Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Patrick1000]

I'll have to study these later mission more with respect to this point....

Thank you sts60.

Hey Patrick, what was that you were saying?

I'll have to study the videos on the later missions more with respect to this point, and the still shots on the later missions as well. I may be wrong with respect to my claims as regards the stills in the later missions.

My general claim was and remains that the ain'tstronauts picked up at the splash sites ain't the ain'tstronauts claimed by NASA to have flown the missions. The live videos prove this to be the case. This is a point now not in question. It has not been proven with unmitigated metaphysical certitude, the Dr PAt standard of proof, but it is heading in that direction. It is moving from claim to fact , to Apollo historic reality.

The American Public was victimized by one of the oldest tricks in the book, the ol' ain'tstronaut swticher-roo-roo-roo

I also claim that the stills, the good ones, the stills in which ain'tstronauts are identifiable, cannot have been taken in real time. That seems to hold true for Apollos 11, 12, 13, but perhaps on the latter missions, they did manage some live frogman shots with the pickups. I need to study this more.

For now I stand firm on my claim with respect to the videos and stills for Apollos 11, 12, 13. I already mentioned in some of the 17 shots that Schmitt and Cernan are +/- identifiable.

Most significantly, most importantly, this discovery opens the door to an understanding of manned space flight logistics in general. The missions are DOUBLED. The astronaut cadres are DOUBLED.

 

[Patrick1000]

Here,
And here
and here
and here
and here
and here
and here.


No. It is more amusing to watch you drag the hoax movement into further disrepute.

You miss the point abaddon.....

My claim is not that Lovell and Haise and Schwiekert are identifiable stepping out onto the carrier deck, but rather, the ain'tstronauts are not identifiable when being "recovered from the capsule". OF course the ain'tstronauts will need to be identifiable stepping out of the helicopter, giving thanks aboard the carrier deck and blah blah blah. This is theater remember, the ain'tstronauts are trained thespians. Lovell is one of their best men.

Let's do an example scenario. A manned mission is launched, let's call it "Apollo 11". The cover is that this is a legitimate "peaceful" mission to land a man on the moon for the first time. The rocket is launched and Armstrong/Aldrin/Colins slide down that shoot and so never are sent into space. They remain on earth.

The Saturn V IS launched however, and delivers ILLEGAL unmanned equipment into space. If men are required to carry out this mission, they are astronauts from the Manned Orbital Lab Program.

At the time of the mission's alleged completion, a capsule is dropped. Note it probably has NEITHER MOL, nor Apollo astronauts inside. The 3 dummy astronauts are picked up. Armstrong , Aldrin and Collins are already in the copter with their bio gear on. The copter lands and they step out.

 

[JayUtah]

Hardly Loss Leader, it is a recurring theme...

Indeed it is a recurring theme of how unscrupulous conspiracy theorists back away from discredited claims without admitting they were wrong. You try to change your story about what you "really" claim. You try to dismiss the evidence you never said existed. You try to tell us you were really testing us.

How dumb do you think we are?

...no DISINTERESTED/reliable first person reports at the scene, yet photos of lightening at the moment the rocket was hit;

No. No one is claiming that S69-60068 is a photograph of the Saturn V being struck by lightning. Lightning, not "lightening." Yes, you've been roundly corrected on this, but you deserve it considering the lame attempt of an excuse you offered up for your illiteracy. A less insecure person would have simply said, "Whoops, you're quite right."

You have to save face at every turn likely because you're so afraid that if you show even the slightest weakness, people won't recognize you as the Totally Awesome Scholar Historian Dude that you see yourself as. Here's a hint: no one sees you that way now, so not admitting your errors simply makes you look desperate.

Where does this JIVE come from?

It comes from a guy (possibly) in San Francisco who changes his claimed occupation at the drop of a hat and refuses to do anything except anonymously and can demonstrate no working knowledge of any of the fields of expertise that pertain to his claims.

Ever see the "lightening strike" pictures Loss Leader? Just like the case with the splashdown shots, see if you can find ANY shots vetted as having been taken in real-time...

I've taken several myself. There are techniques for capturing photographs of lightning in real time. They involve patience and long shutter speeds. Just because you're a poor photographer and can't figure out how such things are done doesn't mean you get to run around calling "perps" those who do.

So this is a recurrent and common theme, bait and switch with no real-time support, patently STAGED photos of "rocket" lightening strikes, splashdowns and so forth turn up after the fact.

Nonsense.

You said there were no recognizable shots of astronauts taken emerging from the CM. You said we should have some, that it was imperative to take those pictures. You said their absence had only one explanation: the people getting out of those capsules weren't the real astronauts.

First, that's exactly the claim made by Bennett and Percy in their book, and they copied it in turn from Bill Kaysing. So you get absolutely no points here for originality and several demerits for once again copying unthinkingly from some other source.

Second, your claim has been refuted on both logical and empirical grounds. Empirically, yes the photos you say don't exist, do exist. There are recognizable photos taken of the astronauts leaving their capsule. Logically, the expectation that some bit of evidence necessarily must exist is logically flawed. You beg the question, and then you pile an argument from silence on top of it. You're wrong first to say that, "If X doesn't exist there must be fraud," and wrong second when X shows up contrary to your claims.

You backpedal. You say, no, no, no, it has to be video evidence. And again that goes back to begging the question. There are no television cameras suitable for frogmen to hold, and while they can have held an 8mm or 16mm motion picture camera, it's still going to be a matter of judgment whether to burden a frogman with such equipment. And you don't get to say that Apollo was fake just because they don't agree with your personal judgment.

And your "staged" lightning photo is simply a matter of your wrong inference. You see a photo of lightning and a smoke trail near the launch pad, and you jump to the conclusion that NASA managed to catch the lightning strike that got Apollo 12. No such claim is made, and to try to hold NASA responsible for your misunderstanding is very dishonest.

In fact, this reminds me of Sam Colby, one of the most intellectually vacuous conspiracy theorists out there. He goes out and gets photos of astronaut training etc. from NASA sites and tries to pass it off as photos taken of the hoaxery in progress.

This is getting embarrassing beyond words. Can't believe you guys aren't baling on these clowns.....

Yes, it is embarrassing beyond words, which is obviously why you're not about to speak to any qualified expert without plausible deniability. You should have stuck with "I don't do photos."

 

[JayUtah]

That's a good one, what mission is that?

You claimed to have made an exhaustive survey. Why are you now puzzled at where the evidence came from? Are you conceding that your initial research was inadequate?

 

[JayUtah]

I'll have to study the videos on the later missions more with respect to this point, and the still shots on the later missions as well. I may be wrong with respect to my claims as regards the stills in the later missions.

My general claim was and remains that the ain'tstronauts picked up at the splash sites ain't the ain'tstronauts claimed by NASA to have flown the missions.

<snip>

I need to study this more.

For now I stand firm on my claim with respect to the videos and stills for Apollos 11, 12, 13.

So in other words you admit that you haven't done your homework, but that your claim still stands. How can that belief possibly be based on evidence then? You haven't yet seen the evidence?

Further you lied once again in claiming you had a suitably exhaustive collection of evidence that you had surveyed, but now you admit you need to go find more. You tell this lie so often that we've come to expect it from you every time it would apply.

Most significantly, most importantly, this discovery opens the door to an understanding of manned space flight logistics in general. The missions are DOUBLED. The astronaut cadres are DOUBLED.

Are the Saturn V's doubled? If so, then who built them? When? Where? How?

Do you realize that once again you're simply making up new "conclusions" without first checking whether there is evidence for them, or (more appropriately) counterevidence against them?

 

[sts60]

Please tell us the state of the art in portable, broadcast-quality video cameras ca. 1969 - 1972, in particular their ability to withstand a sea-water environment...

Not really related, I guess, but a few years back our company received a block of tickets to the NASM premiere of the Discovery Channel's special on the recovery of Liberty Bell 7, Gus Grissom's Mercury capsule. (Jim Lewis, the Marine lieutenant who was the primary recovery pilot, was there, and described reluctantly letting the sinking capsule go after deciding his Sikorsky HH-34 wouldn't make much of a submarine. The famous Gunter Wendt, who sealed Grissom inside prior to launch, was also present. It was fun.)

During the special, the crew described repairing the scanning sonar's high-voltage power equipment on decks routinely awash with sea water. I seem to remember that at least part of the equipment was still hot for diagnostic purposes.

Then there was the demolition expert who casually reached into the recovered capsule, disconnected and removed the scuttling charge, said something to the effect of, "yeah, it's still live", then pitched it overboard.

 

[JayUtah]

This is theater remember, the ain'tstronauts are trained thespians. Lovell is one of their best men.

First, you have shown that you have absolutely no sense of plot or artifice, since your nonsense convoluted plots rely on people acting stupidly and on scenarios that are absurdly complex where simpler ones would suffice. I do not accept you as an expert in theater, dramatics, or actors. I do have such experience and training, and I can say that Buzz Aldrin ain't no trained actor.

Further, you allege that the astronauts were trained as actors. Where and when did this training occur in their lives? By whom? Can you point to any evidence of such training? Or is this simply another of your "must be true because I need it to be true" claims?

Finally, you deny the astronauts' true training as engineers and test pilots. Why does your theory require a wholly alternate reality for each of these men's lives? How does that constitute a credible historical scenario? You're simply looking at the evidence, dismissing it, and proposing something entirely different.

The Saturn V IS launched however, and delivers ILLEGAL unmanned equipment into space.

You haven't proven that any mission did any such thing. Nor can you come up with a credible, consistent description of what you allege was sent aloft. You waffle and bluster. This tells us you really don't know, and hence haven't based your belief on any information. You simply desire to believe that this is what NASA has done.

You can't abide any discussion for how such equipment would be considered illegal in the context of the Cold War, and why similar factual deployments of secret equipment during the Cold War are now being revealed and lauded for the daring wartime efforts they were. In other words, your scenario for why we have no direct evidence or records of what you say must have happened doesn't jive with actual historical practice.

Further, you are unable to reconcile your claims with the actual stated military objectives of Apollo. Your Military Apollo scenario remains pure fantasy contradicted by evident history.

If men are required to carry out this mission, they are astronauts from the Manned Orbital Lab Program.

Why haven't any of these astronauts been recognized as heroes of the Cold War? Other secret warriors have been identified and praised, such as those who worked on Project Azorian.

At the time of the mission's alleged completion, a capsule is dropped. Note it probably has NEITHER MOL, nor Apollo astronauts inside.

Why not? What's the big problem with putting the three titular astronauts on board? There is ample evidence that the Apollo CM was airworthy and seaworthy, even if it weren't being used for actual Moon landing missions.

Armstrong , Aldrin and Collins are already in the copter with their bio gear on. The copter lands and they step out.

Three loose ends: (1) the Navy chopper crew who sees the supposed Apollo 11 astronauts get on while he's going out to retrieve them, (2) the dummy astronauts themselves, and (3) the crew who loads the dummy astronauts in the supposed cargo plane.

Instead, why not simply have the named astronauts ride the CM down? This whole unparsimonious fiasco is simply to try to explain your debunked belief that there's something suspicious about not photographing the astronauts as they disembark. It's a second absurdity whose only purpose is to try to buttress the previous absurdity.

Classic conspiracy convolution.

 

[Garrison]

You miss the point abaddon.....

My claim is not that Lovell and Haise and Schwiekert are identifiable stepping out onto the carrier deck, but rather, the ain'tstronauts are not identifiable when being "recovered from the capsule".

Except of course as has now been clearly demonstrated there are pictures of astronauts being recovered, your claim was such shots did not exist, you made no reference to any specific astronaut, you were wrong yet again, simple as that.

Let's do an example scenario. A manned mission is launched, let's call it "Apollo 11". The cover is that this is a legitimate "peaceful" mission to land a man on the moon for the first time. The rocket is launched and Armstrong/Aldrin/Colins slide down that shoot and so never are sent into space. They remain on earth.

Let's see some proof your example in anyway corresponds to reality.

The Saturn V IS launched however, and delivers ILLEGAL unmanned equipment into space. If men are required to carry out this mission, they are astronauts from the Manned Orbital Lab Program.

If it was approved as part of a US military program(and if it actually existed) it wouldn't be illegal, oh and I'm glad after being told about perhaps half a dozen times you've finally Googled the MOL, of course it has noting to with Apollo since it ran in parallel to that program,

At the time of the mission's alleged completion, a capsule is dropped. Note it probably has NEITHER MOL, nor Apollo astronauts inside. The 3 dummy astronauts are picked up. Armstrong , Aldrin and Collins are already in the copter with their bio gear on. The copter lands and they step out.

Yeah a nice theory contradicted only by all the available evidence, you remember the tracking, the photos, the films, the rocks, all that stuff you so desperately dodge?

 

[tsig]

You miss the point abaddon.....

My claim is not that Lovell and Haise and Schwiekert are identifiable stepping out onto the carrier deck, but rather, the ain'tstronauts are not identifiable when being "recovered from the capsule". OF course the ain'tstronauts will need to be identifiable stepping out of the helicopter, giving thanks aboard the carrier deck and blah blah blah. This is theater remember, the ain'tstronauts are trained thespians. Lovell is one of their best men.

Let's do an example scenario. A manned mission is launched, let's call it "Apollo 11". The cover is that this is a legitimate "peaceful" mission to land a man on the moon for the first time. The rocket is launched and Armstrong/Aldrin/Colins slide down that shoot and so never are sent into space. They remain on earth.

The Saturn V IS launched however, and delivers ILLEGAL unmanned equipment into space. If men are required to carry out this mission, they are astronauts from the Manned Orbital Lab Program.

At the time of the mission's alleged completion, a capsule is dropped. Note it probably has NEITHER MOL, nor Apollo astronauts inside. The 3 dummy astronauts are picked up. Armstrong , Aldrin and Collins are already in the copter with their bio gear on. The copter lands and they step out.

It would be simpler to send men to the moon.

 

[SUSpilot]

You're welcome. I was replying to SUSpilot's earlier post.


Is that what that was all about? I stopped reading his incoherent rants a long time ago.


I dunno about broadcast equipment in the water. But video and/or film (I can't be bothered to check) of the recovery operations was taken and IIRC there was some sort of live broadcast. I saw a video (don't know if of film or videocamera origin) of A12 crew, clearly recognizable, debarking the CM and boarding the raft (taken from a helicopter).

@sts60: I was thinking in terms of a live camera in the raft. I do recall seeing live coverage from the helicopters, but it seemed to me P1K was talking about live coverage from the raft.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

The Saturn V IS launched however, and delivers ILLEGAL unmanned equipment into space. If men are required to carry out this mission, they are astronauts from the Manned Orbital Lab Program.

The only thing "illegal" to place on the moon is a nuclear weapon.
http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/SpaceLaw/outerspt.html

Are you prepared to defend your assertion that illegal equipment, specifically nuclear weapons, were placed on the moon by teh Apollo 11 mission?

At the time of the mission's alleged completion, a capsule is dropped. Note it probably has NEITHER MOL, nor Apollo astronauts inside. The 3 dummy astronauts are picked up. Armstrong , Aldrin and Collins are already in the copter with their bio gear on. The copter lands and they step out.

During the Apollo 11 moonwalk a random ham radio operator decided point his home-built radio telescope antenna at the moon. He recorded voice communications consistent with the transmissions between the astronaut suit radios and the Lunar Module radio.

http://legacy.jefferson.kctcs.edu/observatory/apollo11/


Please explain how this, and 840 lbs of rocks, could be faked in such a way as to remain uncontroversial among subject matter experts to this day?

 

[Erock]

You miss the point abaddon.....

My claim is not that Lovell and Haise and Schwiekert are identifiable stepping out onto the carrier deck, but rather, the ain'tstronauts are not identifiable when being "recovered from the capsule".

Docsocks fail 100+

Let's do an example scenario.

Yes. You are wrong and everybody else who refutes every argument you make is correct. Easy.

The Saturn V IS launched however

Correct.

, and delivers ILLEGAL unmanned equipment into space.

Err no. No proof, just loud noisy repetition from you.

If men are required to carry out this mission, they are astronauts from the Manned Orbital Lab Program.

No - once again no proof just your "Bart-is-a-perp-type" nonsensical assertions. They are from the team that went through Mercury/Gemini/Apollo.

At the time of the mission's alleged completion, a capsule is dropped.

No proof. The tracking and visual record says it was Apollo 13 from reentry.

Note it probably has NEITHER MOL, nor Apollo astronauts inside.

Half right - it has no MOL astronauts onboard.

 

[fess]

I'll have to study the videos on the later missions more with respect to this point, and the still shots on the later missions as well. I may be wrong with respect to my claims as regards the stills in the later missions.

No, there is no doubt in any ones mind that you are wrong.

My general claim was and remains that the ain'tstronauts picked up at the splash sites ain't the ain'tstronauts claimed by NASA to have flown the missions. The live videos prove this to be the case. This is a point now not in question. It has not been proven with unmitigated metaphysical certitude, the Dr PAt standard of proof, but it is heading in that direction. It is moving from claim to fact , to Apollo historic reality.

That is pure nonsense. The capsules were tracked during re-entry and chase planes took videos of the capsules during the decent. If I remember, there are even a few videos of splash downs taken from recovery ships. So, why don’t you stop this craziness before you have to backtrack again?

The American Public was victimized by one of the oldest tricks in the book, the ol' ain'tstronaut swticher-roo-roo-roo

False.

I also claim that the stills, the good ones, the stills in which ain'tstronauts are identifiable, cannot have been taken in real time. That seems to hold true for Apollos 11, 12, 13, but perhaps on the latter missions, they did manage some live frogman shots with the pickups. I need to study this more.

More false statements. And yes, you do need to study a little more, preferably before you post.

For now I stand firm on my claim with respect to the videos and stills for Apollos 11, 12, 13. I already mentioned in some of the 17 shots that Schmitt and Cernan are +/- identifiable.

You can stand in any fashion you want to, but you are still wrong.

Most significantly, most importantly, this discovery opens the door to an understanding of manned space flight logistics in general. The missions are DOUBLED. The astronaut cadres are DOUBLED.

This is hilarious.

 

[mrbusdriver]

There is FAR more evidence that Apollo went to the Moon than there is of Patrick being a Doctor...or a professional anything for that matter.

Goal post shift noted on the landing/recovery photography. And you still haven't addressed the rebuttals of the Apollo 13 power issues...did you just cede that one Pat? Sure appears so.

Why don't you finish any of your previous arguments...as they stand now, you have been obviously beaten in all of them. (saying "gotcha" is not a viable rebuttal)

You're spinning down the drain...you have no viable responses to anything.

 

[R.A.F.]

Please explain how this, and 840 lbs of rocks, could be faked in such a way as to remain uncontroversial among subject matter experts to this day?

Oh, Patrick doesn't "do" rocks because their existence COMPLETELY DISCREDITS all these ignorant little arguments he makes...


In other words, he fears the rocks.

 

[Patrick1000]

Actually, no, it is rather dangerous........

It would be simpler to send men to the moon.

Actually, no, it is rather dangerous........This is a point worth emphasizing. One of the reasons that "they" don't send men to the moon is that it is dangerous. If we can land several surveyors on the moon, we can land land men. But getting them there ALIVE and returning them ALIVE is an altogether different kettle of fish.

 

[Patrick1000]

This is utterly off the hook incriminating......

NASA's own little film on Apollo 12;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gznswxaV8jI

See the bird get hit by lightening? Didn't think so......

Notice how they use that totally bogus shot again, the one from the Apollo 12 image library;

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/ap12-KSC-69PC-812BW.jpg

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/ap12-S69-60068.jpg

Do I need to remind everyone that the bird is over a mile above these bogus Apollo 12 Image Library shots and well downrange.

 

[sts60]

@sts60: I was thinking in terms of a live camera in the raft. I do recall seeing live coverage from the helicopters, but it seemed to me P1K was talking about live coverage from the raft.

I don't care what he's ranting about; he's simply irrelevant to any informed discussion of anything to do with Apollo. It doesn't matter whatever the latest silly thing he made up to get your attention is.

There's no Apollo mission objective for taking pictures of the crew getting out of the CM; all of the recovery imagery is just a nice-to-have (which they had anyway). The only thing that had to be recovered were the crews, and they were. Next were the lunar samples and film magazines, and after that the vehicles themselves. They were too.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

The rocket is launched and Armstrong/Aldrin/Colins slide down that shoot and so never are sent into space. They remain on earth.

May I ask a question from a normal member?

Am I right in assuming there is no logical way there can be a "hidden shoot" on the Apollo spacecraft on the launch pad for this to happen? Any real escape system on the Apollo spacecraft would be "obvious" to members of the public, if it was used.

( I openly wonder if there is footage of the "door being closed" on the launch pad as this would possibly end Patrick's new new new theory).

Would not Patrick have to at least indicate where he thinks this "hidden shute" is on all the photos to be allowed to present his new new new hypothesis?

 

[JayUtah]

Actually, no, it is rather dangerous....

"Dangerous" is not the opposite of "simple."

Your current scenario is needlessly and hopelessly complex. It is complex only because you have to keep adding features to it to compensate for the glaring holes discovered in previous iterations. You're clearly (and admittedly) making it up as you go, with no attempt to correlate it either to evidence or to best practice.

The most parsimonious scenario remains Apollo as advertised. That scenario also has the benefit of matching all the evidence. Your ever-changing and hopelessly convoluted, evidence-free alternatives are simply comical.

One of the reasons that "they" don't send men to the moon is that it is dangerous.

Irrelevant. No astronaut has ever been forced to undertake a mission. NASA simply advertises the opportunity and people sign up for it droves. The Apollo astronauts came largely from a profession (flight test) that already had a 25% mortality rate.

Even today one of the most dangerous occupations -- statistically more dangerous than a NASA astronaut -- is fishing (source). Yet people continue to sign up for that voluntarily. So no, you don't get to say that manned lunar missions would not be undertaken because they are dangerous.

If we can land several surveyors on the moon, we can land land men. But getting them there ALIVE and returning them ALIVE is an altogether different kettle of fish.

You aren't even remotely qualified to make this judgment.

The entire world's engineering community agrees unanimously that the Apollo missions were authentic. You have offered nothing in response to that except your demonstrated ignorance of the relevant sciences. You have been given the opportunity to present your case to these experts, but you have refused.

You are not relevant.