Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
Of course my claims about the chemistry issues are quite valid Hans...

Except for the part where you don't understand how combustion works.

...the investigators are required simply to show by way of experiments...

Asked and answered. You are not qualified to mandate how professionals go about acquiring their information.

Look at the reports for yourself. I have already provided links.

Links to the report itself do not substantiate the arbitrary, misinformed expectations you wish to apply to it.

My point is straightforward and is nothing less than utterly unimpeachable.

Then why won't you present your findings in person to the NASA engineers who are waiting for you a scant 15 miles from your house? What do you have to lose?

Bluster -- argument rejected.
 
Not sure I understand your point.....This photo is not proof of the scenario as presented in the Cortright Report.
Watch out - those moving goalposts just achieved escape velocity. You keep on doing this Patrick, over and over. When you said you would have expected the astronauts to have photographed the damage, a photo which they took of the damage was posted, and what was your reaction? You complained about something entirely different: that a photograph of the damage does not establish what caused the damage! You don't appear able to follow your own thread any more. Perhaps the strain of having your ass handed to you daily for half a year is getting too much.

My point is straightforward and is nothing less than utterly unimpeachable. It is absolute proof positive...

You really are desperate to provoke someone into doing your chemistry homework for you, aren't you? :rolleyes:
 
Of course my claims about the chemistry issues are quite valid Hans..

The investigators claim there was 0.13 pounds of Teflon available for combustion, and furthermore, that the combustion of said Teflon was adequate to blow the tank. Given these claims, the investigators are required simply to show by way of experiments, however straightforward or sophisticated, that there were indeed 0.13 pounds of Teflon available to burn, and were it to burn, it would blow a tank. They did not do this. Look at the reports for yourself. I have already provided links.

I take it you neglected to read Appendix F, where they elaborate on exactly what you claim they did not do, i.e. perform relevant experiments, including detonation of an O2 tank.

Have a nice little read.


BTW taht is part 1 of four of appendix F alone. Don't omit the other three. :jaw-dropp
 
I am feeling generous. Here are the remaining 3 parts of appendix F of the Cortright Commission's report.

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

All in the Cortright Commission's report. All of which you claim they never did.

And all this is just appendix F alone, never mind the rest of the report.
 
...the investigators are required simply to show by way of experiments, however straightforward or sophisticated, that there were indeed 0.13 pounds of Teflon available to burn, and were it to burn, it would blow a tank.

At the risk of beating the dead horse that Jay and others have pummeled into a fine, pink goo...

Having admitted to possessing no engineering credentials and having demonstrated no competence in the field, you do not get to substitute your arbitrary, uninformed judgement for that of trained professionals.

Likewise with matters of medicine, chemistry, astronomy, navigation, cartography, aeronautics, air traffic control, government accounting, [list truncated in the interest of brevity].
 
Of course my claims about the chemistry issues are quite valid Hans..

Really you appear to know nothing about chemistry and have been mentally slam dunked repeatedly by the experts here - your claims are not only unsubstantiated they are demolished


My point is straightforward and is nothing less than utterly unimpeachable. It is absolute proof positive of Apollo 13 inauthenticity, and indeed, is proof positive of Apollo inauthenticity in a broad and absolute sense, for the perpetrators pretended to launch more leaky space boats(bogus Apollos 14-17) after this farce of an investigation.

Your points have been utterly debunk, repeatedly, by the experts here and yes your investigation was a farce. Please try again. I suggest that you try to claim to be astronaut now.
 
Fair enough, ignore me....I shall continue with my well referenced/proven/documented/well substantiated charges and revelations of Apollo truth.

Fair enough, ignore me....I shall continue(begin) with my well referenced/proven/documented/well substantiated charges and revelations of Apollo truth.
 
This is interesting, doesn't appear they tweaked their aluminum situation as best I can tell SUSpilot. What do you think?


http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720016137_1972016137.pdf

Nothing like a fake fix for #14. Guess it sorta makes sense given Al Shepard got a dedizzing procedure courtesy of a fake fix as well.

I think they applied a change to Apollo 14 and subsequent as a result of the experience with 13:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14mr-a.htm

Although I've known this from popular accounts, finding this link took roughly, oh, two minutes of Googling.


Another minute found this link to the Mayo Clinic:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/menieres-disease/DS00535/DSECTION=treatments-and-drugs

Although there is no cure, surgery is an option. And here's the kicker; if a qualified flight surgeon, or a panel of qualified flight surgeons, clears you to go after the procedure, guess what? You can fly. (BTW, just to shake some of you up, there are a fair number of ATP's [airline captains] out there that are medically qualified and flying after major heart surgery.)

Don't forget the PTFE calculations, Patrick. Looking forward to your upcoming debate once you pass your contact info to Jay.
 
Can't say it was the first one in space, as that is all the point.....

Aldrin started down the ladder, and then back up to be sure not to "lock the door".

"Good thought", said Armstrong.

Aldrin followed with, "That's our home for the next couple of hours. We want to take good care of it".

So of course they've got better than half a day more to go for this simulated mission. Hard to know if the slip was that of a script writer or if they let these guys ad lib at all. I imagine the EVA script was TIGHT. I suspect this slip was not Aldrin's but his script writer's.....

Have you never heard (or read transcripts of) colloquial, American idiomatic English? That is the probably the smallest nit I've ever seen picked in my life.
 
Fair enough, ignore me....I shall continue with my well unreferenced/unproven/undocumented/well unsubstantiated charges and revelations of Apollo truth.

There, I've taken the time as, admittedly, a lurker, to fix your obvious typo's.

Your, welcome, in advance.

Phil
 
I shall continue with my well referenced/proven/documented/well substantiated charges and revelations of Apollo truth.


You have not brought up even one "well referenced/proven/documented/well substantiated" charge that hasn't been thoroughly debunked in this thread.

Your credibility is nil. You have convinced no one, and no one believes you. If you think otherwise, you are simply fooling yourself.
 
The point there RAF is that " a couple of hours" is out of context...

Add "a sense of humor" to the ever increasing list of things Patrick is unfamiliar with...

The point there RAF is that " a couple of hours" is out of context..The EVA will be a couple of hours long, but not the simulated stay on the moon. The landing time is roughly a day. "Couple hours" makes no sense.

One may surmise, this was/is a piece of script, something penned for Aldrin by another. The script writer botched this, wasn't thinking carefully enough.

A genuine astronaut in Aldrin's situation would not make that statement, ergo, said astronaut, the utterer of said out of context lines, is a thespian, not a real spaceman.

I wonder if it will turn out those high pitched beeps/tones that riddle the Apollo dialog are dialog SIGNALS, or image SIGNALS of some sort. Lots of possibilities there, but interesting to consider these.

Obviously the Apollo dialogs/scripts are tightly restricted. This is why the CapComs are the only ones that communicate with the astronauts, to guard against someone injecting something that will blow the scam. Perhaps some stuff is even prerecorded, certainly the movies cannot be live.

Think about this. Since the Apollo 13 capsule splashed on target but entered shallow, hence giving rise to the longer than anticipated blackout period on entry, one can conclude with utter certainty, the "reentry" was staged, was fraudulent. One cannot have an on target splash with a long entry. Were the ship real, and were it to have entered shallow, and were this shallowness on entry to have given rise to the prolonged LOS, then the ship would have opened its shoots long, downrange, well outside the anticipated target zone.

From that, one can speculate, not idly, but rather seriously/meaningfully, given the scenario as described, as it played out, it makes it rather difficult to imagine that the astronauts were in earth orbit as some hoax advocates suggest, e.g. Sibrel. It is extremely unlikely that Apollo 13 was in earth orbit during this charade, at least not there at the end. They are tracking "something". The tracking people certainly are not in on the fix. Non NASA types are tracking whatever is coming in.

One thing one does indeed now know with absolute certainty is that it is not a genuine Apollo capsule carrying astronauts coming in. Such is the case because they cannot track the thing and find it enters the atmosphere and splashes on target, AND AT THE SAME TIME, enters shallow and in the context of this shallow entry gives rise to this very extended LOS AND still lands on target. NONSENSE.........

One concludes, more likely than not, the pretend space farers are dropped by way of cargo craft. They were dropped late in the case of the Apollo thirteen splash, a couple three minutes late really messed up the phony thing, but what could they do? It is not as though any of this were real. Were it, there would have been no question as to why the extended LOS. (That is another good/important generic point as regards Apollo fraud. Whenever they cannot explain something reasonably well, like the extended LOS here, not only does it betray the fraud in a general sense, but it gives one a clue as to what may have really occurred in some particular situation, in this case, with regard to the staged Apollo 13 capsule splash. ? Dropped by cargo plane? Additionally, it leads one to reasonably speculate about where the astronauts were during these phony missions, lots of explanations are possible and various scenarios are reasonable, but one broad category of scenario that should be explored is to look at the possibility the astronauts were on earth when all this nonsense was going on, i.e. the missions.

Have you ever seen that great BBC show featuring Patrick Moore as an old man and reviewing the events of the big night, APOLLO 11 A NIGHT TO REMEMBER? There is a great scene in there where they show us the escape route for the astronauts from the Saturn V. There was a super long slide that they could go down, 300 plus feet worth of slide, and then wind up at the base of the rocket UNDERGROUND. There was a blast proof bunker there. This was said to have been an emergency escape route to provide the astronauts a way out if they needed to scram and hide safely under an unstable and perhaps even an imminently blowing soon to be 10 megaton fireball of a useless spaceship.

That may be what happened. They load the phony astronauts in and then the phony astronauts "sneak out", slide down the long shoot and creep away. The rocket "blasts off", and all the staging stuff is pre recorded for the most part. They add some necessary real time touches, the accurate weather patterns on the earth images and so forth.

Lots of things to look into. Would also make some sense to send them up in a limited capacity as well. Not a big focus of mine presently, but certainly one of the more interesting aspects of the fraud and one of the trickiest for our side to deal with given tracking capabilities and what not. Lots of fun ahead exploring this as time goes on.
 
Debating the Principals

Not sure why I am still being asked about this, but to emphasize yet again, I am more than happy to debate anyone I have named in my thread a s a confirmed perp(Aaron, Kranz, Kraft, astronauts, Schiesser, Department of Defense Map makers that actually made the LAM-2 map and the approach maps previously referenced as featuring the Press Kit landing site coordinates at the ellipse center, and so forth). This, providing the debate would be moderated by someone agreed by both sides to be impartial, and provided the debate occurred on neutral turf, a non NASA site. I would also debate the current head of NASA. I have no interest for the most part in debating other NASA personal with perhaps a couple of exceptions. Were that entity/NASA to appoint a person as a point man or point gal primarily responsible to defend the official story, I would debate that person publicly. I would debate NASA's head physician, or if they have infectious disease specialists on staff, I would debate those individuals as well.
 
Guys and Gals I'd Love To Debate...... Addendum

If it has not been made perfectly clear, let me do so now.

I consider the chemists, chemical engineers, electrical engineers and any other scientists involved in formulating the Cortright Commission's conclusions as regards the Apollo 13 O2 Tank explosion Apollo Fraud perpetrators. By this I mean specifically those scientists "signing off" on the Cortright Commission's conclusions as regards the chemistry of the explosion, those scientists responsible for the explicit articulation of the proposed scenario; 0.13 pounds of Teflon and/or some unspecified quantity of an unspecified type of aluminum burning in the context of the alleged Apollo 13 O2 Tank Two fire and this burning leading to the release of energy/heat, a pressure rise, and ultimately the alleged explosion and ship damage.

These individuals I name as certified/confirmed perpetrators and as such, would welcome with the greatest enthusiasm any opportunity to debate them face to face under the conditions previously mentioned .
 
Can't say it was the first one in space, as that is all the point.....

Aldrin started down the ladder, and then back up to be sure not to "lock the door".

"Good thought", said Armstrong.

Aldrin followed with, "That's our home for the next couple of hours. We want to take good care of it".

So of course they've got better than half a day more to go for this simulated mission. Hard to know if the slip was that of a script writer or if they let these guys ad lib at all. I imagine the EVA script was TIGHT. I suspect this slip was not Aldrin's but his script writer's.....

Well... I've been away for a few days running a training course.

I've caught up with the backlog of posts now, and my reaction to this one was/is: Is this what you've been reduced to? Is this the best you can come up with now?

I note that every point you've attempted has been comprehensively crushed with real data and genuine research. I've learnt an awful lot and would like to thank the experts here at the JREF again for putting the time in to inform the lurkers like myself.

I'm really puzzled by this whole thread. You seem to believe that you've uncovered a huge conspiracy, but what do you do? You go to a web forum to spout your theory. This really makes no sense. What do you hope to achieve here? All I've seen is that after months of effort, with many, many walls of text from you, you appear to have convinced approximately zero people.

Can you enlighten me as to why you're here, please, Patrick? I'm genuinely curious.

BTW - how did you meeting with the NASA experts go?

Oh, right.... :)
 
Sorry to have only read page 1 and then the page where I am posting now, but...

Patrick1000 are you trying to say that in a time where Russia and the U.S. were seriously thinking about turning the planet's atmosphere in a popcorn-oven,

1) The U.S. had the guts to set up a fake to which they had no clue how well the Russians could monitor it and how they would respond if they spotted a fake (remember, both were playing for the world's stage to get most kudo's).

2) The Soviets, would have been silent if they had spotted any such faking?

3) The Chinese high-res moon scan is also playing along with this story, even though the Chinese can get away with just about anything they want at this moment since they own all the cash....

And that is just mentioning the very big boys....

The U.K. and France, while maybe not space-worthy at that time did already have some pretty good records in observatory science.

You are actually saying that the whole world was in on this, except us poor souls on this forum?
 
A genuine astronaut in Aldrin's situation would not...

You don't get to make up rules for "genuine astronauts." Do you realize that for the past eight months you've subjected us to nothing more rigorous that your idle belief? You are not the grand exalted maker of rules for all things, Patrick. It may surprise you to learn that the world goes on its merry way regardless of what you think about it.

Arrogance is not intelligence.

I wonder if it will turn out those high pitched beeps/tones that riddle the Apollo dialog are dialog SIGNALS, or image SIGNALS of some sort.

If you had any clue about engineering you'd recognize those as Quindar tones.

Lots of possibilities there...

No, just one.

One cannot have an on target splash with a long entry.

Show your work. Hint: there's something about the geometry of the Apollo entry profile that you're going to stumble on, and we're all going to have another laugh at your expense when you do.

The tracking people certainly are not in on the fix.

And the "tracking people" specifically preclude the military profiles you've largely abandoned now for two months.

One thing one does indeed now know with absolute certainty...

Idle bluster -- argument rjected.

One concludes, more likely than not, the pretend space farers are dropped by way of cargo craft.

Asked and answered. Why didn't the Navy see the airplane on radar?

That may be what happened.

With 35 cameras trained on the rocket? No.

Lots of things to look into.

But you never look into anything longer than to make some idle speculation and pronounce it to be the "absolute truth." When questioned, you backpedal and lie.

While you're "looking into" things, please give us the computations you promised. And please send me your contact information so that we can get the ball rolling on your interviews with the engineers and flight surgeons. I really grow weary of your constant evasion.
 
Of course it is not "the best"... It is an incidental curiosity...

Well... I've been away for a few days running a training course.

I've caught up with the backlog of posts now, and my reaction to this one was/is: Is this what you've been reduced to? Is this the best you can come up with now?

I note that every point you've attempted has been comprehensively crushed with real data and genuine research. I've learnt an awful lot and would like to thank the experts here at the JREF again for putting the time in to inform the lurkers like myself.

I'm really puzzled by this whole thread. You seem to believe that you've uncovered a huge conspiracy, but what do you do? You go to a web forum to spout your theory. This really makes no sense. What do you hope to achieve here? All I've seen is that after months of effort, with many, many walls of text from you, you appear to have convinced approximately zero people.

Can you enlighten me as to why you're here, please, Patrick? I'm genuinely curious.

BTW - how did you meeting with the NASA experts go?

Oh, right.... :)

Of course it is not "the best"... It is an incidental curiosity...The best is the INFLUENZA scam, the LOST BIRD scam, the BOGUS APOLLO INVESTIGATION CHEMISTRY scam, the FRAUDULENT MAP LABELING BY DoD "EXPERTS" scam, the BORMAN REPORT OF TAKING SECONAL A SECOND TIME scam. This type of stuff is the meat and freeze dried space potatoes of the fraud.

That said, these gaffes, like the one referenced above, have interest for Apollo historians as they are details which provide something in the way of a hint as to HOW this may have all occurred. In this case, a hint suggestive of Aldrin not add libbing during the real-time events of the simulated/pretended landing. that is a script writer more likely than not. aldrin himself would not have made that mistake. so one concludes that during the farce, the astronauts were reading from a script primarily, add libbing only when pressed to do so.

The Aldrin comment is of course not proof of scam, the INFLUENZA concerns are proff of scam, the department of defense map makers intentioanlly/fraudulently labeling the elipse with Press Kit targeted landing site coordinates is proof of the scam. The point with my comment above is, once one confirms fraud by way of these other considerations, comments such as this by Aldrin give one a nice clue as to a possible avenue of investigation to learn more about the fraud, specifics as regards the fraud. Very important stuff as time goes on.
 
Not sure why I am still being asked about this...

Because you keep trying to change the rules to work in your favor, and you don't think that we see this is what you're doing.

This, providing the debate would be...

My offer, my rules.

You alone with the people you've accused, plus a passive cameraman. No moderator. No safety net. Just you and they. Take it or leave it.

I would debate NASA's head physician...

What have you done to contact him?

I have flight surgeons standing by less than a half hour's drive from your house. Put up or shut up, Patrick.
 
If it has not been made perfectly clear, let me do so now.

Believe me, you have belabored at length the statement of your belief. We're just waiting for you to substantiate it, and we're growing impatient.

I consider the chemists, chemical engineers, electrical engineers and any other scientists involved in formulating the Cortright Commission's conclusions as regards the Apollo 13 O2 Tank explosion Apollo Fraud perpetrators.

No one cares what you think. You're demonstrably and admittedly incapable of meaningful comment on the subject. And you won't accuse them to their faces; you hide behind a cloak of bluster and anonymity.

You're simply irrelevant.

These individuals I name as certified/confirmed perpetrators and as such, would welcome with the greatest enthusiasm any opportunity to debate them face to face under the conditions previously mentioned .

You have my offer. If you want something different, then you set it up yourself. But you don't get to weasel out of the challenge by making a lame counteroffer and expecting me to facilitate it.

Give me an answer today or I will represent that you have wilfully refused to face your accusers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom