Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[nomuse]

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.

It makes sense when his mental focus is on the EVA. At worst, you could call this a mixed sentence; when it changes focus half-way through. The better read is colloquially -- "This will be our home (that we'll be coming back to) (in) a couple of hours."

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.

Riiight. Just one guy makes up all the lines. No-one checks them for technical accuracy. No-one pays attention as they are rehearsed. Add the Industry to another of the things you know nothing about.

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.

You haven't shown this. All you have shown is your discomfort with his informal way of speech. I'm surprised you aren't picking on the "Father Christmas" bit, too.

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.

Something similar was suggested by an idiot elswhere. He at least knew what they were called, even if he was unable to distinguish between the different tones (which have a clear and documented role in the Apollo communications system). You've been studying the program for how long, again?

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.

Circular reasoning.

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.

It's not a bullet or a rock.

And the one doesn't match the other. If it was carefully scripted, then the script would be internally consistent. If it was scripted so poorly that important details -- like the length of the Apollo 11 stay on the Moon? Really? -- were thrown in randomly, you wouldn't have one or two inconsistencies you'd have to search for. You'd have a log riddled with minor inconsistencies.

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.

Interesting how despite most hoax believers crowing about how large their numbers are, how many people agree with them, etc., the reality is that there are not two believers in any specific hoax. Each hoax believer adheres to a story so radically different from any of the others it is nonsense to call it a common conspiracy belief. The only thing that holds them together is they are all sure the mainstream is lying to them (even as they are so often wrong about what the "mainstream" actually says.)

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.........

Duplicated argument. Learn to write efficiently.

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.

Meandering that adds nothing material to the same argument already duplicated twice. Try posting your conclusions, not your progress towards them.

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.

Of course you want to keep your options open. As long as you don't commit, your Schroedinger's astronauts can be both in orbit and not in orbit, thus easily slipping out of the inconvenience of having to hold to a single narrative.

Unlike the real Apollo missions, which are so constrained. Every Apollo denier gets to make up mutually incompatible explanations (even within the same denier), and switch horses from one to the other as is convenient in the argument of the moment. The real Apollo can't. And yet it seems capable of answering the questions put to it anyhow.

That should tell you something.

 

[nomuse]

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.

Not good enough.

Debate them in person, or stop with the personal attacks and insults.

 

[Patrick1000]

It is not "fake" realpaladin except in the context.....

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?

It is not "fake" realpaladin except in the context of the Apollo program's being unmanned. Apollo was a covert military and at the same time ostensibly overt peaceful civilian operation that sought to and succeeded in studying space for military purposes, placing weapons in space, developing weapons such as the Dyna-Soar, MOL and so forth.

The LRRR is a weapon realpaladin in a very straightforward sense. The most important piece of information physical constant wise in terms of targeting an ICBM is knowing the earth's gravitational constant to the greatest degree of accuracy possible. The most accurate way to measure the earth's gravitational parameters in 1969 was to accurately/precisely measure the earth-moon distance as they did with the Apollo 11 LRRR, ergo, the Apollo missions were military. There is no question about this non trivial point. BOOM, right there, Apollo is NOT peaceful.

I will go through my posts and post a list of those most relevant to my overall positions regarding the fraud and that way you and others will not need to wade through the whole 200 page morass.

The Ruskies did the same thing, do the same thing we did/do. Weaponize/weaponized space.

Of course the French and English intelligence services know Apollo was an unmanned military program, part of a broad program to weaponize space. The only people that do not know this are those in the general public, rank and file civilians.

Of course the Soviets/Russians were and are silent.

 

[Huma]

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 would like to second this. Very often I see posters question why other posters even bother to respond to people that make ridiculous claims and offer nothing at all to back them up. I admit that it is fun to watch someone < snip> get thoroughly decimated, but it is also educational. I am very thankful for the experts, and amateurs alike, that take the time to explain, often in laymen terms, how awesome the space program was (and hopefully will be again…soon). To everyone participating in this thread, thank you.

 

[SUSpilot]

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.

<snip>

Taking The last (quoted) point first, the reason that the communications were so tightly held was so the astronauts would be working peer-to-peer. Others with sufficient authority could jump into the loop under extraordinary circumstances. I don't recall the specifics, but I know Kraft did it once or twice, as well as Slayton.

Taking the second point, those were "Quindar tones". Here's a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quindar_tones

Basically, they did the same thing that DTMF tones do to "wake up" various electronics via telephone.

Taking the first point, why is "a couple of hours" wrong? What qualifies you to determine what an astronaut would say in casual conversation? For what it's worth, there's a lot of non-standard radio conversation that takes place in aviation. People are not robots, Patrick.

As to the rest of the stuff I snipped, you've claimed expertise in understanding ballistic missiles: while you're working on the PTFE calculations, why don't you go back and review how an unmanned ballistic re-entry vehicle can use aerodynamic forces to correct it's targeting. Then you can relate that to how a manned capsule can do the same.

Btw, glad to see that you want to debate. Be sure to send Jay your contact info.

 

[SpitfireIX]

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.

Unluckily for you, Patrick, I happened to come across the following last night.



This is a tape of ABC's coverage of the September 11 attacks. At 20:31, Charles Gibson says, "It was there [the World Trade Center] that there was the explosion a couple of years ago, brought about by terrorists . . . [bolding mine]"

In fact, the World Trade Center bombing had occurred nearly nine years earlier, at the beginning of 1993. So, by your logic (and I use the term loosely), the September 11 attacks were all staged, and some careless script writer got Gibson's lines wrong. Except you can't claim that a real reporter would never say something like that, because clearly Charles Gibson was a real reporter. So maybe it's just a fact that people sometimes say "a couple" when they really mean "several"?

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.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/quindar.html Fail.

Obviously the Apollo dialogs/scripts are tightly restricted.

Begging the question of whether the missions were faked.

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.

Affirmed consequent. Having a single CapCom guards against someone accidentally saying something incorrect, ambiguous, or ill-timed, that could jeopardize a real mission.

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.

What part of "the Command Module was capable of maneuvering in the atmosphere after reentry" did you not understand?

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.

As noted, your premise is erroneous.

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.........

The nonsense here is your claims about Apollo having been faked.

Lots of fun ahead exploring this as time goes on.

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that you find [Rule10]ing on the graves of those who've given their lives in the pursuit of space exploration "fun."

 

[abaddon]

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.

Why? They expected to be on the EVA for a couple of hours.

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.

Evidence? No? That is too bad.

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.

What are your qualifications to know what a genuine astronaut would, or would not say?

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.

"if it will turn out"? Really? Those tones have a defined function. Did you not know that? See if your research skillz can discover that.

Obviously the Apollo dialogs/scripts are tightly restricted.

Bare assertion, unsupported by any evidence.

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.

Once again, there is a reason why the CapCom performs this function. It should be obvious, but see if your research skillz can find this out.

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.

Plain flat out wrong. The CM was not a ballistic object, it was an aerodynamic lifting body. It could be steered.

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.

From that, one can conclude that you didn't know that the CM was an aerodynamic lifting body, and based this paragraph on an error.

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.........

And again.

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.

And again.

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.

And?

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.

Sure they did, with all those TV cameras rolling

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.

All of them dead ends.

Any response on the Cortright Report appendix F? No? What a shame.

 

[abaddon]

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.

You are being asked because you have failed to provide your contact details to Jay so that a meeting can be facilitated.

You are obviously terrified of such a meeting.

 

[abaddon]

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.

Cortright Commission's report, Appendix F, listing the very experiments carried out, which you claim never happened.

How do you respond?

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 .

The opportunity to do so is before you. Why do you continue to dodge it?

Provide your details to Jay and he WILL facilitate such a meeting.

What are you afraid of?

 

[JayUtah]

It is not "fake" realpaladin except in the context of the Apollo program's being unmanned.

You have utterly failed to prove how it could be unmanned. When confronted with the inevitable requirement for manned control, you suggest (but offer no proof) that the equipment was somehow modified after delivery.

Wishful thinking -- argument rejected.

Apollo was a covert military and at the same time ostensibly overt peaceful civilian operation...

Apollo had stated military purposes. You ignore those in your analysis because the treatment of them in Apollo documentation does not match your fanciful notion of extreme secrecy that you say must have accompanied the military objectives.

Straw man -- argument rejected.

The most accurate way to measure the earth's gravitational parameters in 1969 was to accurately/precisely measure the earth-moon distance as they did with the Apollo 11 LRRR...

False. This has been debunked at length. You are willfully ignoring the information that contradicts your belief.

Ignoratio elenchi -- argument rejected.

BOOM, right there, Apollo is NOT peaceful.

Some of Apollo's stated objectives were military and classified. The notion of Apollo as a purely peaceful program is a straw man -- argument rejected.

I will go through my posts and post a list of those most relevant...

Please do not continue to repeat your claims as a substitute for substantiating them. You previously posted a summary which was entirely refuted by me and others, and months later you still have not addressed those refutations. You are deliberately refusing to address facts that undermine your belief.

Obfuscation -- argument rejected.

Of course the French and English intelligence services know Apollo was an unmanned military program...

Where is your proof of this claim? -- argument rejected

Of course the Soviets/Russians were and are silent.

Asked and answered. The politics of the Cold War suggest that such covert operations would have been disclosed, especially if they were so patently obvious.

Argument from silence -- rejected.

 

[JayUtah]

Others with sufficient authority could jump into the loop under extraordinary circumstances.

Others with lesser authority could speak over Net-1 under ordinary circumstances, such as the operators of the ground receiving stations. Mike Dinn, mentioned as an interviewee in the HSK web page on Apollo 13, spoke to the crews. He's on the list of people Patrick1000 can meet with in person if he ever chooses to leave his cocoon of anonymity.

For what it's worth, there's a lot of non-standard radio conversation that takes place in aviation.

La Guardia ATC is notorious for this.

 

[BaaBaa]

Quindar tones

I actually LEARNED something from this thread!

 

[JayUtah]

That said, these gaffes, like the one referenced above, have interest for Apollo historians...

You are not an Apollo historian. You are a conspiracy theorist and a chronic liar.

Real Apollo historians (you know -- those guys with degrees and books full of research, and real names and identities) confirm the authenticity of the Apollo missions.

Very important stuff as time goes on.

No, as time goes on you simply pile more conjecture and supposition on the heap you've already accumulated. You have yet to substantiate any of it. When cornered, you invoke the right to frame the debate and change the subject away from the offending point. You show absolutely no willingness to take any sort of meaningful intellectual responsibility for anything you've said.

 

[realpaladin]

It is not "fake" realpaladin except in the context of the Apollo program's being unmanned. Apollo was a covert military and at the same time ostensibly overt peaceful civilian operation that sought to and succeeded in studying space for military purposes, placing weapons in space, developing weapons such as the Dyna-Soar, MOL and so forth.

Erm...

The LRRR is a weapon realpaladin in a very straightforward sense. The most important piece of information physical constant wise in terms of targeting an ICBM is knowing the earth's gravitational constant to the greatest degree of accuracy possible.

Hot dang! And there I am at the 28C3 helping them thar hacker types to build stuff to get all these measurements more accurate and out in the open than any military ops...

The most accurate way to measure the earth's gravitational parameters in 1969 was to accurately/precisely measure the earth-moon distance as they did with the Apollo 11 LRRR, ergo, the Apollo missions were military.

Ehm, the 'ergo' is misplaced here... you can get away with a 'could therefore have been'.

This is a logical fallacy of the type: John has a moustache. John is a man. Therefore all men have moustaches.

There is no question about this non trivial point. BOOM, right there, Apollo is NOT peaceful.

No, going to the supermarket to buy some cheese does not mean you are going to have fondue for dinner. It may be that you want to slice it for your bread.

I will go through my posts and post a list of those most relevant to my overall positions regarding the fraud and that way you and others will not need to wade through the whole 200 page morass.

Yes, please.

The Ruskies did the same thing, do the same thing we did/do.

Yes, I hear they are very talkative about that. Incidentally, should I worry about my fellow countryman, Andre Kuipers, now staying longer in space than planned?

Weaponize/weaponized space.

What is the hidden purpose of the Swiss 'space cleaning robot'? Wouldn't all these warmongers in space be terribly concerned?

Of course the French and English intelligence services know Apollo was an unmanned military program, part of a broad program to weaponize space.

Eh? The French with their nationalist feelings let it slide?

The only people that do not know this are those in the general public, rank and file civilians.

How high up do you estimate one should have clearance to find out about this?

Of course the Soviets/Russians were and are silent.

You have to explain the of course to me....

And how about the Chinese then? Their high-res moonmapping clearly show all the shuffling around tracks in complete accordance with the U.S. story.
I can not really understand why they would do this...

 

[Tomblvd]

the INFLUENZA concerns are proff of scam

It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have no relevant medical foundation on which to make any believable statement on the medical issues involving Apollo 8.

Now please stop playing doctor and answer Jay's questions.

As an aside, are there any lurkers out there who are swayed by Patrick's medical arguments? Please ask me and I'll explain why he is wrong.

 

[Tomblvd]

Of course the French and English intelligence services know Apollo was an unmanned military program, part of a broad program to weaponize space. The only people that do not know this are those in the general public, rank and file civilians.

You made the statement earlier that only a few hundred higher ups in NASA and the government knew of the fraud. Now you've completely changed gear and added everybody BUT the general public is in on the deal.

Would it be too much to ask that you at least have the courtesy to start a new thread before you completely change the parameters of the latest hoax theory?

The moderating team will probably merge any new thread.

Posted By: Loss Leader

 

[Andy_Ross]

Patrick, have you lookedd at the links provided by Abaddon detailing the experiments carried out? The same ones you posted as not existing.

 

[Patrick1000]

GedankenExperiment may be a good approach here FatFreddy..

I've shown the footage to a few people and they all immediately said, "That's in gravity".
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1

This is such clear proof of a hoax it closes the whole case. In space there is no up or down and in that clip there's an obvious up and an obvious down.


There are plausible explanations for all of that "Evidence" that the missions were real and there's a ton of evidence that the missions were faked.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487

If just one case of clear proof of a hoax appears, all of your "Evidence" that the missions were real falls by the wayside.


Common sense says that an object moving in zero-G will not stop moving and change directions unless a force makes that happen. In the footage of Collins' jacket corner bouncing up and down there's no identifiable force making it stop going up and go back down except for gravity. Compare it to the footage of the straps in the other video.


When the fabric bounces, it folds. Fabric that's stiff enough to push something down would not fold. The movements are not just horizontal. There are up and down movements that could not happen in zero-G.


No I don't. I want you to give your analysis of the anomaly. This is a perfectly legitimate Apollo-related request. You're the webmaster of the Clavius site.
http://www.clavius.org/

There's no reason for you to refuse to address this.


That object is not moving in a way that would make the corner stop going upward and go back down. The corners of the jacket in the earth footage are moving the same way and there's no large objectd banging his chest.


It just looks loose to me. We can't see what's under it. What does this have to do with the way the corner moves? I can't see any relevance.


In a diving plane zero-G can be simulated for about twenty five seconds if I remember correctly. The theory is that they were going up and diving down repeatedly to get enough fake footage. If there's some footage that shows gravity, it means they got careless and left that footage in during the editing.


You're misrepresenting what happened there.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/190138-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio-5.html

Betamax destroyed his credibility by trying to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked in a water tank. That it was faked in a water tank is so clear that the issue makes a good objectivity test. Once it's clear that a poster isn't debating in good faith, there's no point in continuing.



It doesn't take any special qualifiactions to recognize the effects of strong gravity and know that would be impossible halfway between the earth and moon.

Way interesting point FatFreddy, and as above, involves one of the most difficult questions to address from our end, "If they were not in cislunar space, then where were they?" Pretty dang good fake job if these fairly credible videos were made by the Apollo fraud perpetrators in a strong gravitational field. By that I mean, most of these shots look convincing, at least fairly so anyhoo.

One suggestion I have for you FatFreddy and perhaps something you have already played around with, worked with;

Let's say this is a full on earth equivalent G field, 6 times the moon or thereabouts, how might one go about proving this to be fake. Well, one thing I thought about, experiment wise, and you may well be way ahead of me here, doesn't cost us anything to consider the possibly fraudulent situation from an Einstein type GedankenExperiment perspective.

What is Collins doing there? Is he holding a bar or something overhead, bracing himself proximally? Does he then start to run in mid air? Say that is the claim, what happens if we "cut the proverbial cable" and let this bad boy fall free in an earth equivalent gravitational field? If under that circumstance we say to ourselves, "NO WAY IT COULD LOOK LIKE THAT!!!! His jacket is flapping around and not tucked in, and as such, that jacket which appears more or less tethered in the video and under tension should be floating, at least more than it seems to be.... That tube in front of Collins would not be tethering things as it appears to be were this in a true zero G FREE FALL SITUATION ". Not to say those are my conclusions as of yet, but as I looked at your video FatFreddy, these sorts of things went through my head.

Remember, if they are in space, even if the capsule has an atmosphere, there should be no way to tell the difference between Collins jogging here in cislunar space and "jogging in free fall" in an earth equivalent gravitational field.

I think the key to that approach FatFreddy is trying to ascertain what if anything is tied down, tucked in and so forth. I'll show you what I mean by example;

Take a look at this sort of thing with this gal brushing her teeth in space, watch how the necklace/dog tag floats;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vg-FrXO1coA&feature=related

or the towel about her shoulders here;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0dw-IzKxWU&feature=related

In these cases, the dog tag and towel behave as they would were she in free fall, which of course she is. Can the same be said to be true with regard to Collins jacket, his ventral tube that may be functioning as a tether, and so forth? Perhaps with careful study someone can show the answer here to be, "NO! MICHAEL COLLINS IS NOT IN FREE FALL BECAUSE OF SUCH AND SUCH", the jacket's relative motion perhaps should not be a biased directionally as it appears to be and as you have pointed out.

At any rate FatFreddy, I like the video and your thoughts regarding the same. Very TOUGH aspect of the fraud you are tackling there and should be given a lot of credit for going after it.

 

[Garrison]

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.

Yes the fraud in which you pretend at expertise in these matters while making endless schoolboy errors; Julian co-ordinates, Teflon doesn't burn, Armstrong didn't photograph West crater, the Apollo 13 astronauts didn't photograph the damage etc. You have zero credibility, if you to want to regain any give JayUtah your contact details.

 

[sts60]

You made the statement earlier that only a few hundred higher ups in NASA and the government knew of the fraud. Now you've completely changed gear and added everybody BUT the general public is in on the deal.

Apollo "hoax" believers routinely claim that only a select subset of engineers and managers knew what was really going on, while many of them simultaneously make the simulatenous claim that other countries were "in on it".

The careful - well, make that the casual - reader will note, as Tomblvd does, that these are mutually contradictory positions. This is nothing new for the OP, who has continually contradicted himself both by lying and by simple incompetence.

<snip>

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited. Moderated thread.