Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga
- Thread starter Patrick1000
- Start date
- Status
Dcdrac
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2006
- Messages
- 5,141
Also the radio telescope at Jodrell Bank in Chesire UK run by Manchester University tracked the Apollo transmissions and the spacecraft too.
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
Patrick has claimed, far back up the thread, that the Soviets were faking their own space program for the same reasons as the United States, namely, to weaponize space, and keep other nations and their own populations from freaking out about it.
No, it is immaterial, unless you can show how much teflon is necessary.
Which you are apparently incompetent to calculate.
If under those circumstances teflon releases all the energy of decomposing cheese, then almost any amount would be insufficient. If instead it releases energy the way finely powdered iron in air does...
You focus on the amount because it is easy to calculate, and you ignore the efficacy because it is hard to calculate. Paracelcus would be proud.
You haven't demonstrated any fraud whatsoever....has anyone ever told you that no one agrees with you??
Could have sworn it's been mentioned once or twice.
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,429
In Patrick's particular fantasy, Apollo did indeed fly to the moon, multiple times, but it was unmanned since it was, in his view, far too dangerous for anyone to be allowed to go.
Instead, he claims to believe NASA paid for fully functional manned craft to be designed and built, but then secretly modified them at the last minute in unspecified ways to make them possible to fly unmanned, and then to land and deploy a secret cargo of unspecified military hardware, all automatically.
All of this is entirely unevidenced of course, and he has never given us any inkling of what exactly he thinks NASA could have done to modify Apollo, nor what its secret payload consisted of or how it landed and was deployed without humans. It might be fun to ask him what equipment exactly he thinks NASA put on the moon, and in particular why they had to go back six more times. It might be even more fun to hear him explain another gaping hole in his story: if NASA needed a completely automated spacecraft to carry secret cargo instead of men, why didn't they just order a completely automated manned spacecraft?
Why did you ignore my "dare"? When will you be presenting those "professionals" that think Apollo was faked?
Why do you continue to make "boasts", then back away from them? Don't you understand that people reading your posts can see you for what you are??
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
Which of the experiments done by the Cortright Committee
Which of the experiments done by the Cortright Committee demonstrated that 0.13 pounds of Teflon were available for combustion SUSpilot, specific reference please? Likewise, which experiments, again specifics are indeed mandatory given the repeat-ability concern, were done by the Investigation Committee that demonstrate explicitly what it was that had occurred to oxygen tank number two which resulted in rendering some of the tank's aluminum possibly combustion vulnerable?
I have looked at the Cortright Report, its appendices referencing their experiments and their presentation to congress. Nowhere in this morass of BULL does one find any detailed experimental specifics providing the interested with how it was that Apollo 13 Explosion Investigators determined how much fuel was available to blow the tank.
Why 0.13 pounds of Teflon? Why this figure after the tank had been heated to 1000 degrees? When Apollo 13 allegedly lifted off on 04/11/1969, its aluminum in oxygen tank two was not viewed as combustion vulnerable. What had happened, or might have happened anyway, to the aluminum in that tank before or after the day of the alleged launch that rendered the aluminum once noncombustible, now combustible? Surely a 10-20 joule spark cannot ignite cryotank aluminum. What happened such that this may have occurred? How much of the aluminum inside oxygen cryotank number two was combustion ready? Why did they view the Teflon and not the aluminum as more likely than not the culprit? What if they GUESSED wrong? What if it was the aluminum primarily responsible? If they did not GUESS, what data lead them to their conclusion it was probably the Teflon and not the aluminum?
These are simple preliminaries, much more to follow, though obviously , this Cortright Commission business is indeed a show stopper. It would seem not a one of the investigators had a brain in his or her head.
As an aside, the best way to have gone about this would have been to have worked toward actually blowing tanks, as many as it took, even if it took ten years, to show what it was that happened. Of course none of this explosion in space business did really occur, though I am happy to entertain the alternative.
Experimental specifics if you please SUSpilot, I am ever so interested in learning about your exciting find.......
Which of the experiments done by the Cortright Committee demonstrated that 0.13 pounds of Teflon were available for combustion SUSpilot, specific reference please? Likewise, which experiments, again specifics are indeed mandatory given the repeat-ability concern, were done by the Investigation Committee that demonstrate explicitly what it was that had occurred to oxygen tank number two which resulted in rendering some of the tank's aluminum possibly combustion vulnerable?
I have looked at the Cortright Report, its appendices referencing their experiments and their presentation to congress. Nowhere in this morass of BULL does one find any detailed experimental specifics providing the interested with how it was that Apollo 13 Explosion Investigators determined how much fuel was available to blow the tank.
Why 0.13 pounds of Teflon? Why this figure after the tank had been heated to 1000 degrees? When Apollo 13 allegedly lifted off on 04/11/1969, its aluminum in oxygen tank two was not viewed as combustion vulnerable. What had happened, or might have happened anyway, to the aluminum in that tank before or after the day of the alleged launch that rendered the aluminum once noncombustible, now combustible? Surely a 10-20 joule spark cannot ignite cryotank aluminum. What happened such that this may have occurred? How much of the aluminum inside oxygen cryotank number two was combustion ready? Why did they view the Teflon and not the aluminum as more likely than not the culprit? What if they GUESSED wrong? What if it was the aluminum primarily responsible? If they did not GUESS, what data lead them to their conclusion it was probably the Teflon and not the aluminum?
These are simple preliminaries, much more to follow, though obviously , this Cortright Commission business is indeed a show stopper. It would seem not a one of the investigators had a brain in his or her head.
As an aside, the best way to have gone about this would have been to have worked toward actually blowing tanks, as many as it took, even if it took ten years, to show what it was that happened. Of course none of this explosion in space business did really occur, though I am happy to entertain the alternative.
Experimental specifics if you please SUSpilot, I am ever so interested in learning about your exciting find.......
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
How interesting........
So Jay, are the Apollo 13 Investigators entitled to simply CLAIM 0.13 pounds of Teflon were available to combust and blow the tank? Same to point to you as I made to Southwind17, the investigators CLAIMED 0.13 pounds of Teflon was available to blow the tank. I MADE NO SUCH CLAIM. It is the Apollo 13 Investigators not me that are charged, as any scientist would be, with producing evidence to support his/her claims. If they have no support, their claim must be viewed as vacuous, which it of course is. Same point with the bogus aluminum claim.
Gee I feel like a broken record here. Why don't you guys get a real NASA engineer on this case, I have my cadre of sliderul armed 16 year olds ready to take him/her on with regard to this point.
So Jay, are the Apollo 13 Investigators entitled to simply CLAIM 0.13 pounds of Teflon were available to combust and blow the tank? Same to point to you as I made to Southwind17, the investigators CLAIMED 0.13 pounds of Teflon was available to blow the tank. I MADE NO SUCH CLAIM. It is the Apollo 13 Investigators not me that are charged, as any scientist would be, with producing evidence to support his/her claims. If they have no support, their claim must be viewed as vacuous, which it of course is. Same point with the bogus aluminum claim.
Gee I feel like a broken record here. Why don't you guys get a real NASA engineer on this case, I have my cadre of sliderul armed 16 year olds ready to take him/her on with regard to this point.
The newspaper report reminds of another Apollo 13 question Patrick1000 has dodged. If NASA faked the accident why did they choose to fake a cause that would lay the blame at their door? Why not set it up to look like a micrometeorite or some other 'act of god' that wouldn't tarnish their heroic effort to bring Apollo 13 home?
Of course since he is still ducking the questions on Teflon and Oxygen, and refusing JayUtah's offer to arrange a face to face with those Patrick is accusing I'm not expecting him to answer it any time soon.
Of course since he is still ducking the questions on Teflon and Oxygen, and refusing JayUtah's offer to arrange a face to face with those Patrick is accusing I'm not expecting him to answer it any time soon.
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
The Russians were at least advanced if not more in their space militarization program
The Russians were at least as advanced if not more in their space militarization program as we were. It would seem their astronaut acting schools were more capable than ours in turning out credible thespians to be sure.
Be that as it may, the Ruskies were doing the exact same thing; measuring distances, gravitational constants and so forth for ICBM targeting, placing surveillance/reconnaissance equipment in space, developing Almaz, developing a hypersonic/supra-atmospheric bomber, blah blah blah. The last thing the Ruskies would do would be to call us on our jive and spoil their party.
Think about that Dcdrac, the most important parameter to know with respect to targeting an ICBM is the strength of the earth's gravitational field. The most accurate way to make that determination is to measure the distance form the Earth to the moon with a laser. Our first LRRR provided that figure and more to US military concerns. As such, the LRRR was/is a WEAPON.
The Russians were at least as advanced if not more in their space militarization program as we were. It would seem their astronaut acting schools were more capable than ours in turning out credible thespians to be sure.
Be that as it may, the Ruskies were doing the exact same thing; measuring distances, gravitational constants and so forth for ICBM targeting, placing surveillance/reconnaissance equipment in space, developing Almaz, developing a hypersonic/supra-atmospheric bomber, blah blah blah. The last thing the Ruskies would do would be to call us on our jive and spoil their party.
Think about that Dcdrac, the most important parameter to know with respect to targeting an ICBM is the strength of the earth's gravitational field. The most accurate way to make that determination is to measure the distance form the Earth to the moon with a laser. Our first LRRR provided that figure and more to US military concerns. As such, the LRRR was/is a WEAPON.
sts60
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,107
Dcdrac, don't bother; the OP has neither any evidence at all for any of his claims, nor any way to explain the enormous amounts of evidence for the reality of Apollo. He's just looping the extended dance remix of ignorant "if I ran the zoo" claims, fueled by Google-based quote mining.
He has also lied continually about his qualifications, arguments, and posting history (heck, even his name), and contradicted himself constantly. Even the title of this thread is a lie; Eagle was never "lost" in any important sense of the word, as was pointed out at length to his many sock-puppet incarnations on both Bad Astronomy and apollohoax. The main purpose of this thread seems to be for him to fling childish taunts at Apollo astronauts and engineers and boast about he would beat them up in one-on-one debate, but he has been offered the opportunity - only to turn tail and run like mad.
He has also lied continually about his qualifications, arguments, and posting history (heck, even his name), and contradicted himself constantly. Even the title of this thread is a lie; Eagle was never "lost" in any important sense of the word, as was pointed out at length to his many sock-puppet incarnations on both Bad Astronomy and apollohoax. The main purpose of this thread seems to be for him to fling childish taunts at Apollo astronauts and engineers and boast about he would beat them up in one-on-one debate, but he has been offered the opportunity - only to turn tail and run like mad.
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
My view Dcdrac is that the Apollo crafts actually landed on the moon....
My view Dcdrac is that the Apollo crafts actually landed on the moon. One would have EXPECTED them to be tracked on their genuine journeys.
That said, they were unmanned journeys, unmanned in the sense that the Apollo astronauts never saw, let alone landed on the moon. The US manned space program was/is real. That said, no one has ever left the earth's gravitation pull and ventured across cislunar space.
There is a good chance that what was landed on the surface by the Apollo program fraudsters/military personal, were modified lunar modules, among perhaps other things over time. The "modules", whatever they were, carried military scientific equipment for surveillance and reconnaissance. Additionally I believe equipment was more likely than not positioned at earth-moon libration points. From there, the earth could be "studied"/surveiled/reconnoitered from a relatively safe, with regard to anti-satellite concerns, distance. Placing a satellite on the back side of the earth, opposite the moon, would complete the "network at a distance" and give great surveillance/reconnaissance perspective from hard to get at posts 240,000 miles away. The "back side" may have been covered by a satellite(s) closer in. The US space program developed a hypersonic/supra-atmospheric manned bomber/DYNA-SOAR aka SPACE SHUTTLE as well as space-labs/platforms of various ilk to serve in MOL and Almaz type capacities. This is an extremely limited list of American military equipment of course Dcdrac.
Essentially all those working on Apollo, all 400,000, thought it legit. Perpetrators I have identified include; all of the astronauts on Apollo Missions 7 through 17, Kranz, Garman, Schiesser, Phillips Lowe, Webb, Paine, Mueller, Johnson, Nixon, Aaron, DOD map makers that made the LAM-2 and Apollo 11 landing map, Harland, Kraft. Kennedy knew more likely than not. My list will of course grow as my investigation continues.
Jeffrey Kluger is complicit and may be an insider.
Leibergot, and Houbolt are almost for sure both clean.
Lunney probably clean, but needs a closer look.
All nations with relatively sophisticated intelligence agencies as well as some US "allies" for other reasons know that Apollo was military, landed equipment and not men on the moon; Israel, Soviet Union, France, England, Brazil, China blah blah blah. It doesn't mean this stuff is blabbed openly Dcdrac. Every president after Kennedy and probably Kennedy himself knew Apollo to be fraudulent as a manned space enterprise and knew it to be at one and the same time a most serious military undertaking........
My view Dcdrac is that the Apollo crafts actually landed on the moon. One would have EXPECTED them to be tracked on their genuine journeys.
That said, they were unmanned journeys, unmanned in the sense that the Apollo astronauts never saw, let alone landed on the moon. The US manned space program was/is real. That said, no one has ever left the earth's gravitation pull and ventured across cislunar space.
There is a good chance that what was landed on the surface by the Apollo program fraudsters/military personal, were modified lunar modules, among perhaps other things over time. The "modules", whatever they were, carried military scientific equipment for surveillance and reconnaissance. Additionally I believe equipment was more likely than not positioned at earth-moon libration points. From there, the earth could be "studied"/surveiled/reconnoitered from a relatively safe, with regard to anti-satellite concerns, distance. Placing a satellite on the back side of the earth, opposite the moon, would complete the "network at a distance" and give great surveillance/reconnaissance perspective from hard to get at posts 240,000 miles away. The "back side" may have been covered by a satellite(s) closer in. The US space program developed a hypersonic/supra-atmospheric manned bomber/DYNA-SOAR aka SPACE SHUTTLE as well as space-labs/platforms of various ilk to serve in MOL and Almaz type capacities. This is an extremely limited list of American military equipment of course Dcdrac.
Essentially all those working on Apollo, all 400,000, thought it legit. Perpetrators I have identified include; all of the astronauts on Apollo Missions 7 through 17, Kranz, Garman, Schiesser, Phillips Lowe, Webb, Paine, Mueller, Johnson, Nixon, Aaron, DOD map makers that made the LAM-2 and Apollo 11 landing map, Harland, Kraft. Kennedy knew more likely than not. My list will of course grow as my investigation continues.
Jeffrey Kluger is complicit and may be an insider.
Leibergot, and Houbolt are almost for sure both clean.
Lunney probably clean, but needs a closer look.
All nations with relatively sophisticated intelligence agencies as well as some US "allies" for other reasons know that Apollo was military, landed equipment and not men on the moon; Israel, Soviet Union, France, England, Brazil, China blah blah blah. It doesn't mean this stuff is blabbed openly Dcdrac. Every president after Kennedy and probably Kennedy himself knew Apollo to be fraudulent as a manned space enterprise and knew it to be at one and the same time a most serious military undertaking........
Kennedy was dead 5 years before the first Apollo mission, so how could he "know" the missions were "fraudulent"?
PetersCreek
Unregistered
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2007
- Messages
- 549
Great...an admission that Apollo hardware was tracked on its way to the Moon. Yet...
...(not so) oddly enough, you provide zero evidence that this additional hardware was tracked in any way whatever...nor that any transmissions from these points was ever detected...nor that the hardware existed at all, anywhere outside of your own imagination.
That evidence exists, but you refuse to accept it.
...and it's YOU who are claiming that the astronauts, technicians, engineers, heck even dead Presidents, are all a bunch of liars...
The burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders, but you have shown that it's just too heavy for you to carry.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Or, parsimoniously speaking, neither program involved the kind of fakery you imagine.
Why? If their program was so much more successful than ours, and easier to hide, then why wouldn't they benefit on the world stage from having our inferior program revealed to the world and dismantled in shame?
To hear you tell the story, NASA was so inept at hiding its military objectives that even a bike repairman from San Francisco could figure it out. All its documents are blatant forgeries. Yet no one in the Kremlin thought to point out that America was cheating during the height of the Cold War?
No, Patrick. You're not qualified to make this determination.
Refuted a thousand times. You have no relevant expertise, you cannot recognize the expertise in others, and you patently have no intention of paying the slightest heed to anyone who can correct you.
Please dazzle us with your expertise and post the computations you promised more than two weeks ago. And I believe we've gone more than a month now without you supplying your contact information. I have a plethora of NASA engineers waiting for you to present your findings to them in person. Heck, we'll even do it at Ames, which is right down the road from where you say you live. I'm sure you can brave the 101 for the chance to put those NASA engineer "perps" in their place.
We're waiting...
threadworm
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Messages
- 1,832
Draw us a diagram. I'm curious as to where the 'back side' of the Earth is. What information would they be able to glean from such a venture? Do have references to the equipment that would perform these monitoring tasks?
While you're doing that, have a read of the link I posted showing that the 1530 psi figure that sent you so apoplectic in the Oakland Tribune was freely available in a NASA News reference 2 years before Apollo 13.
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
Why do you keep parroting the "0.13 pounds of Teflon" claim when it's repeatedly been shown to be incorrect?
Begging the question of whether normal aluminum is vulnerable to combustion.
Erm, they were going by the known masses of the tank's components.
See above.
News flash, Patrick. Aluminum is combustible even in a normal atmosphere. And again, in a concentration of oxygen 285 times that of a normal atmosphere, it's far more combustible.
Even granting for the sake of argument that your claim about the spark is correct, why are you assuming that the aluminum couldn't have been ignited by the burning Teflon?
See above.
The report states that both could have burned. But the Teflon was actually in contact with the electrical wires, so it is assumed to have been the initial fuel.
No.
No. You are not even remotely qualified to make any such determination, and, as usual, you show a gross lack of understanding of even the most basic principles of forensic engineering.
You have presented zero, yes zero, real evidence to support this claim; merely ignorant speculation and supposition.
Wow...just Wow....
- Status