Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[nomuse]

I think it is more than fair to say that assuming there indeed were manned landings at these sites, then this here is indeed the equipment. That said, the images in and of themselves have nowhere near the requisite resolution to make the claim that "one clearly sees a LM, or a rover, or whatever".

One clearly does not see a LM. One sees an indistinct white patch. Is it a LM? I personally think it might be, or something quite similar to Thomas Kelly's LM. By similar I mean an American made made lunar probe(modified unmanned LM?) that was successfully soft landed.

So you reject all other probe images in order to consider ONLY the Chinese images?

But this is still a form of God-of-the-gaps. If there were higher resolution images, it would still be possible to argue that it was only an object that looked substantially like an LM but could not be confirmed. Higher still, it would still be possible to argue that this is indeed an LM, but the quality of the image is not sufficient to reveal the various modifications. Higher yet again, and it would still be possible to argue that the modifications are behind false panels that (again!) the resolution of the image is insufficient to reveal.

And so on ad infinitum.

What is worth pointing out is that the images are grossly incompatible with random rocks; they almost certainly have to be technology. Technology that necessarily soft-landed. In the spots reported by the Apollo Program. So just by admitting these images into provenance any intellectually honest person would have been forced to abandon the line of argument that these still could have been random rock formations.

Which in my book is about on the level with dismissing the LRRR returns as from a random "shiny rock."

On the other hand, I think those fraud advocates, esteemed colleagues of mine they indeed are, with a view other than mine, with a view that the Americans man landed NOTHING OF IMPORTANCE at these sites, are saying something quite reasonable when they claim, "one cannot see anything there that can be claimed is definitely identifiable solely from the shot and the shot/image only, as a LM, or a rover, or a whatever, I am not buying in". I personally happen to disagree with that view, but I find it very reasonable given the image resolution and what is indeed identifiable outside any "set up". By set up I mean an assumed context that the Apollo Missions were successful and achieved more or less what is in the main claimed of them, and achieved in the manner typically/generally presented in our popular American culture.

I read the above six times and I can't make head nor tails of it. As best I can figure, all those words above boil down to "But you can't prove it."

 

[threadworm]

As far as I can tell, the Chinese still give the nod to the NASA boys with respect to who shot the best high res pics of the landing sites.....

http://www.china.org.cn/world/2011-09/07/content_23367720.htm

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html

I think it is more than fair to say that assuming there indeed were manned landings at these sites, then this here is indeed the equipment. That said, the images in and of themselves have nowhere near the requisite resolution to make the claim that "one clearly sees a LM, or a rover, or whatever".

One clearly does not see a LM. One sees an indistinct white patch. Is it a LM? I personally think it might be, or something quite similar to Thomas Kelly's LM. By similar I mean an American made made lunar probe(modified unmanned LM?) that was successfully soft landed.

On the other hand, I think those fraud advocates, esteemed colleagues of mine they indeed are, with a view other than mine, with a view that the Americans man landed NOTHING OF IMPORTANCE at these sites, are saying something quite reasonable when they claim, "one cannot see anything there that can be claimed is definitely identifiable solely from the shot and the shot/image only, as a LM, or a rover, or a whatever, I am not buying in". I personally happen to disagree with that view, but I find it very reasonable given the image resolution and what is indeed identifiable outside any "set up". By set up I mean an assumed context that the Apollo Missions were successful and achieved more or less what is in the main claimed of them, and that this was achieved in the manner typically/generally presented in our popular American culture.

No-one claimed that China had the best hi-res images of the Apollo sites, the Chinese claim to have the best hi-resolution map of the entire surface. NASA has provided the best high resolution images of small parts of the surface.

However, posting a link several months older than the Chang'e 2 map release that merely re-iterate's NASA's press release on a Chinese site (it is not the Chinese deferring to NASA's superior imaging) doesn't prove that the Chang'e 2 map does not have Apollo features on it.

Can you suggest how the take off videos shot inside the LM when they return to lunar orbit show tracks that match those taken by the LRO?

Here's a bit of fun I've been playing with. The zip file attached to this post contains two Google Earth kmz files, one from Apollo 8 and another from Apollo 11.

Apollo 8 is a series of image overlays from an orbit from one single magazine. Each image has been placed independently of the others. The low resolution versions of the images are displayed, but there is a link to the high resolution image in each overlay.

The Apollo 11 one is a predominantly series of images taken facing the direction of travel. The centre of the right hand side of each image has been used to place the image. The path over Tranquillity is clearly shown.

I'll be doing a lot more of these, as while the mapping camera images have been mapped to Google Moon, not much has been done to show where the orbital photos are.

Enjoy.

 

[Patrick1000]

It is probably Obvious To Most But Just In Case....

It is probably Obvious To Most But Just In Case....

Clearly, it is over the top helpful for the Apollo Fraud Perps to have articles appear in National Geographic, Life Magazine and so forth. The public cannot help but think the stuff HAS TO BE TRUE IF IT IS AN INTEGRAL FEATURE OF THE MEDIA STREAM THAT RIPPLES PAST DAY IN AND DAY OUT. NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!!!! I mean how could that possibly be fake? No way.....

The articles referenced above appearing in Life and National Geographic are a bit atypical in that they were penned by fraud principals, flesh and blood perps. Having garden variety rank and file journalists report on this stuff, naive, unquestioning, rather dense journalists, being fed this or that and then regurgitating it for public consumption, now that is one of the best ways to establish this garbage in the community at large's mind. That said, this special stuff, the occasional "inside story" as provided by the Apollo 8 nauts or Phillips, as in the cases of the Life Mag article and the National Geographic piece respectively do press the matter all the more. Pop films like Apollo 13 don't hurt the Perps cauz' either. Help a lot actually. Hanks and Howard, ever so dumb, perp helpful and naively complicitous.

Another thing that was done in the case of Apollo was to do stuff like HAVE THE CAPCOM READ THE NEWSPAPER TO THE ASTRONAUTS, READ THE ASTRONAUTS THIS OR THAT CURRENT EVENT, "THE YANKEES WON", "PRESIDENT NIXON DID THIS OR THAT", "YOU GUYS ARE SUPER POPULAR WITH THE LADIES , ALL THE GIRLS ARE TALKING ABOUT YOU DOWN HERE", whatever, all of this complete silly as it gets foolish nonsense. The idea of course is to have people, you and me, associate the real world with REAL APOLLO, very insidious and way way way flat out effective. OF COURSE IT IS REAL, THEY ARE READING THE ASTRONAUTS YESTERDAY'S BASEBALL SCORES.

Then you have stuff like David Harland's work. Recall how I pointed out he had to be aware that the LAM-2 map was FRAUDULENTLY "rotated" given his own image presentation in one of his books, an image reproduced in the Apollo 11 image Library. So David Harland is a prolific author who is a perp. His job is to produce garbage that pretty much passes for well researched material. Jeffrey Kluger who wrote Apollo 13 with Lovell is a perp more likely than not. If he is not a perp, then Kluger is an insanely dense complicitous utterly incompetent writer. Recall how I pointed out Kluger's conveniently fudging Lovell's time line so it "read" in that silly book that Lovell saw the "venting" at the SAME TIME it was generally realized and acknowledged the pressure in O2 tank one was dropping. As one notes from a reading of the Apollo 13 Voice Transcript, it is NOT UNTIL WELL AFTER Lovell notes the "venting" that attention is called to the pressure in 02 tank one dropping. This is easily confirmed by simply reading the voice transcript. Just read it. Kluger is disgusting..... I have referenced this already in a post above. Kluger is 10 plus dumb and if he is not a disgusting perp, then he is malleable, malleable like bogus Apollo aluminum that does whatever the fraud perps want it too irrespective of reality. On the other hand, it is quite possible Kluger is a perp himself. Time will tell. Either way, Kluger is worthless as a writer, not a good writer in any meaningful sense, in any legitimate sense. That said, Kluger is over the top invaluable as a promulgator of jive infested Apollo malarkey.

So you have all these people contributing to this huge pile of BULL that is amassing, continuing to amass , documenting, fraudulently documenting Apollo. The documentation is most of the time courtesy of naive honest reporters regurgitating nonsense, with a splash of perp penned BULL, and then there is the ultra contrived David Harland type high level stuff, very powerful as "HISTORY", and finally the real subtle, insidious READING THE ASTRONAUTS BASEBALL SCORES type of stuff. All of this conspires to push us, mostly on a subconscious level to buy in, assume it is real, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Very important point here.

 

[JayUtah]

As far as I can tell, the Chinese still give the nod to the NASA boys...

Actually you need to keep in mind that everyone "gives the nod to NASA" except for you and a few other scientifically illiterate, questionably motivated individuals. Don't steep yourself so thoroughly in your own bluster to forget that for the vast majority of the educated world -- and the entirety of the professional world -- Apollo hoax theories are a laughable non-starter. This is the world you seem very afraid to face.

And the rest of the world accepts these photographs as legitimate confirmation that the Apollo missions were real. The only people who don't are those hold-outs who have opposed all the evidence to date anyway as a matter of predetermined policy. Their objection was foreseen and foreshadowed. Even before any such photos were available, they were abuzz with premature rejection, therefore we discount them.

That said, the images in and of themselves have nowhere near the requisite resolution to make the claim that "one clearly sees a LM, or a rover, or whatever".

Begging the question. Give us an actual number for what the "requisite resolution" should be, and give us the reason why it should be that number and not any other number. If people can tell that the LRV tires are pointed in a specific direction, that seems to them to be like "requisite resolution."

By similar I mean an American made made lunar probe(modified unmanned LM?) that was successfully soft landed.

Equivocation. You can't say on the one hand that the photos are too indistinct to support NASA's claims, but that they're good enough somehow to support your theory of having landed something else.

Let's not forget either that you claimed for months that the LM in your scenario was an off-the-shelf spacecraft, unmodified from its manufacturer. But when you were presented with information proving that the LM could not be landed unmanned -- information including your own source, mind you -- then you inexplicably changed horses again and said that the LM must somehow have been modified "by the military" before being sent aloft.

And we are still waiting for you to come up with the details of those modifications. We won't get them, of course. Why not? Because the "modified LM" theory is just your knee-jerk reaction to having been refuted previously. It didn't come from any careful examination of the available facts. It's just what you desperately needed to be true in order for you to keep believing in your pet theory.

On the other hand, I think those fraud advocates, esteemed colleagues of mine they indeed are...

You mean the ones you just got finished calling NASA shills? Is there nothing about which you won't talk out of both sides of your mouth?

...are saying something quite reasonable when they claim, "one cannot see anything..."

Again the anonymous "one cannot." What they mean to say is that they cannot, while others can. Attempting to generalize one's opinion as if it were the foregone conclusion is a pretty cheap-shot way of trying to avoid the responsibility to defend it.

I personally happen to disagree with that view...

More equivocation. It's "reasonable" but you disagree with it.

The "setup" you so callously wish to disregard is the hypothesis under test. Disregarding it is like throwing the patient out the hospital window lest she bias the lab tests intended to diagnose her. It is impossible to evaluate evidence that purports to confirm a finding without comparing properties of the evidence against the corresponding expected properties of the finding. You're trying to tell the world that it's cheating if it thinks of Apollo claims while looking at photos depicting the evidence of Apollo claims. Nice try.

...and that this was achieved in the manner typically/generally presented in our popular American culture.

I think we get closer to your real reason for opposing belief in proven fact (that reason being a strong anti-mainstream sentiment) when you say things like this. It's been the theme of most of your other arguments, going back to when you let slip that "the lies of the American mainstream government view" had jumped the shark, so to speak.

You just cannot get around the fact that the story of Apollo is blatantly obvious to everyone, and that it is even more so to the professionals who work in the relevant field. You have to try so very hard to write it off as some sort of smoke-and-mirrors deception.

 

[SpitfireIX]

It is probably Obvious To Most But Just In Case....

It is unquestionably obvious to most that you're just pulling things out of an orifice to try to smear the Apollo Program.

Clearly, it is over the top helpful for the Apollo Fraud Perps to have articles appear in National Geographic, Life Magazine and so forth. The public cannot help but think the stuff HAS TO BE TRUE IF IT IS AN INTEGRAL FEATURE OF THE MEDIA STREAM THAT RIPPLES PAST DAY IN AND DAY OUT. NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!!!! I mean how could that possibly be fake? No way.....

The articles referenced above appearing in Life and National Geographic are a bit atypical in that they were penned by fraud principals, flesh and blood perps. Having garden variety rank and file journalists report on this stuff, naive, unquestioning, rather dense journalists, being fed this or that and then regurgitating it for public consumption, now that is one of the best ways to establish this garbage in the community at large's mind. That said, this special stuff, the occasional "inside story" as provided by the Apollo 8 nauts or Phillips, as in the cases of the Life Mag article and the National Geographic piece respectively do press the matter all the more. Pop films like Apollo 13 don't hurt the Perps cauz' either. Help a lot actually. Hanks and Howard, ever so dumb, perp helpful and naively complicitous.

Affirmed consequent. Such articles and films would certainly be expected to have been produced incident to real moon landings.

Another thing that was done in the case of Apollo was to do stuff like HAVE THE CAPCOM READ THE NEWSPAPER TO THE ASTRONAUTS, READ THE ASTRONAUTS THIS OR THAT CURRENT EVENT, "THE YANKEES WON", "PRESIDENT NIXON DID THIS OR THAT", "YOU GUYS ARE SUPER POPULAR WITH THE LADIES , ALL THE GIRLS ARE TALKING ABOUT YOU DOWN HERE", whatever, all of this complete silly as it gets foolish nonsense. The idea of course is to have people, you and me, associate the real world with REAL APOLLO, very insidious and way way way flat out effective. OF COURSE IT IS REAL, THEY ARE READING THE ASTRONAUTS YESTERDAY'S BASEBALL SCORES.

Affirmed consequent. Real astronauts on real space missions are generally interested in what's happening back on Earth.

Then you have stuff like David Harland's work. Recall how I pointed out he had to be aware that the LAM-2 map was FRAUDULENTLY "rotated" given his own image presentation in one of his books, an image reproduced in the Apollo 11 image Library. So David Harland is a prolific author who is a perp.

Recall how several people have pointed out that you don't know the first thing about cartography, geometric projection, or even map reading.

His job is to produce garbage that pretty much passes for well researched material. Jeffrey Kluger who wrote Apollo 13 with Lovell is a perp more likely than not. If he is not a perp, then Kluger is an insanely dense complicitous utterly incompetent writer.

Recall how I pointed out Kluger's conveniently fudging Lovell's time line so it "read" in that silly book that Lovell saw the "venting" at the SAME TIME it was generally realized and acknowledged the pressure in O2 tank one was dropping. As one notes from a reading of the Apollo 13 Voice Transcript, it is NOT UNTIL WELL AFTER Lovell notes the "venting" that attention is called to the pressure in 02 tank one dropping. This is easily confirmed by simply reading the voice transcript. Just read it.

Recall how several people have pointed out that people's recollections of true events often vary. Recall also that Jay told you that many conversations in Mission Control were not recorded for various reasons.

Kluger is disgusting..... I have referenced this already in a post above. Kluger is 10 plus dumb and if he is not a disgusting perp, then he is malleable, malleable like bogus Apollo aluminum that does whatever the fraud perps want it too irrespective of reality. On the other hand, it is quite possible Kluger is a perp himself. Time will tell. Either way, Kluger is worthless as a writer, not a good writer in any meaningful sense, in any legitimate sense. That said, Kluger is over the top invaluable as a promulgator of jive infested Apollo malarkey.

Back to your claim that normal aluminum in an oxygen-rich atmosphere doesn't burn, I see. From Alcoa: ". . . it takes a pressure of 25 psi with an environment of complete oxygen for solid aluminum to sustain combustion." (source) Is Alcoa in on your fantasy conspiracy, too? Or are you just wrong as usual?

So you have all these people contributing to this huge pile of BULL that is amassing, continuing to amass , documenting, fraudulently documenting Apollo. The documentation is most of the time courtesy of naive honest reporters regurgitating nonsense, with a splash of perp penned BULL, and then there is the ultra contrived David Harland type high level stuff, very powerful as "HISTORY", and finally the real subtle, insidious READING THE ASTRONAUTS BASEBALL SCORES type of stuff. All of this conspires to push us, mostly on a subconscious level to buy in, assume it is real, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Still an affirmed consequent.

Very important point good example of the affirmed consequent fallacy here.

ftfy

 

[Erock]

It is probably Obvious To Most But Just In Case....

Please don't. Representing your posts as "obvious to most" to my mind is the height of arrogance, especially when not one single thing you have said stands unrefuted entirely! What is obvious to most (if not all) is that you have no clue as to any of the salient subjects under discussion.

Clearly, it is over the top helpful for the Apollo Fraud Perps to have articles appear in National Geographic, Life Magazine and so forth. The public cannot help but think the stuff HAS TO BE TRUE IF IT IS AN INTEGRAL FEATURE OF THE MEDIA STREAM THAT RIPPLES PAST DAY IN AND DAY OUT. NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!!!! I mean how could that possibly be fake? No way.....

Puerile and juvenile language composed of 100% bluster.

The articles referenced above appearing in Life and National Geographic are a bit atypical in that they were penned by fraud principals, flesh and blood perps. Having garden variety rank and file journalists report on this stuff, naive, unquestioning, rather dense journalists, being fed this or that and then regurgitating it for public consumption, now that is one of the best ways to establish this garbage in the community at large's mind. That said, this special stuff, the occasional "inside story" as provided by the Apollo 8 nauts or Phillips, as in the cases of the Life Mag article and the National Geographic piece respectively do press the matter all the more. Pop films like Apollo 13 don't hurt the Perps cauz' either. Help a lot actually. Hanks and Howard, ever so dumb, perp helpful and naively complicitous.

100% bluster.

Another thing that was done in the case of Apollo was to do stuff like HAVE THE CAPCOM READ THE NEWSPAPER TO THE ASTRONAUTS, READ THE ASTRONAUTS THIS OR THAT CURRENT EVENT, "THE YANKEES WON", "PRESIDENT NIXON DID THIS OR THAT", "YOU GUYS ARE SUPER POPULAR WITH THE LADIES , ALL THE GIRLS ARE TALKING ABOUT YOU DOWN HERE", whatever, all of this complete silly as it gets foolish nonsense. The idea of course is to have people, you and me, associate the real world with REAL APOLLO, very insidious and way way way flat out effective. OF COURSE IT IS REAL, THEY ARE READING THE ASTRONAUTS YESTERDAY'S BASEBALL SCORES.

Puerile and juvenile language composed of 100% bluster.

Then you have stuff like David Harland's work. Recall how I pointed out he had to be aware that the LAM-2 map was FRAUDULENTLY "rotated" given his own image presentation in one of his books, an image reproduced in the Apollo 11 image Library. So David Harland is a prolific author who is a perp. His job is to produce garbage that pretty much passes for well researched material. Jeffrey Kluger who wrote Apollo 13 with Lovell is a perp more likely than not. If he is not a perp, then Kluger is an insanely dense complicitous utterly incompetent writer. Recall how I pointed out Kluger's conveniently fudging Lovell's time line so it "read" in that silly book that Lovell saw the "venting" at the SAME TIME it was generally realized and acknowledged the pressure in O2 tank one was dropping. As one notes from a reading of the Apollo 13 Voice Transcript, it is NOT UNTIL WELL AFTER Lovell notes the "venting" that attention is called to the pressure in 02 tank one dropping. This is easily confirmed by simply reading the voice transcript. Just read it. Kluger is disgusting..... I have referenced this already in a post above. Kluger is 10 plus dumb and if he is not a disgusting perp, then he is malleable, malleable like bogus Apollo aluminum that does whatever the fraud perps want it too irrespective of reality. On the other hand, it is quite possible Kluger is a perp himself. Time will tell. Either way, Kluger is worthless as a writer, not a good writer in any meaningful sense, in any legitimate sense. That said, Kluger is over the top invaluable as a promulgator of jive infested Apollo malarkey.

Bluster and fudge. The Apollo map was not fraudulent, your ignorance of datums, I and O and Julian systems is laughable. Your reference to popular literature after the event, as your proof, is pathetic. It doesn't even stand up to scrutiny as it is, as a means to provide relevant contradiction to what occurred.

So you have all these people contributing to this huge pile of BULL that is amassing, continuing to amass , documenting, fraudulently documenting Apollo. The documentation is most of the time courtesy of naive honest reporters regurgitating nonsense, with a splash of perp penned BULL, and then there is the ultra contrived David Harland type high level stuff, very powerful as "HISTORY", and finally the real subtle, insidious READING THE ASTRONAUTS BASEBALL SCORES type of stuff. All of this conspires to push us, mostly on a subconscious level to buy in, assume it is real, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Puerile and juvenile language composed of 100% bluster.

Very important point here.

Ummm no - I actually didn't see any point. What we have is more huff and puff from somebody soundly trashed in every contention made.

Now that is the very important point. After your Sibrel "deduction", any semblance of respect held for your persistence, vanished completely. I dare you to retract it and confess that you were trolling, or just making it up. Because either of those two alternatives are all you have.

PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Preferrably, tbh, the latter, but as we all know that ain't gonna happen

 

[JayUtah]

Absolutely Love The Questions Loss Leader, Best By Far From Your Side In A Long Time...

I assume that's a veiled declaration that you have no intention of answering these:

Why would it not have been advantageous to use green as the key color prior to the mid-1990s?
What major chroma-based matting system immediately competed with the blue-screen process? In addition, who invented it? What client was it invented for? And and why was it discontinued in favor of blue?
What was the most effective key color for film in 1969?
What late-1970s innovation in cinematography made matte-based compositing finally useful in a general sense in both film and television?
What is the other principal keying method?
Identify the most effective three techniques used by photographic analysts to determine that chromakey compositing has been used in an image.

But moving on...

Keep in mind that the way in which I answer them today is different from the way in which I would have provided answers to such questions as recently as say last Christmas, and were you to ask me these same questions again at the time of our up coming 4th of July celebration, the answers would be undoubtedly different as well.

Oh believe me, we need no reminder of your constant goalpost-shifting. You wear it like a badge of honor.

You tell us that you have your "outline" argument in place, and that all you're quibbling about from time to time here are the "details." But we see that all you have in place are beliefs, and that the arguments you offer in favor of them are what shift radically as your evidence is overturned, your pretense to expertise is trumped by real expertise, and your lines of reasoning are shown to be highly biased and patently illogical.

In other words, you brag about following the typical pseudo-historian and pseudo-scientist approach of deciding first what the answer is going to be, then trying to backfill it with selectively chosen evidence and innuendo. You boast about being infallible, but then you admit that you change your claims willy-nilly and assiduously avoid being held in any way responsible for your statements.

1) Yes, for the most part the American Lunar Missions were military missions, though their specific nature, details regarding intent/goals are far from defined/determined.

Translation: I've already made up my mind, but I have no evidence.

There were also non military activities as well.

The Apollo historical record documents both military and non-military activity. You assert that the reason there is no overt mention of your specific militaristic claims is that they had to be kept secret at all costs. However, you cannot reconcile this with the relatively open disclosure of the actual military purposes included in Apollo. I suspect you refuse to do this because it would require you to admit that your preconception of a clean division between the civilian and military purposes -- one being wholly public and the other being wholly secret -- is bogus. It would also require you to deal with the actual procedures for the disclosure and documentation of military activity, not with the cartoonish versions you've invented as part of your fantasy world.

2) Yes, of course I agree that the lunar missions were conducted during the cold war. ... [snip]

And why was it necessary to add a lot of irrelevant obfuscation?

3) Yes and no to your third question Loss Leader.

Equivocation. The Cold War is, by all accounts, over. And there was no nuclear holocaust during it. Therefore the nuclear deterrent policy succeeded.

4) I cannot say the American military interests responsible for Apollo achieved all of their goals.

Irrelevant equivocation. You have outlined a number of specific technical goals you say Apollo was designed to achieve. You tie these technical goals to the nuclear arms race that occurred during the Cold War. You identify that role as time-critical. You characterized the role as providing a strategic advantage, especially in the form of a credible deterrent, to the United States.

Loss Leader is asking you questions he already knows the answer to. He's a lawyer; that's what they do. We can glean the "right" answers to these questions from your massive opus of previous posts. Your equivocation now suggests you too know the real answers but are afraid to spell them out.

In your scenario, Apollo was a secret program that succeeded in greatly improving and enhancing the defense of the United States during a period of extreme perceived risk. You further claim all the other countries in the world know about it. There have been other late disclosurs, such as Project CORONA and Project AZORIAN, that were carried out during the Cold War under civilian cover, and the people responsible for them -- people you would consider "perps" -- are being given great praise for their efforts.

Based on this, why aren't the "military" heroes of Apollo being praised for their great contribution to the defense of their country, working in secret to keep us safe in our beds from the evil Soviets?

Why not? Likely because there is a certain part of you that knows none of what you've claimed is real. You stubbornly resist all attempts to verify your beliefs in the real world. You deal only in supposition and innuendo, not fact; what "must" be, not what is or was.

 

[Garrison]

So you have all these people contributing to this huge pile of BULL that is amassing, continuing to amass , documenting, fraudulently documenting Apollo. The documentation is most of the time courtesy of naive honest reporters regurgitating nonsense, with a splash of perp penned BULL, and then there is the ultra contrived David Harland type high level stuff, very powerful as "HISTORY", and finally the real subtle, insidious READING THE ASTRONAUTS BASEBALL SCORES type of stuff. All of this conspires to push us, mostly on a subconscious level to buy in, assume it is real, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Very important point here.

Yes, the point being that apparently you have abandoned trying to make a case in favour of just asking everyone to just ignore the evidence for the Apollo landings and simply believe you. I think I would prefer you to answer your outstanding questions and give your contact details to JayUtah.

 

[JayUtah]

Sorry, I had to send this before I was finished. I have more time now. Patrick, please demonstrate your knowledge of compositing techniques and history by answering the following questions. This incoporates the questions I asked in the quoted post, plus some new ones I intended to ask.

Answer each one individually, not with a blanket quote-and-distract.

If you do not provide complete answers to my satisfaction within 48 hours of this post's approval by moderation, I will represent that you admit not having the answers. If you attempt to declare these questions somehow off-topic or out of bounds, I will represent that you have admitted a lack of expertise in the topic you claimed to be relevant. If you object to having your knowledge tested, I will represent that you have admitted that others are more qualified than you to discuss the topics that pertain to your claims. I think those are fair terms. I will appeal to the moderators and the general readership.

1. Why would it not have been advantageous to use green as the key color prior to the mid-1990s?
2. What major chroma-based matting system immediately competed with the blue-screen process? In addition, who invented it? What client was it invented for? And and why was it discontinued in favor of blue?
3. What was the most effective key color for film in 1969?
4. What late-1970s innovation in cinematography made matte-based compositing finally useful in a general sense in both film and television?
5. What is the other principal keying method?
6. Identify the most effective three techniques used by photographic analysts to determine that chromakey compositing has been used in an image.

I will shortly submit my answers to these questions privately to Loss Leader so that there can be a third-party verification of your answers.

Pencils down, Patrick. Where are your answers?

 

[realpaladin]

Now, Patrick1000, why would the Chinese, them of the Great Firewall of China and known for their 'really-being-very-open-not-at-all-secretive' attitude, put hi-res scans online on which you really could see anything?

I mean, the distance of the flyby was less than the distance of the known spy satellites... and those can do decimeter range objects.

The cost could not have been the issue as the camera is quite expensive, but compared to the whole cost of building, launching and managing a satellite it is almost negligeble.

And as for giving the nod to NASA... the Brits are building a space station in Mexico, the Indians have launched a moon survey, every regular Joe can send up a small satellite for a few bucks...

NASA needs the Russians for getting stuff up there... forget about anyone having to give the nod to NASA for anything when it comes to space.

 

[Patrick1000]

Risks of/for Deep Venous Thrombosis In Space Flight And Proof Of Apollo Fraudulence..

Other docs and medical people ever wonder why one never reads about what would have been a rather appreciable risk for DEEP VENOUS THROMBOSIS in space during the alleged Apollo flights, and what was planned to deal with the risk/threat.

Yeah, me too. I have wondered plenty about that.

There is one and ONLY one explanation for this rather obvious complete lack of appropriate consideration. Yes indeed, you got that one right, THE WHOLE DANG THING IS FAKE......HAS TO BE.

Amazing how these little facts come up, absolute proof of Apollo inauthenticity from these simple practical considerations.

Kranz must be 'bout ready to blow a fuse himself, assuming he is reading my stuff....

Sorry Geno, truth hurts, don't it????????????? By the way, keep those legs movin'.........

 

[Patrick1000]

A Coward, and a Liar and a THIEF..........

Check this out;


https://plus.google.com/u/0/107946557021507888184/posts/32JD781mWG5


These two deserve one another, so sweet together. Note the PUNCH before the "THIEF", and the obviously dubbed sound track, absolute unmitigated proof of Apollo fraudulence. And, I nailed another PERP, Sibrel of all people. Now ain't THAT!!! interesting.


Obviously, much more to follow with regard to this point. I'll let in soak in......

You guys are in BIG TROUBLE with this one.......

 

[JayUtah]

Other docs and medical people...

You are not a doctor.

There is one and ONLY one explanation...

Yes, and it's the same explanation it's been for the past eight months: you don't get to make everyone conform to your uninformed opinion.

Amazing how these little facts come up, absolute proof of Apollo inauthenticity...

Amazing how

• Among the tens of thousands of qualified experts in the world and widespread interest in Apollo, only you manage to come with all these alleged smoking guns.
• Your "absolute proof" changes wildly from day to day, from post to post, and sometimes even within the same paragraph.

Can you explain that? Or more appropriately, will you explain that?

Kranz must be 'bout ready to blow a fuse himself, assuming he is reading my stuff...

He isn't.

You can correct that either by substantiating that you have contacted him and that he is aware of such contact, or by giving me your contact information so that I can facilitate a meeting. Since you obviously never plan to do either, your statement is meaningless bluster.

Sorry Geno, truth hurts, don't it?

More meaningless bluster.

 

[Erock]

Check this out;


https://plus.google.com/u/0/107946557021507888184/posts/32JD781mWG5


These two deserve one another, so sweet together. Note the PUNCH before the "THIEF", and the obviously dubbed sound track, absolute unmitigated proof of Apollo fraudulence. And, I nailed another PERP, Sibrel of all people. Now ain't THAT!!! interesting.


Obviously, much more to follow with regard to this point. I'll let in soak in......

You guys are in BIG TROUBLE with this one.......

Ted Dooley? You must spend a lot of time thinking up sock names. The coward and liar would be enough for a Buzz punch.

 

[twinstead]

Patrick can you PLEASE at least attempt to answer Jay's questions?

 

[JayUtah]

Note the PUNCH before the "THIEF", and the obviously dubbed sound track...

Note the unsubstantiated provenance of the clip.

....absolute unmitigated proof of Apollo fraudulence Patrick1000's inability to look beyond hastily-Googled convenience sources.

FTFY

Obviously, much more to follow with regard to this point.

Irrelevant. You have zero case unless you can substantiate who doctored the clip and why. Clearly the soundtrack has been time-shifted in your clip, but merely posting it does not substantiate the elements of your charge.

Further, you were given two days plus a grace period to demonstrate your expertise on the subject of motion picture compositing, a subject you invoked to try to prove both Sibrel's and Apollo motion picture evidence to be fraudulent. You assiduously avoided yet another test of expertise, which you now fail.

We now have clear evidence of your willingness -- nay your compulsion -- to say practically anything that supports your belief, regardless of your ability to know it. Based on that, can you justify why anyone should pay you any attention whatsoever?

You guys are in BIG TROUBLE with this one.......

How so? You're the one who's always backpedaling. And you still obviously won't face Sibrel with it. Same contact-information request applies. You can tell Sibrel to his face that he's a liar and a thief. But you have to come out from hiding first.

 

[Garrison]

Check this out;


https://plus.google.com/u/0/107946557021507888184/posts/32JD781mWG5


These two deserve one another, so sweet together. Note the PUNCH before the "THIEF", and the obviously dubbed sound track, absolute unmitigated proof of Apollo fraudulence. And, I nailed another PERP, Sibrel of all people. Now ain't THAT!!! interesting.


Obviously, much more to follow with regard to this point. I'll let in soak in......

You guys are in BIG TROUBLE with this one.......

There's only one person in big trouble in this thread Patrick1000 and that would be you. You've been asked serious questions about claims you have made, you've chosen to avoid them. You've been offered the chance to confront those you've accused, you've ducked it. No one is being fooled, no one is being distracted by your latest increasingly desperate sideshows, answer the outstanding questions, take up JayUtah's offer, until you do your credibility rests where it has since page 1; at a dead flat zero.

 

[Tomblvd]

Other docs and medical people ever wonder why one never reads about what would have been a rather appreciable risk for DEEP VENOUS THROMBOSIS in space during the alleged Apollo flights, and what was planned to deal with the risk/threat.

We now have example, what is it, 13 or 14, now that Patrick has not even a passing acquaintance with medicine (or, in this case, spaceflight, Apollo, or physics).

DVT is usually caused when blood pools in the large blood vessels of the legs, where the blood cells then have a greater tendency to form a clot, which can then break free and migrate to the heart, brain, lungs or other vital area. It is know to happen to long-haul air travelers, where they have almost no chance to stretch their legs, although it is very, very rare.

So, knowing what we know about DVT and spaceflight, what conclusions can we come to? Well, if space flight in a cramped area were exacerbating circumstances, we could have expected at least one of the cosmonauts who spent many, many months, up to a year, jammed into Mir to have suffered from it. In addition, some of the Gemini flights were longer than the Apollo missions, and let's not forget Skylab and the ISS. Yet not a single case.

In addition, one of the main factors is the inability to "stretch your legs". Well, during Apollo, the astronauts were out of their seats changing out of their space suits while still in Earth orbit. So they spent almost no extended time strapped in their seats.

And lastly, let's look more closely at the relevant cause of DVT. It can occur when the blood pools in the large vessels of the lower extremities. Anybody with a grade school knowledge of space flight would know that blood would NOT pool in the lower extremities because of the lack of gravity.

Yes, DVT was a possible condition. So was terminal acne.

My God Patrick, could you have failed any worse in this one post? You literally got every fact wrong.

 

[332nd]

Check this out;


https://plus.google.com/u/0/107946557021507888184/posts/32JD781mWG5


These two deserve one another, so sweet together. Note the PUNCH before the "THIEF", and the obviously dubbed sound track, absolute unmitigated proof of Apollo fraudulence. And, I nailed another PERP, Sibrel of all people. Now ain't THAT!!! interesting.


Obviously, much more to follow with regard to this point. I'll let in soak in......

You guys are in BIG TROUBLE with this one.......

Would you like for me to explain why you're wrong about this pat?

 

[tsig]

Check this out;


https://plus.google.com/u/0/107946557021507888184/posts/32JD781mWG5


These two deserve one another, so sweet together. Note the PUNCH before the "THIEF", and the obviously dubbed sound track, absolute unmitigated proof of Apollo fraudulence. And, I nailed another PERP, Sibrel of all people. Now ain't THAT!!! interesting.


Obviously, much more to follow with regard to this point. I'll let in soak in......

You guys are in BIG TROUBLE with this one.......

If you were right you'd only need one.