Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
Apollo's Cavalcade of PERPS......

I was working on a little film today for John Aaron. Something that I thought would be good for him to see in the setting of receiving my soon to be mailed challenge letter. I'll of course share with the group here my film and open letter to Aaron as well.

As I was reviewing the details of the Apollo 12 lightening incident, it occurred to me that I have been rather off target with regard to my assessment of "Flight Director" culpability.

Gerald Griffin was on duty during the staged lightening strike. Of course, and as emphasized previously, John Aaron is spotted as an Apollo Fraud PERP in this context as he in a very real sense "fixes" the course of the scripted scenario by virtue of his "SCE to Auxillary call". But if one pauses to think about this for a moment, despite Aaron's shananigans, were Griffin a legit Flight Director, well then he could abort the whole dang thing regardless.

Aaron's action takes care of the situation's cosmetics. But a legitimate, intelligent flight director, a non PERP, would have cancelled the trip to the moon after the lightening strike. That is, were any of this real, the guy would have aborted the mission. It's staged, so no abort was required, and indeed, ON TO THE MOON was the only option, was the INDELIBLY SCRIPTED OPTION.

This point is revealing as it DEMONSTRATES THE STARK REALITY THAT EVERY FLIGHT DIRECTOR WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN AN APOLLO FRAUD PERP AS THEY HAD THE POWER, WERE THEY LEGITIMATE DIRECTORS, TO STEER THE SCENERIO AWAY FROM THE THE SCRIPTED COURSE OF EVENTS. AS THIS COULD NOT BE TOLERATED, THE FRAUD'S EFFECTIVENESS BEING DEPENDENT ON THE LACK OF WIGGLE ROOM, THE LACK OF OPPORTUNITY TO IMPROVISE AT KEY DECISION POINTS, ONE MAY CONCLUDE WITH UNMITIGATED METAPHYSICAL CERTITUDE THAT THE FOLLOWING MEN, EVERY ONE, WAS A FRAUD PERPETRATOR, ASSUMING EACH OF THE MEN AS LISTED BELOW ACTED "INDEPENDENTLY" AT SOME TIME DURING ONE OF THE FRAUDULENT/STAGED/BOGUS MISSIONS.

THE FLIGHT DIRECTOR LIST, ADD THESE MEN TO THE PERP LIST UNLESS ONE OR MORE SERVED IN AN ASSISTANT'S/NON DECISION MAKING ROLE.




APOLLO FLIGHT DIRECTORS AND FRAUD PERPETRATORS

Glynn S. Lunney

Gerald D. Griffin

Eugene F. Kranz

M. P. “Pete” Frank III

Milton L. Windler

Clifford E. Charlesworth

Philip C. Shaffer

Donald R. Puddy

Neil B. Hutchinson

Charles R. Lewis





Utterly, off the hook fascinating.... Cannot wait to send my letter and my movie to Aaron. He won't be able to "flip a switch" outta' this predicament.......
 
One Last Fascinating New Point Before Getting Back To The Aaron Letter And Film.....

and finishing up with that.......

It occurred to me that more likely than not, fatfreedy must be correct, well at least in a sense.

This is what I mean by that.

Some advocates for "Apollo as fraud" argue that the "astronauts" may have been, perhaps indeed were, in low earth orbit during these staged missions.

If one pauses to think about that, it is exceedingly unlikely, as were there a REAL PROBLEM in earth orbit while the "astronauts" were supposed to be circling the moon say, the thing would unravel into a logistic nightmare.

For a variety of reasons that will be more fully elucidated in future posts, the PUBLICLY RECOGNIZABLE Apollo astronauts would have to be AVAILABLE ON ANY GIVEN DAY, say for an "emergency (staged) splashdown". As such, Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins were more likely than not, ON ON ON ON the planet earth during the Apollo 11 Mission, as would be the case generally for all of the astronauts during all of the fraudulent/staged Apollo Missions.

How they got the "shots", is something I'll try and cover in future posts. Now if genuine astronauts were needed for an Apollo launch, let's say for the sake of argument there was a manned space flight launch of some sort which was in part a cover for a photo-reconnaissance mission, perhaps the Dyna-Soar, or Manned Orbital Lab Astronauts were the boys actually launched with the stay at home public face astronauts only pretending to go anywhere.

Dyna-Soar and Manned Orbital Lab Programs may have been doubled with NASA's manned spaceflight programs, and along with the programs being doubled per se, the cadre of astronauts would be doubled as well. They need not have been Manned Orbital Lab astronauts/Dyna-Soar Astronauts, the doubles, but it is quite likely at least some if not all of them were.

This way, manned missions that were "illegal" could be conducted with say the Manned Orbital Lab guys being launched and doing the real work, if indeed the launch required that the mission be manned for some reason. The Public Face/Armstrong types in such a circumstance would only be pretending to do this or that. So for example one might have a staged Gemini launch covering a genuine photo-reconnaissance mission. This, featuring real manned orbital lab guys taking the shots/pictures, and the "publicly recognized" Gemini guys hanging out on earth faking stuff from their end.

In this way, the astronaut crews are "doubled", as are the missions. Something like this this had to have gone on as one knows with unmitigated metaphysical certitude that the Apollo 13 capsule was DROPPED at its splash via a cargo craft, the phony capsule being late but NOT LONG, and given the considerations as above, the need to be able to produce the public astronauts sort of on the spot depending on how things might go.
 
JayUtah said:
Patrick got it in his head from his very first post on the subject that the LM ECS was a power hog. He hasn't substantiated that belief in the least.
Click to expand...

That's because he made it up, not to provide evidence of his conspiracy, but to keep you guys talking to him. He'll keep this up for as long as you take him seriously (which I don't any of you really do) but you do keep feedin' him!
 
A New, And Insanely Interesting Point with Over The Top Implications....

Try this little exercise....

Search through all of your Apollo Program videos, and also look at Apollo Program Splashdown videos on YouTube that you may not have in your personal collection.


Ask yourself the following question, "Do I see in a single one of these videos anyone climbing out of a capsule that I can identify with certainty as a "public" Apollo Program Astronaut?"

Another way to say this......Start with Apollo 11 say. Search all of your stuff. See if you can find a single shot of Armstrong, Aldrin , or Collins getting out of the capsule in which one can identify one of the astronauts as indeed Armstrong, Aldrin or Collins with a reasonable amount of certainty.

YOU CAN'T. It is over the top significant....

They just got back from the moon and they do not have a guy in the water to photograph this? Armstrong, even if he is in bio-isolation gear getting out of the capsule.

Try it with the other Apollo mission splashdowns as well. Can you spot a publicly identifiable/recognizable astronaut decapsuling? NO....One may wind up finding one or two here or there, but so far, I have not found a single film, not a single shot of one of these guys that I can positively identify, getting out of a capsule. And my collection of film is rather extensive.......


These guys are pulling the old ASTRONAUT SWITCHER-ROO-ROO-ROO ON US. The guys getting out of the space ships, the guys getting out of the capsules, are NOT the PUBLIC Apollo astronauts. Were this thing genuine, the astronauts would be filmed and photographed from the water for a variety of reasons including safety concerns.

THIS ONE IS HUGE, HUGE, HUGE, HUGE.....
 
Where's Elmo and The Ol' "Astronaut" Switcher-roo-roo-roo....

This was a super interesting exercise. Give it a try if ya' dare to.....

Go to Google and enter INDIVIDUALLY into the search window for IMAGES, "Apollo 7 splashdown", THEN "Apollo 8 splashdown", THEN "Apollo 9 splashdown", THEN "Apollo 10 splashdown", THEN "Apollo 11 splashdown", THEN "Apollo 12 splashdown", THEN "Apollo 13 splashdown", THEN "Apollo 14 splashdown", THEN "Apollo 15 splashdown", THEN "Apollo 16 splashdown", THEN "Apollo 17 splashdown".

Go through them one by one, just like that......

See if you can spot/well identify an astronaut in ONE of the images, a public figure, climbing out of one of the scene props/phony Apollo capsules. I thought I could see/identify Cernan and Harrison Schmitt pretty well in a couple shots, but even that was iffy, "pretty well" was/is probably generous.

Boys, girls......., we've done been had, more times than not anyhoo, they are pullin' the ol' ain'tstronaut switcher-roo-roo-roo" on us.
 
Patrick1000 said:
This was a super interesting exercise. Give it a try if ya' dare to.....

Go to Google and enter INDIVIDUALLY into the search window for IMAGES, "Apollo 7 splashdown", THEN "Apollo 8 splashdown", THEN "Apollo 9 splashdown", THEN "Apollo 10 splashdown", THEN "Apollo 11 splashdown", THEN "Apollo 12 splashdown", THEN "Apollo 13 splashdown", THEN "Apollo 14 splashdown", THEN "Apollo 15 splashdown", THEN "Apollo 16 splashdown", THEN "Apollo 17 splashdown".

Go through them one by one, just like that......

See if you can spot/well identify an astronaut in ONE of the images, a public figure, climbing out of one of the scene props/phony Apollo capsules. I thought I could see/identify Cernan and Harrison Schmitt pretty well in a couple shots, but even that was iffy, "pretty well" was/is probably generous.

Boys, girls......., we've done been had, more times than not anyhoo, they are pullin' the ol' ain'tstronaut switcher-roo-roo-roo" on us.
Click to expand...

this would prove nothing other than an attempt to divert attention from the challenges you have to meet

Liek being a doctor without any other training than 1 year of chemistry at High School
 
Patrick1000 said:
I was working on a little film today for John Aaron.
Click to expand...

No, the Apollo functionaries don't know or care who you are. You're not on their radar. Stop pretending that you're relevant. I've offered to intercede, but you're clearly not interested in a credible encounter with these gentlemen; you only want to pretend that you've somehow "bested" them.

...it occurred to me that I have been rather off target with regard to my assessment of "Flight Director" culpability.
Click to expand...

Translation: I'm going to throw out more sweeping accusations with no proof.

But a legitimate, intelligent flight director, a non PERP, would have cancelled the trip to the moon after the lightening strike.
Click to expand...

Begging the question. In fact, begging the same question you've been begging for eight months. You don't get to appoint yourself Grand Exalted Flight Director and impose your ignorant, simplistic scenarios on history. You are not an expert in spaceflight. Get over it.

You've been given a detail, thorough engineering analysis of Apollo 12, which you flagrantly disregard. You can't or won't answer any questions about your rationale. We've been over all this before, and the professional world unanimously disagrees with you. Sorry, but I guarantee the rest of the world won't be satisfied with, "Because I, the Great Patrick, say so."
 
SpitfireIX said:
You calculated amps based on 120 volt power. That's not what the LM used. Thanks for demonstrating yet again that you don't have the slightest clue what you're doing. Fail.
Click to expand...

Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/etc. has demonstrated time and time again that he is uniformly incompetent at every subject related to Apollo, but he is an expert troll - witness that anyone is still replying to his rambling rants of ego-autostroking, self-contradiction, lies, and simple errata.

"220, 221, whatever it takes."
 
Patrick1000 said:
They just got back from the moon and they do not have a guy in the water to photograph this?
Click to expand...

Translation: I'm making up more "rules" for Apollo to obey.

And my collection of film is rather extensive...
Click to expand...

Translation: I Googled.

Were this thing genuine, the astronauts would be filmed and photographed from the water for a variety of reasons including safety concerns.
Click to expand...

Begging the question -- argument rejected.

THIS ONE IS HUGE, HUGE, HUGE, HUGE.....
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. You say this about every silly idea you come up with. Every new tangent you scamper off on is the Biggest Discovery Ever in the History of the Multiverse. You're just not that relevant, Patrick. Or that competent. Get over yourself.
 
"Substituting astronauts" - straw man.

"No pictures at the capsule door" - you don't get to make the rules; the protocols called for other stuff to do.

Now, please stop ignoring me and answer the following:

Will PTFE (a/k/a "Teflon") combust in a supercritical oxygen environment?

Will you take adult responsibility and confront those you libel in person, since you've been given that opportunity?

Could you explain to us what started this obsession of yours (500 words or less, please)?

New question: when will you correct your math about the power requirements for the LM ECS?

New question: how does a physician even feel comfortable writing in the style you've adopted?

Like Jake and Elwood saying they will go to the restaurant for every meal, I will ask these questions in every single post (except for the last - I'm just surprised an educatwd adult would express themselves that way) until you answer me. The burden of proof is on you, so stop changing subjects.

I hope everyone else will follow my lead.
 
Patrick1000 said:
Should read 12 amps equivalent to roughly 1500 watts, assuming 120 volt system.
Click to expand...

Why are you using standard U.S. household AC voltage? Why is that relevant? And why do you think the LM would use it? And why would you think it would use just one voltage? You're clearly unfamiliar with standard aerospace electrical systems and why they're designed the way they are.

At any rate, assuming 1500 wats for now pending further investigation...
Click to expand...

Why are you trying to think in watts when your goal is to compare electrical load to battery capacity? Why do you that's the correct property of electricity to use?

my claim/contention is that they could not run the scrubber and the other essential systems(radio, blah blah blah) on 1500 watts.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you had hoped I wouldn't notice this backpedal. At the very beginning of this topic, you told us that it was the ECS that was the power hog. Specifically you said

Patrick1000 said:
In space, this is done by the environmental system dedicated to scrubbing at a relatively high energy cost.
Click to expand...

and you make similar claims here. What started as you trying to tell us that the Apollo 13 hoaxers didn't budget enough for the power-hungry "scrubbers" in their "fake" scenario, has now been abandoned in favor of a handwaving claim regarding the entire LM and all its equipment.

Why? Likely because you've realized that you've erred badly again in your handling of the engineering reality of spaceflight. You've seen that others here know far more than you do about such systems, including their mechanical and electrical requirements. And once again you realize that you've stuck your neck out on a point that you assumed would at least be ambiguous (i.e., the ECS power requirements), but on which you're now clearly wrong. So just like you had to do with your PTFE combustibility fiasco, you have to try to pretend that you were really arguing something else.

Yes, we know what your claims are. Or rather, we watch your claims change as you scramble to avoid any meaningful test of your knowledge and skill. But regardless of what your claim was yesterday, what it is today, and what different thing it shall surely be tomorrow, you haven't provided a single iota of evidence for any of it. You've made vague, naive, handwaving references to irrelevant domestic electrical systems and household appliances. But you haven't presented a single fact that relates in any way to Apollo.
 
Hans said:
He'll keep this up for as long as you take him seriously (which I don't any of you really do) but you do keep feedin' him!
Click to expand...

How about this....we keep discussing the reality of Apollo, while completely ignoring anything irrelevant Patrick has to say...

Which shouldn't be too hard....everything Patrick posts is irrelevant.


However, I too am failing to see any "point" in continuing. If I thought there would be any resolution to this...either Patrick starting to behave rationally, or if not that, at least the locking of this thread.

I don't think either will ever happen.

This will continue to go round and round and round...ad nauseum....a truly pointless endeauvour.
 
Patrick1000 said:
They just got back from the moon and they do not have a guy in the water to photograph this? Armstrong, even if he is in bio-isolation gear getting out of the capsule.

Try it with the other Apollo mission splashdowns as well. Can you spot a publicly identifiable/recognizable astronaut decapsuling? NO....One may wind up finding one or two here or there, but so far, I have not found a single film, not a single shot of one of these guys that I can positively identify, getting out of a capsule. And my collection of film is rather extensive.......


These guys are pulling the old ASTRONAUT SWITCHER-ROO-ROO-ROO ON US. The guys getting out of the space ships, the guys getting out of the capsules, are NOT the PUBLIC Apollo astronauts. Were this thing genuine, the astronauts would be filmed and photographed from the water for a variety of reasons including safety concerns.
Click to expand...
Yes! Of course! They sent substitute super secret astronauts to the moon! How did we let ourselves be fooled for all these years:D
 
Insteadd of jumping onto another subject, why not go and look up the specs of the Apollo systems and see how much power they actualy use, the documents and info are available online and are public records. There is no reason for you to guess.
 
JayUtah said:
A 6 hp suction motor will typically draw 10-12 amps, but also produces standard-atmosphere airflow rates of up to 200 cfm, which is about an order of magnitude more than is required to exchange the cabin air of an LM-sized spacecraft at a biologically sustainable rate.

There is no appreciable resistance to the flow. The LiOH canister impedes airflow about the same as a car air filter does. All you're doing is moving air through it at 20-30 cfm, a fairly leisurely rate.
Click to expand...

Thanks for fleshing out my point. I'd read over some of the specs for the suit circuit fan (rated at 24 cfm, IIRC) but thought I'd wait for Patrick to (not) provide it. And even if we were to...fantastically...accept his 12-amp claim, his power "calculation" is off by a very wide margin, too.

Patrick got it in his head from his very first post on the subject that the LM ECS was a power hog. He hasn't substantiated that belief in the least. He hoped the published figures would bear out his knee-jerk assumption. What do you expect from someone who didn't even know the LM had its own air-handling system until he was told?
Click to expand...

Yep, it's as I/we expected...and it appears we also have the expected subject change now that he's once again been caught out posting a conclusion without having a clue as to the actual evidence.
 
Patrick,
Are you going to address the issues with the power requirements of the jury-rigged cabin CO2 scrubbers? It appears the several posts bring your theory (and expertise) into question. Now you have jumped to another (old) train of thought without finishing the last one.

You can't convince anyone if you won't defend your own arguments. Just restating them doesn't qualify. As it stands now, you aren't swaying anyone with your immature posting style and refusal to address questions.
 
Patrick1000 said:
Should read 12 amps equivalent to roughly 1500 watts, assuming 120 volt system.

Not sure yet what they were running yet.

At any rate, assuming 1500 wats for now pending further investigation, my claim/contention is that they could not run the scrubber and the other essential systems(radio, blah blah blah) on 1500 watts.
Click to expand...

Others have pointed out the error but I have to ask what compelled you to assume the LM used a 120v system? I mean why not if you are going to use a vague analogy assume its like your car, where the electrical system runs off a 12v battery? On what rational basis did you choose 120v?
 
R.A.F. said:
How about this....we keep discussing the reality of Apollo, ...
Click to expand...

Sounds good. On that note, here's a nice picture of a diver from CVA-14 USS Ticonderoga helping Apollo 16 commander John Young exit from the Command Module Casper into a raft:

ap16-S72-36492.jpg


I had the pleasure of meeting Capt. Young in the '90s when he stopped by our satellite processing work at Hangar S.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom