tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga
- Thread starter Patrick1000
- Start date
- Status
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
Well I was accompanying a USAian physicist, they were very accommodating people with this foreigner......Not possible... Anders says those are secret NRO property.
Besides... you're a furriner, you wouldn't be allowed.
I think they like being appreciated for their work.
Anyway I've heard back regarding the Apollo blueprints; they haven't been digitised as yet (lots of data, fewer resources, little demand) however they can be viewed at the USSRC by arrangement ($20 admission).
The Marshall center itself also has copies (as does the US National Archive) but isn't generally open to public access; an accredited academic, researcher, journalist or author could get a pass quite easily I'm told.
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
I think it is rather obvious.....
I think it is rather obvious.....Kranz and the other preps obviously are arrogant and foolish enough to think that whatever they say will be believed and not questioned, and for the most part, employing that strategy worked out pretty well for them.
That said, making a claim on April 15 1970 that "a heater or fan circuit may have shorted and that lead to the explosion" won't get you in trouble in an up front real-time fashion. The Cortright Commission had not yet convened. There had been no determination of "cause" made at the time of the bogus April 15 1970 newspaper reports. The explosion was but a day, perhaps a day and a half old, even taking relativistic considerations into account.
It is only AFTER the Cortright Report came out that making a statement about a short or circuit in a heater or fan on April 15 1969 should be viewed IN RETROSPECT as more than suspect. It should as a matter of fact in retrospect be viewed as more than flat out damning, more than full on incriminating. It is only in light of the commission findings that the April 15 report's insane accuracy can and should be viewed as preposterous.
A meteor hit would have required a different type of phony photo, one showing damage imparted by an external energy source. The meteor hit was viewed as not as readily amenable to faking for myriad reasons. It was far easier to come up with this bogus blown O2 tank number two presentation.
All that said, and again to emphasize, a real forensic investigation would have worked toward a model in which tanks were actually blown. Every alleged step would have been repeated and then BOOM !!!! look everybody!!!! there is our proof and documentation as to how this all occurred. Of course given the real circumstances/fraud, this could not be done.
Actually, someone with enough cash motivation and expertise could rather EASILY blow Apollo Authenticity Claims to smitherines. One only need to first acquire the plans for the O2 tank and build it, or build a hundred, build a thousand, build as many as ultimately necessary. Then the so curious would read/study exactly how it was that oxygen was "boiled off" tank number two so as to empty it and learn how exactly it was and for how long it was in that setting that the tank contents' temperature climbed and eventually reached 1000 degrees. Repeat all of that, heat the tank(s), heat them exactly as they were alleged to have been heated, and then study the contents, study the Teflon and the aluminum. SCRUTINIZE THE TEFLON AND ALUMINUM. One probably could and would wind up being able to stop right there. One would probably find there was not 0.13 pounds of Teflon left and available for combustion as the Apollo 13 Investigators alleged. If there was 0.13 pounds, or roughly that amount, then the rich, motivated, technically adroit 21st century experimental team would move on and perhaps ultimately reach a point where they would actually attempt to blow a tank, or many of them. Step by step, they would proceed with that as a goal, to prove that was how things actually happened. That is, were the Apollo Investigators' story worth its salt of combustion. Of course it is all SPACE BULL.
What I am/have been pointing out and which quite understandably is making everybody on the Apollo apologist side squirm like mad, which of course it should, it must, is that the Apollo Investigation crew has nothing to show us like even step one above, documentation of tank heating to 1000 degrees under the exact conditions the Apollo 13 tank was allegedly heated to 1000 degrees and then studied for the presence of Teflon and aluminum that was combustible. In addition , that combustion vulnerable Teflon and aluminum would have to be precisely quantified as its enthalpy of combustion would have to be sufficient to blow the tank.
(Again, keep in mind, there are other concerns, and important ones apart from enthalpy per se. I'll continue to reference enthalpy for the sake of convenience here, so the discussion does not become too technical too early on. Additionally, the Apollo 13 Investigators only worked with simple enthalpy, so one loses nothing in that regard by way of simplifying the analysis. I need not bother just now with that which the Apollo Investigators did not bother with. That said, I shall at some point in the future show why dealing with enthalpy alone provides an inadequate model for the explosion. In this regard I have already touched on the activation energy concern. Those familiar with chemistry I am sure are well aware that this is only one additional concern that one would expect to be be examined in greater detail in future posts, posts focusing on the Apollo 13 Investigation/Teflon/Aluminum Combustion FULL ON BULL STORY.
For those not aware, enthalpy can be viewed as the heat or energy released at the time of a chemical reaction. In this case, that energy must be as a first approximation at least close to adequate to blow the tank. The energy/heat available from burning a little or a lot of Teflon and/or aluminum might be conceived as doing this, blowing the tank, by way of any one of a number of means/mechanisms. For the time being, I'll focus on the energy quantity per se, and limit the technical level of discussion and concerns regarding chemistry/thermodynamics to roughly the level of the NASA, the Apollo 13 Investigator presentation. I'll leave that realm of the Apollo 13 Investigators' rather limited approach and go beyond in some of my future posts, discussing the thermodynamics of a problem of this sort at a higher level . But for now, let's ride along with NASA and her Apollo Investigation crew and ride along with my ever ready to calculate if numbers would only float to the fore, cadre of slide-rule wielding, overachieving, chemistry studying 16 year olds. The Apollo Investigators claimed that 260 BTU worth of energy was available to blow the tank when perhaps as much as 0.13 pounds of Teflon burned suddenly at the time of a short worth 10-20 joules of activation/initiation energy.)
The fact that as the temperature and pressure and oxygen quantity are dynamic in a situation such as this, given they are parameters which are moving targets, changing over time as the tank is heated, not to mention at other times changing this way and that during the long chronology of set up and and alleged actual tank blowing, the dynamic aspect of all this makes experiments exceedingly difficult to perform and all the more difficult to monitor. Such data is difficult to acquire. It is very hard to measure things when they "move" like this. That said, this type of thing is/was certainly manageable by competent scientists/engineers/technicians if properly motivated and funded as the Apollo 13 Investigation was said to have been funded.
However, as mentioned, for Apollo Program critics, fraud advocates like myself, the investigators have made it rather easy for us. They have actually provided us nothing to scrutinize. There is no data. Indeed, in my slowly picking my way through the Apollo missions, I have found nothing less than the Apollo Program Critics' Holy Grail. Indeed, "SENSATIONAL" is a google order of magnitude inadequate as a descriptive and quantifying adjective. Fundamentally important claims, without a hint of evidence to so substantiate the claims? No provisions for repeatablility? No support whatsoever in support of the plausibility of the Apollo 13 Investigation Committee's proposed accident scenario, let alone evidence to support the viability, reasonableness, of their plan to have remedied the alleged problems in the case of their having proposed future flights, Apollo 14 through 17?
Again, I here emphasize how flat out show stoppingly incriminating this all is, so much so, that it without question should settle any doubt in the minds of those with science backgrounds as regards the truth of the matter with respect to Apollo inauthenticity. More of course remains to be gleaned as I turn at some point in the not too distant future to writing in greater detail about the bogus chemistry of the staged Apollo 13 explosion, exploring the topic at a higher than high school chemistry level of analysis.
I think it is rather obvious.....Kranz and the other preps obviously are arrogant and foolish enough to think that whatever they say will be believed and not questioned, and for the most part, employing that strategy worked out pretty well for them.
That said, making a claim on April 15 1970 that "a heater or fan circuit may have shorted and that lead to the explosion" won't get you in trouble in an up front real-time fashion. The Cortright Commission had not yet convened. There had been no determination of "cause" made at the time of the bogus April 15 1970 newspaper reports. The explosion was but a day, perhaps a day and a half old, even taking relativistic considerations into account.
It is only AFTER the Cortright Report came out that making a statement about a short or circuit in a heater or fan on April 15 1969 should be viewed IN RETROSPECT as more than suspect. It should as a matter of fact in retrospect be viewed as more than flat out damning, more than full on incriminating. It is only in light of the commission findings that the April 15 report's insane accuracy can and should be viewed as preposterous.
A meteor hit would have required a different type of phony photo, one showing damage imparted by an external energy source. The meteor hit was viewed as not as readily amenable to faking for myriad reasons. It was far easier to come up with this bogus blown O2 tank number two presentation.
All that said, and again to emphasize, a real forensic investigation would have worked toward a model in which tanks were actually blown. Every alleged step would have been repeated and then BOOM !!!! look everybody!!!! there is our proof and documentation as to how this all occurred. Of course given the real circumstances/fraud, this could not be done.
Actually, someone with enough cash motivation and expertise could rather EASILY blow Apollo Authenticity Claims to smitherines. One only need to first acquire the plans for the O2 tank and build it, or build a hundred, build a thousand, build as many as ultimately necessary. Then the so curious would read/study exactly how it was that oxygen was "boiled off" tank number two so as to empty it and learn how exactly it was and for how long it was in that setting that the tank contents' temperature climbed and eventually reached 1000 degrees. Repeat all of that, heat the tank(s), heat them exactly as they were alleged to have been heated, and then study the contents, study the Teflon and the aluminum. SCRUTINIZE THE TEFLON AND ALUMINUM. One probably could and would wind up being able to stop right there. One would probably find there was not 0.13 pounds of Teflon left and available for combustion as the Apollo 13 Investigators alleged. If there was 0.13 pounds, or roughly that amount, then the rich, motivated, technically adroit 21st century experimental team would move on and perhaps ultimately reach a point where they would actually attempt to blow a tank, or many of them. Step by step, they would proceed with that as a goal, to prove that was how things actually happened. That is, were the Apollo Investigators' story worth its salt of combustion. Of course it is all SPACE BULL.
What I am/have been pointing out and which quite understandably is making everybody on the Apollo apologist side squirm like mad, which of course it should, it must, is that the Apollo Investigation crew has nothing to show us like even step one above, documentation of tank heating to 1000 degrees under the exact conditions the Apollo 13 tank was allegedly heated to 1000 degrees and then studied for the presence of Teflon and aluminum that was combustible. In addition , that combustion vulnerable Teflon and aluminum would have to be precisely quantified as its enthalpy of combustion would have to be sufficient to blow the tank.
(Again, keep in mind, there are other concerns, and important ones apart from enthalpy per se. I'll continue to reference enthalpy for the sake of convenience here, so the discussion does not become too technical too early on. Additionally, the Apollo 13 Investigators only worked with simple enthalpy, so one loses nothing in that regard by way of simplifying the analysis. I need not bother just now with that which the Apollo Investigators did not bother with. That said, I shall at some point in the future show why dealing with enthalpy alone provides an inadequate model for the explosion. In this regard I have already touched on the activation energy concern. Those familiar with chemistry I am sure are well aware that this is only one additional concern that one would expect to be be examined in greater detail in future posts, posts focusing on the Apollo 13 Investigation/Teflon/Aluminum Combustion FULL ON BULL STORY.
For those not aware, enthalpy can be viewed as the heat or energy released at the time of a chemical reaction. In this case, that energy must be as a first approximation at least close to adequate to blow the tank. The energy/heat available from burning a little or a lot of Teflon and/or aluminum might be conceived as doing this, blowing the tank, by way of any one of a number of means/mechanisms. For the time being, I'll focus on the energy quantity per se, and limit the technical level of discussion and concerns regarding chemistry/thermodynamics to roughly the level of the NASA, the Apollo 13 Investigator presentation. I'll leave that realm of the Apollo 13 Investigators' rather limited approach and go beyond in some of my future posts, discussing the thermodynamics of a problem of this sort at a higher level . But for now, let's ride along with NASA and her Apollo Investigation crew and ride along with my ever ready to calculate if numbers would only float to the fore, cadre of slide-rule wielding, overachieving, chemistry studying 16 year olds. The Apollo Investigators claimed that 260 BTU worth of energy was available to blow the tank when perhaps as much as 0.13 pounds of Teflon burned suddenly at the time of a short worth 10-20 joules of activation/initiation energy.)
The fact that as the temperature and pressure and oxygen quantity are dynamic in a situation such as this, given they are parameters which are moving targets, changing over time as the tank is heated, not to mention at other times changing this way and that during the long chronology of set up and and alleged actual tank blowing, the dynamic aspect of all this makes experiments exceedingly difficult to perform and all the more difficult to monitor. Such data is difficult to acquire. It is very hard to measure things when they "move" like this. That said, this type of thing is/was certainly manageable by competent scientists/engineers/technicians if properly motivated and funded as the Apollo 13 Investigation was said to have been funded.
However, as mentioned, for Apollo Program critics, fraud advocates like myself, the investigators have made it rather easy for us. They have actually provided us nothing to scrutinize. There is no data. Indeed, in my slowly picking my way through the Apollo missions, I have found nothing less than the Apollo Program Critics' Holy Grail. Indeed, "SENSATIONAL" is a google order of magnitude inadequate as a descriptive and quantifying adjective. Fundamentally important claims, without a hint of evidence to so substantiate the claims? No provisions for repeatablility? No support whatsoever in support of the plausibility of the Apollo 13 Investigation Committee's proposed accident scenario, let alone evidence to support the viability, reasonableness, of their plan to have remedied the alleged problems in the case of their having proposed future flights, Apollo 14 through 17?
Again, I here emphasize how flat out show stoppingly incriminating this all is, so much so, that it without question should settle any doubt in the minds of those with science backgrounds as regards the truth of the matter with respect to Apollo inauthenticity. More of course remains to be gleaned as I turn at some point in the not too distant future to writing in greater detail about the bogus chemistry of the staged Apollo 13 explosion, exploring the topic at a higher than high school chemistry level of analysis.
Last edited:
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
Reminder with regard to perp list........
Reminder with regard to perp list........
As mentioned previously and for the sake of reference, Bales is cleared from my list of perps. My view is that Jack Garman was responsible solely for the 1202 Program Alarm Go order. Bales was a parrot and not responsible.
Reminder with regard to perp list........
As mentioned previously and for the sake of reference, Bales is cleared from my list of perps. My view is that Jack Garman was responsible solely for the 1202 Program Alarm Go order. Bales was a parrot and not responsible.
Last edited:
Hans
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 9,214
I echo your wows, man Patrick you sure are making up more mind blowing weird stuff
However you are still avoiding answering question or facing up to the people you are accusing
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
I had looked at all six of these references and then some previously SUSpilot.....
I had looked at all six of these references and then some previously SUSpilot, and I do indeed appreciate your posting them as references for our discussion here. I reviewed them all this morning. I believe I have looked at each of these something like 4 times now, all in a fair amount of detail.
So now to the point, what is it that any of these "experiments", and I do use the term loosely, have to do with demonstrating that there was 0.13 pounds worth of Teflon in Apollo 13's oxygen tank number two, there in "cislunar space", available for combustion? What do any of these experiments have to do with determining the activation energy for Teflon combustion initiation under the alleged cryogenic exotic conditions of Apollo' 13's O2 Tank Number Two? What do any of those "experiments" have to do with determining if Apollo 13's O2 Tank Number Two's cislunar state was conducive to aluminum combustion, and if so, how much aluminum was available for combustion?
Need I go on? I believe this all rather proves my point. The Apollo 13 Accident Investigators present NOTHING of RELEVANCE. Of course they have to present some experiments, some bogus filler. Heck, there was a full blown major congressional hearing on all of this.
So they mark and pack their own deck. Make up these phony experiments. I don't doubt these, your references SUSpilot, were "experiments" actually done. Heck, the Apollo 13 Explosion Investigators have the movies to "prove them". By "phony" I do not mean that the Apollo 13 Investigators did not do this meaningless stuff, I mean the experiments are not related in any meaningful sense to the alleged explosion's purported scenario, have nothing to do with it really(how much Teflon, how hot the Teflon, how much aluminum, what KIND of aluminum, how BIG the aluminum, how hot the aluminum, blah blah blah). And so armed with their bogus filler, as you have referenced so well above, the Apollo 13 Accident Investigators have their own experts testify in congress with respect to what the experiments are about, what they show. Pretty sneaky, ain't it? Close to fool proof........
It is no exaggeration to say a high school chemistry student can easily see that given the Apollo 13 Investigation Committee's claims, these "experiments", your very references, CANNOT be viewed as investigations which provide support for the investigators' rather explicit/detailed claim that 0.13 pounds of Teflon was available for combustion and in so combusting probably released 260 BTUs worth of energy/heat and this lead to the tank's explosion/rupture.
So what, who cares that they did this stuff, these meaningless experiments? It has almost nothing to do with what they claimed happened in that these "experiments"/movies/images/committee written documents provide absolutely no support for the investigators' specific and detailed claims.
Detailed claims, especially when the lives of men and women are on supposed to be actually the line, demand detailed experimental support. Surely no one disagrees with this. No one disagrees with the point the the Apollo 13 Investigators must provide support for their claims. Anyone disagree with that rather simple point?
Well then, let us see that support for those claims......
I had looked at all six of these references and then some previously SUSpilot, and I do indeed appreciate your posting them as references for our discussion here. I reviewed them all this morning. I believe I have looked at each of these something like 4 times now, all in a fair amount of detail.
So now to the point, what is it that any of these "experiments", and I do use the term loosely, have to do with demonstrating that there was 0.13 pounds worth of Teflon in Apollo 13's oxygen tank number two, there in "cislunar space", available for combustion? What do any of these experiments have to do with determining the activation energy for Teflon combustion initiation under the alleged cryogenic exotic conditions of Apollo' 13's O2 Tank Number Two? What do any of those "experiments" have to do with determining if Apollo 13's O2 Tank Number Two's cislunar state was conducive to aluminum combustion, and if so, how much aluminum was available for combustion?
Need I go on? I believe this all rather proves my point. The Apollo 13 Accident Investigators present NOTHING of RELEVANCE. Of course they have to present some experiments, some bogus filler. Heck, there was a full blown major congressional hearing on all of this.
So they mark and pack their own deck. Make up these phony experiments. I don't doubt these, your references SUSpilot, were "experiments" actually done. Heck, the Apollo 13 Explosion Investigators have the movies to "prove them". By "phony" I do not mean that the Apollo 13 Investigators did not do this meaningless stuff, I mean the experiments are not related in any meaningful sense to the alleged explosion's purported scenario, have nothing to do with it really(how much Teflon, how hot the Teflon, how much aluminum, what KIND of aluminum, how BIG the aluminum, how hot the aluminum, blah blah blah). And so armed with their bogus filler, as you have referenced so well above, the Apollo 13 Accident Investigators have their own experts testify in congress with respect to what the experiments are about, what they show. Pretty sneaky, ain't it? Close to fool proof........
It is no exaggeration to say a high school chemistry student can easily see that given the Apollo 13 Investigation Committee's claims, these "experiments", your very references, CANNOT be viewed as investigations which provide support for the investigators' rather explicit/detailed claim that 0.13 pounds of Teflon was available for combustion and in so combusting probably released 260 BTUs worth of energy/heat and this lead to the tank's explosion/rupture.
So what, who cares that they did this stuff, these meaningless experiments? It has almost nothing to do with what they claimed happened in that these "experiments"/movies/images/committee written documents provide absolutely no support for the investigators' specific and detailed claims.
Detailed claims, especially when the lives of men and women are on supposed to be actually the line, demand detailed experimental support. Surely no one disagrees with this. No one disagrees with the point the the Apollo 13 Investigators must provide support for their claims. Anyone disagree with that rather simple point?
Well then, let us see that support for those claims......
Shadow the Poodle
Scholar
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2010
- Messages
- 103
Yet strangely when you use the same tactics you claim Krantz et al used you fail miserably. I wonder why that could be?
Patrick, this is what your saying:
I go into my general practitioner complaining of a sore throat and pain in my left ear. He says, "Hmm, you never had your tonsils out - I suspect you're having a bout of tonsillitis." After he takes my temp and looks at the gross symptomology, he says "Yeah, that's probably it. I'll refer you to an ENT."
I then go to said specialist. She runs a series of tests, including a throat swab. Guess what? I have tonsillitis.
Now, the problem, using your logic from above, is that they're conspiring to hide the fact that I wasn't actually sick at all (or maybe that I don't even exist), because one made an informed judgement before testing and the other made one after she made some tests that confirmed the diagnosis. Since bouts of tonsillitis occasionally made my life miserable in high school and college, I honestly doubt that was the case (and I'm reasonably sure I exist, since the IRS insists that I do). In other words, just because subsequent testing and analysis confirms a first judgment, that does not indicate collusion.
In the meantime, we're awaiting your mathematical analysis on why PTFE and aluminum could not possibly have produced enough energy in a supercritical O2 environment to over pressurize the tank.
In addition, when will you provide Jay your contact information so you can confront those you accuse in person and show us how you've exposed Apollo as a fraud? Seeing as I have about three weeks of vacation uncommitted outside of the air shows at Lakeland and Oshkosh, I'd love to go to California to see this. It's been a few years since I've been there.
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,427
Indeed, yet again. Don't worry Patrick, nobody here is in any doubt whatsoever as regards the truth of the matter of Apollo inauthenticity. It's complete nonsense.
Just as soon as you manage to cajole someone into giving you a clue as to how to do your chemistry homework, right?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No.
These incidents are dissected by every forensic engineering student in the world. You are the one arrogant and foolish enough to think that your admitted layman's status and your vague walls of text make any sort of dent in the engineering assessment or popular reception of Apollo.
Why don't I have your contact information yet?
The professional world has already done that.
Where is your contact information?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Bales himself believes otherwise. Why won't you talk to him?
Southwind17
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 5,154
Begging the question, my friend!
Except that you seek to support your arguments with press reports?! If the press publish BULL, what does that say about your supporting arguments that rely on it!?
Again, you're focusing on the minutia that leads to your sweeping conclusions about the alleged wholesale fraudulence of Apollo 13. Your imagination knows no bounds, P, evidenced by your repeated use of the word in your arguments.
sts60
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,107
But Patrick1000 also explicitly said the LM could not land on the Moon: they did not have a LM that could land on the Moon.
Then he said it could.
Then he said it couldn't.
Then he said it could all by itself, but simultaneously said it couldn't with the aid of human pilots. You will notice that the first claim contradicts the second - according to the first claim, it was capable of landing even if there were men aboard doing nothing but drinking single-malt Scotch and playing cards the whole trip.
Inconsistent, and therefore untrue. In other words, he's wrong according to his own shibboleth.
Patrick1000 is not only utterly inept in every aspect of science, math, and history related to space flight in general and Apollo in particular, he can't even keep his rambling, evidence-free story straight. The fact that he routinely lies about his claims, his qualifications, and himself serves only to throw into question which of his self-contradictions are due to dishonesty, and which are due to simple incompetence.
Crackpots routinely claim that Apollo hardware was secretly and extensively modified, which is very funny to those of us who have actually participated in spacecraft integration and test at the Cape and KSC. Or even to laymen who actually bother to learn something about the subject, rather than devoting all their energy to quote-mining, sock-puppetry, autohagiography, and trolling.
Last edited by a moderator:
So what?
The results of the investigation was that a spark ignited the available material...some of the teflon, possibly some of the aluminium of the tank itself.
Although the specifics are fascinating, the task before them was to figure out what to do to make sure the next tank DIDN'T blow. So, what...they were going to remove all the insulation, and the metal of the tank itself? No! They were going to see to it there were no more sparks.
So the focus on the investigation was much more on how the wires became exposed. Much less on whether it was one ounce or two pounds of teflon that went up. To reduce it to to absurd, they already knew the amount of available fuel in the tank was sufficient.....because the tank blew up!
(I simplify. Obviously they'd investigate if there were flaws in manufacturing, contamination, outside factors like a meteor strike, etc. But once they narrowed it down to the sequence we currently understand, I imagine that no-one bothered to work out the amount of teflon to six significant figures. It was enough to show there was a plausible amount available to result in the observed results.)
Tell me, do you know Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation? Which terms do you think are represented there? Which of those terms, in regards to the Earth-Moon barycenter (see what I did there?) can NOT be determined by measuring the distance of the Moon?
As happens with every other conspiracy theorist. Eventually the conspiracy expands to include everyone but the one theorizing about it.
Already, you seem to be skipping over half the navigators in the US military, as well as target specialists -- all the people who will be making use of your top-secret lagrange network.
And let's not forget all the engineers who put the system together.
And, according to you a few posts ago, random people in the news room of West Coast papers are also in on it. As are a few major journalists. As are scientists at astronomical observatories who get midnight phone calls containing the very coordinate data the rest of the conspiracy is so carefully hiding.
I'm surprised your conspiracy doesn't already include half the Eastern Seaboard.
You mean, when (again according to you, in this very thread) NASA "lost" the LM and gave out the wrong coordinates, they were doing it to "fool" people who already knew the truth?
Maybe you need to start taking better notes.
If you sincerely believe this, then why haven't you done something about it?
Like give your contact information to Jay so you can face Kranz, and tell him what a liar he is.
Why haven't you done that, if you really think you are right?
fess
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,425
If the Russians were so advanced in the militarization of space, why did they, and
France, if I am correct, offer substantial amounts of financial backing in the LRRR experiments?
Mapping the earth's gravity field with LRRR
GOCE was launched into an extraordinarily low earth orbit with an altitude of only 260 km. This is considerably lower than even the ISS at an altitude of 400 km to make it easier to reach with heavy payloads. Why is GOCE so low? Because accurately mapping a planet's gravity field is best done from the lowest orbit you can possibly achieve. GOCE's orbit is so low that's built like a torpedo to minimize atmospheric drag and it carries an ion thruster to continually counteract the remaining drag. Quoting from their website:
In order to achieve its very challenging mission objectives, the slender, five-metre long satellite is designed to orbit at a very low altitude of just 260 km because the gravitational variations are stronger closer to Earth. (end of quote)
The moon orbits at a whopping 384,000 km, far too high to see measurable effects from all but the lowest terms of the earth's gravity field. In fact, it is high enough to be subject to significant perturbations from the sun, Jupiter and other planets. It is absolutely the worst place for reflectors intended to map out the earth's gravity field. It's a great place to do basic science, though, as anyone can learn by reading the many openly published papers by the investigators who use them.
If Patrick had spent more time on his homework he would know that using the moon's high altitude to map the earth's gravity field for ICBMs makes as much sense as siting spy telescopes on the lunar surface instead of putting them in low earth orbit where they're actually found.
On 17 March 2009, the European Space Agency launched a satellite called GOCE - Gravity field and steady-state Ocean Circulation Explorer. As the name implies, its primary function is to map the earth's gravity field. That's right, just the kind of map you need to accurately target an ICBM. And the Europeans are doing it, and I presume they plan to publish the data openly...
GOCE was launched into an extraordinarily low earth orbit with an altitude of only 260 km. This is considerably lower than even the ISS at an altitude of 400 km to make it easier to reach with heavy payloads. Why is GOCE so low? Because accurately mapping a planet's gravity field is best done from the lowest orbit you can possibly achieve. GOCE's orbit is so low that's built like a torpedo to minimize atmospheric drag and it carries an ion thruster to continually counteract the remaining drag. Quoting from their website:
In order to achieve its very challenging mission objectives, the slender, five-metre long satellite is designed to orbit at a very low altitude of just 260 km because the gravitational variations are stronger closer to Earth. (end of quote)
The moon orbits at a whopping 384,000 km, far too high to see measurable effects from all but the lowest terms of the earth's gravity field. In fact, it is high enough to be subject to significant perturbations from the sun, Jupiter and other planets. It is absolutely the worst place for reflectors intended to map out the earth's gravity field. It's a great place to do basic science, though, as anyone can learn by reading the many openly published papers by the investigators who use them.
If Patrick had spent more time on his homework he would know that using the moon's high altitude to map the earth's gravity field for ICBMs makes as much sense as siting spy telescopes on the lunar surface instead of putting them in low earth orbit where they're actually found.
Dcdrac
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2006
- Messages
- 5,141
All this thread proves to me is that the HBs when presented with irrfutable evidence dance convaluted dances to rescue their terminally holed position.
Given that each Saturn V launch cost billions it stretches credability to breaking point to sugget that they used them all up just to put fake equipment up there on the Moon.
And by the way the russians were tehcnolgially behind for a long time only really caught us up in the late 70's early 80s at ruinioous cost, their moon rocket kept blowing up
Given that each Saturn V launch cost billions it stretches credability to breaking point to sugget that they used them all up just to put fake equipment up there on the Moon.
And by the way the russians were tehcnolgially behind for a long time only really caught us up in the late 70's early 80s at ruinioous cost, their moon rocket kept blowing up
- Status