Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[sts60]

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...

Correct. But not really for the reasons you're thinking.

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.

Well, Columbia has been wreckage for some time.

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.

The Shuttle flies "inverted" a lot while on-orbit, but that's not the issue. In the air, of course, opening the doors would almost certainly lead to destruction of the vehicle in any flight phase.

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

I've been inside three Orbiters, stacked on the pad, for payload integration and test. They can only carry things inside the payload bay (and middeck lockers).

The real problem is not that the Shuttle has no provision for carrying military ordnance, nor that safety rules would not permit such a thing, nor that it is completely incapable of doing anything in the air other than going to orbit or landing.

It's that it is everything a bomber is not. It's incapable of being launched without, at a minimum, many weeks of very obvious preparation, and then only from one place, and every launch requires notifying everybody around (e.g., NOTAMs and the equivalent for boaters). It's not reliable in the sense you could never be sure your sortie would happen as scheduled. Its flights require much advance notice and preparation of overseas backup sites. And it's perhaps the least stealthy flying vehicle ever, and capable of only reaching some parts of the Earth, and then not necessarily on a given day.

The idea of the Shuttle being some kind of "bomber", in short, is maybe the stupidest idea I've ever heard. Did someone really propose that?

 

[abaddon]

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!

Since I am included in that list, I think it only fair to say thank you.

However, let us be very clear. I stand on the shoulders of giants.

It has been my privilege to have learned many engineering details, both large and obscure, from the experts here and elsewhere. For this I thank them.

 

[abaddon]

(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.)

So it works perfectly well for everyone, but you? Really?

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

Redundant. We know that.

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.

Why this weird oscillation from human vision to pixels? Surely a doctor would be aware that the human eye is not analogous to a digital camera? Surely a doctor would know that the distribution of rods and cones is not linear in the human eye?

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?

pixels =/= bits. Are you now admitting that Collins was, in fact, there in lunar orbit?

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.

Confront them in person, then. You have been offered the opportunity.

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….

So as a scientist, you are claiming it is an insane waste of time to seek verification of the data at hand? Really?

This space ship done blowed up…….

No, that is what your propositions have done. Every time.

 

[Garrison]

Try this on for size, a UPI article from 07/03/1969.

https://plus.google.com/photos/107946557021507888184/albums/5711266719728106465

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???????

On this occasion I do have the technical expertise to respond to this point. I work in electronics, mainly repair and maintenance over the years, including some heavy duty UPS and I've seen any number cases where localized heating has degraded wiring insulation in one spot while its perfectly intact elsewhere. To put it simply Teflon is an insulator, it doesn't conduct either heat or electricity well; you can melt one section of it and the adjacent material will be unaffected. I guess we can add electrical wiring to the list of things Patrick1000 doesn't understand.

 

[FatFreddy88]

So like Patrick1000 you want everyone to ignore the sheer mass of evidence in favour of the reality of Apollo because something 'doesn't look right' to you?

A jacket corner bouncing around the way it would in gravity when they were supposed to be halfway to the moon doesn't look right to me.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1

Edited by LashL: 

No need to keep posting the same links over and over. It is sufficient to link to your prior post in which you already set them all out.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7226888&postcount=2734

So what. For the most part, his legs are hitting the jacket and moving it back and forward. You equate gravity to the horizontal movements when it is simply the fabric being pulled by virtue of it being connected to his moving body.

Anyone who actully watches the footage can see that this isn't the case. The corner gets pulled upward but the fabric is too loose to be pushed back downward.

I'm sorry but this one anomaly closes the whole case by itself. Apollo was a hoax. They were probably faking this footage in a diving plane and got careless.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7304510&postcount=3389

FatFreddy88, this was discussed to death on ApolloHoax and here:

Somebody please link to that discussion.

post #7200

Too bad.

What can I say? They'd laugh you out of the debating hall for this response. Come on Jay. I want your opinion. Aren't you the main expert on these matters?

 

[Garrison]

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..

You make a statement that contradicts both the common sense you are so fond of and the direct observations of those who've actually been close up and personal with the Shuttle orbiter and yet again you offer no evidence to back up the claim.

The Shuttle's primary role obviously has been/is in the arena of military reconnaissance......

The shuttle is past tense and even as a layman I know that the USAF lost interest in the shuttle after Challenger. They didn't lose interest in the concept of a winged orbiter of course but I wonder if your knowledge of spaceflight would extend to the currently orbiting vehicle I'm thinking of?

 

[Garrison]

The idea of the Shuttle being some kind of "bomber", in short, is maybe the stupidest idea I've ever heard. Did someone really propose that?

I think he's confusing it with the Sanger 'Silver Bird' and similar proposals.

A quote from the Wiki(my bold):

The design was a significant one, as it incorporated new rocket technology, and the principle of the lifting body, forshadowing future development of winged spacecraft such as the X-20 Dyna-Soar of the 1960s and the Space Shuttle of the 1970s. In the end, it was considered too complex and expensive to produce. The design never went beyond mock up test.

 

[Patrick1000]

Splended Jay, so what exactly DOES........

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.



Easily. You're operating from a preconception of what "crumble away" must mean. Try using engineering instead of journalism.

Splended Jay....... so what exactly DOES "crumbling" mean? Did they use that term in the Cortright Report itself? Actually, don't believe I saw/read much of anythang in particular in the report itself. You come across any "crumbling" details Jay?

Now indeed I have spent hours combing through the non-layman articles Jay, the non layman terms, the REAL "DATA", the REAL TERMS, the REAL FULLY INAUTHENTIC FRAUDULENT DETAILS of the actual and actually bogus Cortright Report, the investigators' terminology, the investigators' specifics, the Cortright Report language per se.

You come across anything Jay you could reference for we the desperate and desperately interested? How exactly did the Apollo 13 Investigators write things up? How exactly did the Teflon come off if it didn't "crumble" and how much was left and why that much available to burn?

Ditto for the aluminum. Didn't read in the New York Times or elsewhere about any aluminum crumbling Jay.....Do you know about that? Why they thought the aluminum might have burned? Can't find that in the report myself. Funny how one has to drift over to the Times to get ANY inauthentic "facts" at all.

 

[Patrick1000]

Sure my views are relevant.......

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



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



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.

Sure my views are relevant.......It's not made up, matter-0-fact, it's simple bread and butter medicine, fundamentals.....

I am a physician that deals with INFLUENZA problems, both simple and complex, on a daily basis.

The astronauts received inadequate evaluations, ergo, Charles Berry has shown his hand through his feigned lack of competence and is confirmed as a fraud insider. Simple as that.

 

[Garrison]

I'm sorry but this one anomaly closes the whole case by itself. Apollo was a hoax. They were probably faking this footage in a diving plane and got careless.

It really doesn't. For one thing it's simply your opinion, which you haven't presented any good reason to treat as especially valid. Secondly you fall into the same 'smoking gun' fallacy as every other HB. Saying that one photo or short snatch of video, often obtained from second or third hand sources, looks strange still leaves a vast mass of evidence that points to the moon landings being real. You might as well claim to have brought down the Great Wall of China because you scratched it with a penknife.

 

[abaddon]

A jacket corner bouncing around the way it would in gravity when they were supposed to be halfway to the moon doesn't look right to me.

Define "looks right". What are your qualifications to know?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1

Edited by LashL: 

No need to keep posting the same links over and over. It is sufficient to link to your prior post in which you already set them all out.

But that is what FF88 always does.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7226888&postcount=2734

Anyone who actully watches the footage can see that this isn't the case. The corner gets pulled upward but the fabric is too loose to be pushed back downward.

How do you know this?

I'm sorry but this one anomaly closes the whole case by itself. Apollo was a hoax. They were probably faking this footage in a diving plane and got careless.

But you are wrong. I am not going to watch your tired footage once again, just to reach the same conclusion that you are still wrong, now am I? Almost a decade of spam, yet still, you have learned nothing?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7304510&postcount=3389

Somebody please link to that discussion.
Are you really that lazy that you cannot look it up yourself?

post #7200

What can I say? They'd laugh you out of the debating hall for this response. Come on Jay. I want your opinion. Aren't you the main expert on these matters?

Why, exactly, should people continue to address your claims? You have been proven wrong repeatedly. Why should people continue to prove you wrong? If you won't listen to the correct answer at the first, second, third, forth, fifth, etc time of answering, why should anyone expend further effort on you misinformed ramblings? Why?

 

[Patrick1000]

An Important Point

I don't believe this point has been made clear enough so I shall make it now and make it very explicitly.

I would be happy to publicly debate any one or all of the perpetrators I have named; Armstrong, the other astronauts, Kranz, Aaron, Schiesser, Kraft. The only requirement I would have would be an impartial moderator and forum.

As best I can tell, Jay is not offering anything like that. I hardly want to debate non principals on NASA turf....

Clear enough?

 

[Patrick1000]

Then pray tell please show me where Jay or one of the others.....

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

Then pray tell LongFuzzy please show me where Jay or one of the others has demonstrated that INFLUENZA vaccines are 100% efficacious and so the Apollo 8 astronauts were indeed guaranteed protection with regard to this bug.

Don't believe I read a post of their's providing such a proof, not even a mention of such an absurd possibility. It would seem that, no better said, you are wrong, incorrect LongFuzzy.........

Don't believe they showed us a copy of the Mission Report with the AGS, PNGS and MSFN solutions 5 miles from one another as H. David Read stated they were.

Need I go on?

How about you, know anything 'bout INFLUENZA?

 

[Patrick1000]

Medicine with regard to the INFLUENZA issue......

Name one.

Medicine with regard to the INFLUENZA issue......

 

[Patrick1000]

There are much better ways to drop the big one's...

Do you really believe that the shuttle was used as a bomber? Do you have any proof?



You do realise that the fleet was grounded last year?

There are much better ways to drop the big one.......That said, the Shuttle was/is the Dyna-Soar, and yes I am well aware of the current status of the fleet. Practically, the Shuttle did very important military reconnaissance and military satellite work.

It never dropped one, but could have. And maybe still will, never know.....

 

[Patrick1000]

I did not call them "liars"........

Only you, Patrick, would consider calling others liars, as being tactful.

I did not call them "liars"........I tactfully told them the jig was up.

You know anything about INFLUENZA RAF? See...... Jig's up.....

They got the message 10 months before you, now everyone knows......

 

[Patrick1000]

Muscle aches?

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.

Muscle aches?

 

[Loss Leader]

I am a physician

No, you are not.

It never dropped one, but could have. And maybe still will, never know.....

There's more chance we'll use the Enola Gay than a space shuttle.

 

[Patrick1000]

Piece of data, so called it a pixel......

So it works perfectly well for everyone, but you? Really?


Redundant. We know that.


Why this weird oscillation from human vision to pixels? Surely a doctor would be aware that the human eye is not analogous to a digital camera? Surely a doctor would know that the distribution of rods and cones is not linear in the human eye?


pixels =/= bits. Are you now admitting that Collins was, in fact, there in lunar orbit?


Confront them in person, then. You have been offered the opportunity.


So as a scientist, you are claiming it is an insane waste of time to seek verification of the data at hand? Really?


No, that is what your propositions have done. Every time.

Discrete piece of visual data, so I called it a pixel......

It is the sextant, not Collins human eye, providing the better resolution, 2.8 arc seconds from 60 miles up. The human eye is theoretically at best 16.5 arc seconds good, but practically does no better than a minute of arc.

So it is the sextant that would be able to discern or "see"/resolve something 4 feet by four feet. That is the smallest unit/bit of visual info available from 60 miles up with a 1.6 inch objective.

So theoretically, Collins would have 11 of these covering the area of the LM, eleven 4 x 4 bits, or pixels as I called them, of info to make out the Eagle.

Call the pieces of data whatever you like. I claim they are woefully inadequate. Could not tell a LM from a big rock or a shadow even with so few bits of info. And I was generous with my calculation too. I assumed a perfect device.

The whole thing is an insane joke. Talk about embarrassing. I am embarrassed it took me 10 months to point out this obvious point, a good one, a very good point.

This ship done blowed up........

 

[Garrison]

I don't believe this point has been made clear enough so I shall make it now and make it very explicitly.

I would be happy to publicly debate any one or all of the perpetrators I have named; Armstrong, the other astronauts, Kranz, Aaron, Schiesser, Kraft. The only requirement I would have would be an impartial moderator and forum.

As best I can tell, Jay is not offering anything like that. I hardly want to debate non principals on NASA turf....

Clear enough?

What's clear is that you are still dodging JayUtah's generous offer. He made no mention of 'NASA turf' that's just another invention on your part.