Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
Patrick1000 said:
No one here has been able to counter these fundamental truths about Apollo,...
Click to expand...

Except for JayUtah, sts60, nomuse, Loss Leader, SUSpilot, Hans, Tomblvd, threadworm, abaddon, SpitfireIX, Garrison, Erock, R.A.F., and that’s just in the last couple of pages. My apologies to all those I didn't mention.
-LF
 
FatFreddy88 said:
I'd like to hear Jay Windley's analysis of this anomaly.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1

I was instructed to take this discussion to this thread.


I asked Jay Windley a question on a moderated moon hoax thread once and the post got deleted. That's why I started a thread on this. I hope this post doesn't get deleted as it's a legitimate Apollo issue.
Click to expand...

Why the obsession with Jay? Kinda creepy if you ask me.

Why should he answer you AGAIN on this same thing? Others have answered you and you ignored them all. Why should this time be different?
 
LongFuzzy said:
Except for JayUtah, sts60, nomuse, Loss Leader, SUSpilot, Hans, Tomblvd, threadworm, abaddon, SpitfireIX, Garrison, Erock, R.A.F., and that’s just in the last couple of pages. My apologies to all those I didn't mention.
-LF
Click to expand...

I'd like to add my two cents to this.

I think it's a privilege to be able to read the thoughts of such distinguished posters.

Thanks!
 
Your missing the point........

threadworm said:
See the top two quotes - you are confirming with your expert knowledge that influenza is very difficult to formally diagnose, yet you claim to be able to do it from a voice transcript. Do you have any actual proof from from any source anywhere that the crew actually had flu?

See the bottom quote - the crew were vaccinated yes or no? Would that vaccination in all probability have conferred immunity? Were the crew in the demographic groups that were being most affected by this strain of the virus (not the Spanish flu virus, this one), or are you hoping that always typing influenza in capitals will sway the vote?

Here's a brief summary of the pandemic:

http://www.flu.gov/pandemic/history/

(my emphasis)



So, it was a mild strain. 33-34000 Americans died (about 5% the deaths from the 1918 pandemic) , but it should be noted that these are not necessarily attributable to the flu, as the US recorded "excess deaths" from respiratory illnesses. The peak number of deaths was just before the end of the outbreak. 1968 was a particularly bad winter, and reported deaths could equally be attributed to other respiratory illnesses brought on by the cold. The most at risk groups were the elderly and infant, not fit males (the average age at death was 62).

Also:

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/bulletin/1969/Vol41/Vol41-No3-4-5/bulletin_1969_41(3-4-5)_345-348.pdf



So by the time Apollo 7 took off it wasn't that big a risk.
Click to expand...


Your missing the point........Of course the astronauts do not have INFLUENZA, may not even have colds. The point is they are not being questioned as appropriate given the alleged circumstances. Doctors would ask the astronauts questions with specific reference to INFLUENZA symtomatology as they would ask anyone that stepped into an ER in October of 1968 with respiratory tract symptoms.
 
That is not how I see things from my vantage threadworm....

threadworm said:
You mean like this?

[qimg]http://also.kottke.org/misc/images/apollo-11-lro.jpg[/qimg]

Can you make out the small penalty spot on this image?

[qimg]http://www.globalgrasshopper.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/NouCamp.jpg[/qimg]

I know how big it is and I know roughly where it is, and as it is a different colour from its background I can find it easily.

Collins couldn't see the LM, so your point is...?
Click to expand...


(Sorry, my post keeps getting truncated for some reason when I preview it and then try to modify it under the preview frame. Please post this version. I think it finally worked. The other versions/attempts I believe are incomplete. Thank you.)

That is not how I see things from my vantage threadworm……

A simple back of an envelope Coffeehouse calculation gives;

At 60 miles up, one arc second equals 1.5 feet. Collins’ sextant has an 1.6 inches or 4 cm objective. Its resolving power is 2.8 arc seconds, or from 60 miles up, 4.2 feet.

A pixel of resolution for Collins therefore is 4.2 X 4.2 or 17.6 square feet..

The LM from above is 14 X 14 or 196 square feet or 11 Collins pixels.

Do you mean to tell me threadworm that with 11 bits of info Collins is gonna’ be able to tell a fake LM from a fake rock from a fake light boom from a fake sound equipment delivery truck? Who is he, superman?

The point is, the perps know this stuff. Not in this kind of detail as most of them cannot add and subtract, but they know were this mission real one would not send CM pilot Collins on a wild goose chase. You don’t waste an astronaut’s insanely valuable time if he is really being an astronaut as opposed to pretending to be one. As they sent this guy on an 11 pixel wild goose chase, one may rightfully conclude CM pilot Collins is pretending to be and astronaut, not really being one an that the Apollo 11 Mission is a fraudulent mission….

This space ship done blowed up…….
 
Patrick1000 said:
Your missing the point...
Click to expand...

No, you're missing the point. The point is that you don't get to make the rules.

The point is they are not being questioned as appropriate given the alleged circumstances.
Click to expand...

You're unqualified in both the appropriateness of the method and in the alleged circumstances. You don't get to make the rules.

...as they would ask anyone that stepped into an ER in October of 1968 with respiratory tract symptoms.
Click to expand...

What about someone in a spacecraft in 1968? You consistently misapply what you think appropriate clinical practice should be, forgetting that this is flight medicine. And you can't seem to produce any actual experts who agree with you. And you can't deal with the expertise on the table except to pound your fist and say they're wrong.

That's the point. You don't get to just make stuff up.
 
Patrick1000 said:
I am more than eminently qualified to critique the Apollo 13 Investigation Report.
Click to expand...

No, you are not.

Earlier you specifically admitted you did not have the engineering background to challenge your "perps" on the technical validity. That why you chose to be a "drama critic" instead.

Now you're claiming that you are not only qualified, but "eminently" qualified. Clearly one of those claims is a lie since together they are a contradiction, and it would be nice if you finally settled on which lie you were going to tell.

This criticism, my criticism, is fundamental, straightforward, just and true.
Click to expand...

No, it's just layman's supposition. This is probably why you won't discuss it with real engineers in a context that doesn't allow you to back away from error without a safety net.

I have spent my life studying sciences. I possess degree(s) in relevant fields. What more could one ask for?
Click to expand...

What more could we ask for? I'll remind you of what we have asked for: computations proving your point. And going back over the preceding months, we've asked for orbital mechanics computations, navigation computations, and a whole bunch of other expressions of scientific and engineering competence.

And to date we've received absolutely nothing from you. Only handwaving dismissals and paragraphs cribbed largely from Wikipedia and Google.

What more could one ask for? Consistent claims to expertise, and evidence of your claims to expertise.

One should not be surprised that the astronauts to whom I wrote letters were not willing to respond to my tactful assault on their phony stories?
Click to expand...

Argument from silence -- rejected.

As such, high school level chemistry is all that is needed to see/recognize/understand/appreciate Apollo as fraudulent.
Click to expand...

Translation: high school science is all I know, so I'm going to pretend that's all that's needed.

This is the classic conspiracism ploy -- to pretend that the expertise one already has, no matter how paltry, is sufficient to discover the fraud. Sorry, you don't get to hold up your layman's simplifications as a gold standard of authenticity. The experts unanimously disagree with you, and you still have no explanation for that except to insist that they aren't really experts.

Where there is no experimental evidence, there can be NO SCIENCE.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Science is not just another name for empiricism.

There are a number of good textbooks on empiricism in forensic engineering. One stands out, though. And its discussion of the limitations in forensic techniques is quite good. Since you are eminently qualified, please give us the name of this text book.

Apollo is fake, everyone's got to come to grips with this heinous truth......
Click to expand...

Okay, let's start at the top with Kranz, Lovell, etc. Please send me your contact information so that I can facilitate a meeting and you can prove that you've submitted your claims to the relevant parties. As much as you complain about not being believed for having written letters to astronauts, you should jump at this. I'm offering you the chance to have your opponents confirm your claims.
 
Patrick1000 said:
The Space Shuttle IS a Dyna-Soar, a supra-atmospheric, hypersonic bomber Dcdrac. It is a weapon and a very very very real one.
Click to expand...

If your hypthesis is correct, and that is a large if, it is one of the most poorly designed bombers in the history of military aviation.

Take a look at ANY successful bomber - Lancaster, Halifax, B-29, Ju-88, B-52, Bear, etc. and take a look at the location of the bomb-bay doors. Where are they? The ventral side of the fuselage, or if they are external to the fuselage, to the bottom of the wings.

Now, look at a shuttle - any of them will do, Enterprise, Columbia, etc. Notice where the opening for the CARGO bay is? The dorsal or top of the aircraft.

Before you start crying about that being the cargo bay while the real attachments are on the ventral side, there are no openings there and no hardpoints for the attachment of ordnance on the wings. If you are considering claiming that the shuttle only deploys its ordnance by flying inverted I'm going to tell you that such a procedure would fly in the face of about 100 years of military aviation.

There have been enough photos taken of the cargo bay either in action in space, or on earth to disprove your theory.
 
Patrick1000 said:
A pixel of resolution for Collins therefore is 4.2 X 4.2 or 17.6 square feet..
Click to expand...

And if this were quantized digital imaging, that would mean something.

The point is, the perps know this stuff. Not in this kind of detail as most of them cannot add and subtract...
Click to expand...

You have demonstrated zero correct understanding of any technical subject you've raised, and could not perform a degree-to-radian conversion correctly or even a simple budget allocation calculation. You don't get to sit there in anonymity and say that your misapplied, oversimplified "back of the enveloped" calculations are the pinnacle of science.

The "perps," as you call them, have demonstrated advanced technical degrees from rigorous programs and were eminently qualified as pilots and engineers before being selected as astronauts. Clearly you don't recall the bath you took when you last tried to call the Apollo functionaries morons. Your inability to understand how Apollo worked does not translate into a general conclusion of fraud. You bear the burden to prove that your claims are more than your simple layman's misconceptions. I have bent over backwards to give you that chance. It is most revealing that you refuse to take it.

As I said, I have arranged for you to meet some NASA engineers at the NASA Ames Research Center, which is a short drive from where you say you live. As soon as you give me your contact information, I will set up the meeting. You can accuse them to their faces of being unable to perform computations.
 
Bit of a figure of speech, though the Dyna-Soar/Shuttle.....

Border Reiver said:
If your hypthesis is correct, and that is a large if, it is one of the most poorly designed bombers in the history of military aviation.

Take a look at ANY successful bomber - Lancaster, Halifax, B-29, Ju-88, B-52, Bear, etc. and take a look at the location of the bomb-bay doors. Where are they? The ventral side of the fuselage, or if they are external to the fuselage, to the bottom of the wings.

Now, look at a shuttle - any of them will do, Enterprise, Columbia, etc. Notice where the opening for the CARGO bay is? The dorsal or top of the aircraft.

Before you start crying about that being the cargo bay while the real attachments are on the ventral side, there are no openings there and no hardpoints for the attachment of ordnance on the wings. If you are considering claiming that the shuttle only deploys its ordnance by flying inverted I'm going to tell you that such a procedure would fly in the face of about 100 years of military aviation.

There have been enough photos taken of the cargo bay either in action in space, or on earth to disprove your theory.
Click to expand...

Bit of a figure of speech, though the Dyna-Soar/Shuttle did and does have that capability, can serve when called upon to drop za' big one and take out the Bolshoi.. The Shuttle's primary role obviously has been/is in the arena of military reconnaissance......
 
Patrick1000 said:
Try this on for size, a UPI article from 07/03/1969.
Click to expand...

Still trying to quote popular articles with simplified language for the layman! I've mentioned before how it seems to be your habit to rely on popular sources so that you can equivocate the language.

How can the very same Teflon that crumbles away to allow for sparking, be the very same Teflon, ALL 0.13 POUNDS OF IT, that combusts and blows the tank pray tell???????
Click to expand...

Easily. You're operating from a preconception of what "crumble away" must mean. Try using engineering instead of journalism.
 
Spelling error aside, the calculations are right on target.....

JayUtah said:
And if this were quantized digital imaging, that would mean something.



You have demonstrated zero correct understanding of any technical subject you've raised, and could not perform a degree-to-radian conversion correctly or even a simple budget allocation calculation. You don't get to sit there in anonymity and say that your misapplied, oversimplified "back of the enveloped" calculations are the pinnacle of science.

The "perps," as you call them, have demonstrated advanced technical degrees from rigorous programs and were eminently qualified as pilots and engineers before being selected as astronauts. Clearly you don't recall the bath you took when you last tried to call the Apollo functionaries morons. Your inability to understand how Apollo worked does not translate into a general conclusion of fraud. You bear the burden to prove that your claims are more than your simple layman's misconceptions. I have bent over backwards to give you that chance. It is most revealing that you refuse to take it.

As I said, I have arranged for you to meet some NASA engineers at the NASA Ames Research Center, which is a short drive from where you say you live. As soon as you give me your contact information, I will set up the meeting. You can accuse them to their faces of being unable to perform computations.
Click to expand...

Spelling error aside, the calculations are right on target Jay....Sure I make mistakes, just like anyone, but I'm super good at the math stuff, super duper good at optics stuff too, with regard to both the physics and the physiology of the "subject" ......My calculations are quite accurate Jay, show me to be wrong if you dare/care/can.....When it comes to numbers, and even as regards optics, I am seldom wrong.......
 
Patrick1000 said:
Your missing the point........Of course the astronauts do not have INFLUENZA, may not even have colds. The point is they are not being questioned as appropriate given the alleged circumstances. Doctors would ask the astronauts questions with specific reference to INFLUENZA symtomatology as they would ask anyone that stepped into an ER in October of 1968 with respiratory tract symptoms.
Click to expand...

Please post the relevant conversation and tell us what was wrong with it.

Anybody else notice that Patrick was screaming to debate medical experts earlier and now completely ignores me (a lowly dentist)? Uh, other than to completely misstating what I say.

I'm developing a complex.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom