid drawing this out, Patrick, when you read this, could you post "if" you are going to answer?

...and if you will not, just say so, then we don't have to "waste time" waiting for you to answer...
 
Jack by the hedge said:
He did rather obviously reveal that he thought Gene Kranz just made up the lifeboat idea on the spur of the moment (or pretended to, as Patrick's fantasy world is all scripted) from which we can all logically infer that he didn't imagine the scenario had been considered at all (by the non-perps) let alone simulated. Now he knows that's wrong, he's stuck in an impossible position of trying to claim what he really meant was he thinks Kranz's speech said they definitely did need to use the LM as a lifeboat, which it patently doesn't.
Click to expand...

Oh, I certainly do not envy Patrick's "plight"....but he only has himself to blame.
 
I'm doing this from memory, and I have a student to meet this evening, so someone (other than Patrick!) please either confirm or correct me on this: Didn't someone on the floor of Mission Control hear the news story and pass it on to the PAO, who then rebroadcast it? Doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility to me.

Also, Patrick, not every broadcast of every day is archived. Especially in those days, as even relatively inexpensive recording media were not cheap and took a lot of room. There's a lot of television history that is just flat missing from that era because of that.

Now, Patrick - you've gone and changed subjects on us. There are some open questions from Apollo 13:

Did you figure out if the spark in a tank of LOX would ignite PTFE? If so, would he boiling O2 rupture the tank?

Is it unreasonable for someone ultimately responsible for the safety of the crew to remind everyone under his charge that the LM was available as a lifeboat if necessary?

Have you provided Jay with your contact info yet?

I don't know about the rest of the posters here, but I'd really like to hae your answers.
 
R.A.F. said:
Patrick....still awaiting the answer to my question, re...

Were Armstrong's X-15 flights "fake".

The "almost" disasterous flight of Gemini 8...was that "fake", too???



To avoid drawing this out, Patrick, when you read this, could you post "if" you are going to answer?

...and if you will not, just say so, then we don't have to "waste time" waiting for you to answer...
Click to expand...

I would suggest that refusing to answer means he concedes that he was wrong, has no answer and will not answer - you can then move all those claims to the 'failed' column
 
Patrick1000 said:
There is a well known tale...
Click to expand...
A tale already told in this thread, about 5 months ago.
I have even read that one television newsmen announced Lick's good news on the air during a live, night of the landing broadcast.
Click to expand...
I read that too. I read it was Walter Cronkite. I read it in this thread. Didn't you?
Well I have searched and searched for that broadcast, never found it...
Click to expand...
Are you claiming Cronkite did not mistakenly tell America about the success of the lunar laser experiment? A simple 'yes' or 'no' would help here.
 
Patrick1000 said:
There is a well known tale from Apollo 11's pseudo-apocryphal annals regarding the exploits of an overzealous reporter... blah blah blah blah
Click to expand...


Ah, yes, changing the subject yet again--in other words, another admission of argumentative failure.

I'm going to bring this up again, because you haven't addressed it directly, Patrick1000/fattydash/Dr.Tea/totallycomplexdude/etc., etc.:

The offer has been made for you to be put in touch with some of those you accuse as "perps." Why are you afraid of facing them if you are so sure of your arguments?

When are you going to put up or shut up, Patrick?
 
abaddon said:
I see you prediction was indeed correct. Can I subscribe to any newsletter or pamphlet you may have?
Click to expand...


Nah, I was wrong. I thought he'd completely change the subject and go to something he hasn't had a chance to get wrong yet. So I was expecting a long, completely incorrect treatise on the Van Allen belts or something like that. Predicting a new wall-o-text is like predicting fire is going to be hot. No challenge whatsoever.

Instead we just get a rehash of the LRRR experiment.

Color me disappointed.
 
Of course not.....

Jack by the hedge said:
A tale already told in this thread, about 5 months ago.
I read that too. I read it was Walter Cronkite. I read it in this thread. Didn't you?

Are you claiming Cronkite did not mistakenly tell America about the success of the lunar laser experiment? A simple 'yes' or 'no' would help here.
Click to expand...

Of course not.

First of all, the video I referenced was an NBC newscast tape, Cronkite worked for CBS. I have looked at many many newscast tapes from the night of the Apollo 11 landing and have yet to find one in which a newscaster announced successful targeting of the LRRR. So if there is a tape with Cronkite making such a statement, I have yet to see/hear it. This is why I referred to this stuff as "pseudo-apocryphal".

If you have a reference for a Cronkite announcement of successful LRRR targeting, by all means lay it on us.

My reference emphasizes that the explanation for all this may have to do with people's mistaking a PAO announcement for a newscaster announcement. It is the NASA PAO in the NBC broadcast that can be heard making the statement, in real time, with the astronauts on the moon, that Lick Observatory has successfully targeted the LRRR.

Another point, this one unrelated. This deals with Apollo 13.

Go to the YouTube video; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BXNAEhoxsE

This is a video of Sy Liebergot's "APOLLO 13, ANATOMY OF THE FAILURE" talk. Go in to the video one hour, nine minutes and 30 seconds. You'll hear Liebergot talk about how John Young is fond of making the claim that during the emergency, Young was standing behind Liebergot and could tell that what Liebergot was dealing with was not instrumentational. Liebergot makes the obvious point that Young wasn't even present during the early period of the "failure".

The John Young tall tale is very much like the John Aaron tall tale in that these guys know more than anyone else not because they are smarter, but because they are fraud insiders.

It is sadly comical that during this video Liebergot refers to Aaron as someone smarter than he is. Aaron is no smarter than Liebergot. A fraud insider he is. That is the source of Aaron's "genius", pathetically so.

One last point. In the Liebergot book, the EECOM provides us with actual replicas of the screens he viewed at the time of the "failure" . These can be found in the book's appendix.

Before the "explosion", the pressure in both O2 tanks was telemetered back to Houston at a little over 900 PSI in both tanks. In the readout at the time of the alleged fire, the PSI in O2 tank 2 read 996 PSI. The tank was said to have been capable of retaining its structural integrity up to internal pressures of 2000 PSI. Hard to believe that would have been viewed as an adequate margin of safety. But be that as it may, what was it about this data, fuel cell failure, low nitrogen pressure in line one, and so forth that lead our clairvoyant Johns, Aaron and Young, to realize this was not instrumentational. What a scam! Liebergot was/IS twice as smart as these clowns and he could not tell. Read his book, listen to the Apollo 13 EECOM tapes and watch Liebergot's videos. It is all in there.

Of course Young is busted dead to rights, pretending to be somewhere, or better said somewhen, at a time when he most certainly WAS NOT.

The hard evidence begins to mount and mount and mount. Thank you Sy, THANK YOU!
 
Patrick1000 said:
The hard evidence begins to mount and mount and mount. Thank you Sy, THANK YOU!
Click to expand...

The hard evidence has been there all along and it fully supports Apollo. You have simply continually misrepresented and misunderstood that evidence to support your wild theories, which have been shot down time and again. When are you going to admit you the original claims you made about Teflon, Oxygen, and the lifeboat scenario were wrong? When are you going to take up the offer to confront those you accuse of fraud? Please spare us another pointless demonstration of your lack of understanding of engineering and address those issues.
 
I would be happy to debate Kranz and Lovell Jay, bring them on.....

JayUtah said:
Nope. The question, as proven by the multitude of endorsements here, is whether Patrick1000 actually believes the nonsense that he's spewing enough to confront Kranz, Lovell, etc. directly about it.

You have "called out" several important Apollo functionaries, labelling them "perps" for no better reason than their failure to conform to your expectations. Now we will see whether you are willing and able to put any substance behind that callout. I will facilitate direct contact -- not anonymous web tantrums -- between you and the Apollo workers I know. We'll see how well you fare.

You express prodigious confidence when there are no real consequences of failure. Let's see how well you work without a safety net, the way the rest of us in the real world have to work.

Contact info, please?
Click to expand...

I would be happy to debate Kranz and Lovell Jay, bring them on....
 
Last edited:
Patrick1000 said:
Of course not.
Click to expand...
Excellent. Now convince me the NASA PAO you refer to was not repeating erroneous information about Lick observatory obtained from the TV. Bring evidence. Establish your timeline. So far you got nothin'.


...You'll hear Liebergot talk about how John Young is fond of making the claim that during the emergency, Young was standing behind Liebergot and could tell that what Liebergot was dealing with was not instrumentational. Liebergot makes the obvious point that Young wasn't even present during the early period of the "failure".
Click to expand...
Do you appreciate that your 'evidence' for Apollo being fake is now an anecdote about an anecdote? And even then it requires a Patrick-style narrow interpretation of these anecdotes to try to establish a conflict between the two. Again you got nothin'.

Next?

Before the "explosion", the pressure in both O2 tanks was telemetered back to Houston at a little over 900 PSI in both tanks. In the readout at the time of the alleged fire, the PSI in O2 tank 2 read 996 PSI. The tank was said to have been capable of retaining its structural integrity up to internal pressures of 2000 PSI. Hard to believe that would have been viewed as an adequate margin of safety.
Click to expand...
We already established you have no clue about engineering so it doesn't matter at all but, just out of curiosity, what part of an over 100% margin of safety do you find hard to believe? I'm certain it can't be less believable than the idea that you believe your ramblings will ever convince a sane person that Apollo wasn't real. Surely you only continue this litany of failure because your pride won't let you walk away.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom