Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Patrick1000]

The other important thing to keep in mind here tsig.....

It would be simpler to send men to the moon.

The other important thing to keep in mind here tsig.....In addition to that which I already mentioned, the fact that sending men to the moon is DANGEROUS, and as DANGEROUS, if you lose one or two or three dudes, you run the risk of having the whole shebang shut down, the goal, the objective, is most decidedly NOT a lunar landing.

The goal is reconnaissance, surveillance, improved ICBM targeting, improved Ruskie ICBM launch detection, killer satellite development, Dyna-Soar development, Manned Orbital Lab development and so forth, blah , blah, blah. I'll be developing these points in even greater detail than I already have in future posts, and in up coming videos.

There is no REASON to be launching dudes and putting them on the moon. It is an unnecessary risk and COST. You keep your public dudes home, Armstrong coward types, and launch unmanned junk. Or if ya' need dudes, ya' launch your Dyna-Soar guys or your MOL guys.

This is all very straightforward and though I am the first to discuss this publicly in the mainstream, these are simple mainstream facts known to the intelligence services of the world. So though I am robustly breaking ground here as an Apollo Historian and avant-garde investigative journalist, and though my research, insight and so forth is indeed all mine, and as such, credit is due me with all due respect, none of what I am writing here is "new" in any sense. This is why Anders and fatfreddy and myself, the public face of Apollo research's cutting edge, have little to fear. It's really no news to the ears of the clowns that count.

Obama knows this stuff. He is not gonna' come after Anders for busting his chops, not me, not fatfreddy. Plus, were he, Obama, to try anything underhanded to shut us down, we'd whup his sorry hiney, whoops errhhh I mean "heiny". Figuratively of course, as stated, I abhor physical violence even more than nature pretends to abhor a simulated cislunar bogus make believe vacuum.

 

[JayUtah]

The other important thing to keep in mind here tsig.....In addition to that which I already mentioned, the fact that sending men to the moon is DANGEROUS...

Irrelevant. Dangerous things are attempted all the time, for lesser goals.

The goal is...

All your purported goals were addressed at length. You even admitted that those goals would be better served by other technologies. And you admitted there was no reason that those same goals could not be developed openly.

I'll be developing these points in even greater detail...

Unnecessary. You already conceded them in their present form. You're simply going around in circles at this point.

There is no REASON to be launching dudes and putting them on the moon. It is an unnecessary risk and COST.

Irrelevant.

This is all very straightforward...

No, it's needlessly convoluted and you have no actual evidence for any of it. It's not even a good spy novel.

...and though I am the first to discuss this publicly in the mainstream

Nonsense. You're not even remotely the first. And you're not discussing it in the mainstream. You're discussing it from behind a wall of anonymity and timidity that you scrupulously protect. You're apparently terrified to discuss any of this without a safety net. At least those whom you consider your inferiors have the wontons to attach their real names and reputations to it. You won't. Therefore you are irrelevant.

...these are simple mainstream facts known to the intelligence services of the world.

You've provided absolutely no evidence for this claim.

And if it were true that everyone already knows about it, why the continued secrecy? Project Corona and Project Azorian have all come clean. Why not Project Apollo?

So though I am robustly breaking ground here as an Apollo Historian and avant-garde investigative journalist...

You are none of those. You are an anonymous liar with no meaningful understanding of what you profess.

...credit is due me with all due respect...

No one is interested in your apparently colossal ego.

Obama knows this stuff. He is not gonna' come after Anders for busting his chops, not me, not fatfreddy.

So why do you still cower in anonymity? You seem to imply that you have nothing to fear. Yet you continue to hide behind various false identities and lie about almost everything having to do with you, your qualifications, and your claims.

I have given you the opportunity to make a real difference, but you declined it.

Plus, were he, Obama, to try anything underhanded to shut us down, we'd whup his sorry hiney, whoops errhhh I mean "heiny".

Pointless bluster rejected. You have been given the opportunity to provably make a difference, but you turned tail and ran. You are irrelevant.

 

[Patrick1000]

That proves nothing Erock, my point has to do with the real-time presentation....

Docsocks fail 100+

[qimg]http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/4332/a13video.jpg[/qimg]



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



Correct.



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



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.



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



Half right - it has no MOL astronauts onboard.

That proves nothing Erock, my point has to do with the real-time presentation....

The still could easily have been staged based on the video.

My point is, was, remains, in real-time, you can't tell these guys are who they are supposed to be. They are gaming you big time Erock. Don't be left holding the bag filled with the phony cislular air.

This is jive , jive, jive, jive, nothin' more than jive , jive, jive, jive......

 

[SpitfireIX]

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?

I'm sure Jay will explain this in more detail, but there really was an escape chute that led from the the top of the tower to a sealable bunker underneath the launch pad. In an emergency the astronauts and/or anyone else in the area could slide down and shut themselves in. Here is a video with James Burke demonstrating.

 

[Erock]

The other important thing to keep in mind here tsig.....In addition to that which I already mentioned, the fact that sending men to the moon is DANGEROUS, and as DANGEROUS, if you lose one or two or three dudes, you run the risk of having the whole shebang shut down, the goal, the objective, is most decidedly NOT a lunar landing.

The important thing to bear in mind is that you are a nobody with nothing but bluster. You are just another ignorant hoax believer who ignores rebuttal from experts. The idea that you regard your opinion as important is hysterical.

The goal is reconnaissance, surveillance, improved ICBM targeting, improved Ruskie ICBM launch detection, killer satellite development, Dyna-Soar development, Manned Orbital Lab development and so forth, blah , blah, blah.

The most accurate thing about that pile of donkey-dung was the blah blah blah bit.

I'll be developing these points in even greater detail than I already have in future posts, and in up coming videos.

Pah! Your detail so far has been zero. EVERY single thing you have stated has been completely taken apart. You're the guy who comes to a gunfight with a blancmange and a great big target on his forehead.

There is no REASON to be launching dudes and putting them on the moon. It is an unnecessary risk and COST. You keep your public dudes home, Armstrong coward types, and launch unmanned junk. Or if ya' need dudes, ya' launch your Dyna-Soar guys or your MOL guys.

There is actually. The goal of landing a man on the Moon. It was done in the late 60s.

This is all very straightforward and though I am the first to discuss this publicly in the mainstream, these are simple mainstream facts known to the intelligence services of the world.

Dahn dahn daaaaaaahhhhhn. Cite some evidence. (yes, we all know he won't and hasn't for a single claim he has made, but you have to point it out).

So though I am robustly breaking ground here as an Apollo Historian and avant-garde investigative journalist, and though my research, insight and so forth is indeed all mine, and as such, credit is due me with all due respect, none of what I am writing here is "new" in any sense.

Your self congratulatory crap, wore way beyond thin, 100s of pages back. You are just coming across as an arrogant jerk now. I have rarely seen such behaviour like this, reminds me of Anne Elk from Monty Python - only without the accuracy!

This is why Anders and fatfreddy and myself, the public face of Apollo research's cutting edge, have little to fear. It's really no news to the ears of the clowns that count.

Entertaing though Anders is, he appears a few shillings short of a pound, and FF88 is one of the biggest spammers on the internet.

Obama knows this stuff. He is not gonna' come after Anders for busting his chops, not me, not fatfreddy. Plus, were he, Obama, to try anything underhanded to shut us down, we'd whup his sorry hiney, whoops errhhh I mean "heiny". Figuratively of course, as stated, I abhor physical violence even more than nature pretends to abhor a simulated cislunar bogus make believe vacuum.

Bluster.

Explain the rocks.

Grow a pair, admit the 100 or so mistakes you have made. You may find it en-lightening.

 

[PetersCreek]

C'mon, Patrick. Dazzle us with your analysis of the ECS power requirements.

 

[mrbusdriver]

You weren't "aware" of things going on in the 60s, were you Patrick? The Cold War was a little more intense than they teach in your school these days. You're giving your lack of life experience away with statements like these. Yeah, spaceflight was, and is, a risky business, and there were many who thrived on it's challenges. We did lose 3 men in Apollo 1, and that loss no doubt made Apollo all the safer. It didn't shut the program down because America still wanted to go to the Moon.

You are quite (undeservedly) full of yourself...for no apparent reason. Apollo Historian? Uhh, yeah, right. And why would Obama want to shut you down? You do more to make yourself look the ignorant. irrelevant child than anyone could wish for. Your weak arguments and lack of communicantion skills do your "cause" no favors.

You really need to do your homework, the bluster does little to cover your lack of familiarity with spaceflight.

 

[sts60]

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.

Of course. Apollo hoax believers say a lot of stupid things, but the notion of anyone secretly getting in or out of the spacecraft on the pad is... well, another stupid thing, said by people who have no idea at all what they're talking about.

Such an idea is immediately refuted by the fact that the CM access swing arm is an open steel structure. Anyone using it is visible to the thousands of lenses trained on it by launch personnel, photographers and television crews, and the general public.

There was actually a bunker deep underneath the launch pad - I didn't know that - designed to take 500 psi blast pressure and 75 Gs shock loading. All you would have to do to reach it is open up the hatch and exit the white room (while on camera to KSC personnel), cross the open structure (while watched by thousands of lenses), take the elevator down without the Launch Control Center (LCC) personnel noticing (they could control it remotely), cross the pad in the open and get into the shelter. All without anybody noticing.

The other way is to exit the spacecraft, cross the swing arm, and take the slidewire escape basket, zipping merrily through the air hundreds of feet above the Florida landscape to the bunker nearly a quarter of a mile away. Without anybody noticing. I saw the Shuttle versions of this when I did preflight integration for our satellite on a few missions. I believe Apollo had one large basket, whereas the Shuttle variant used three smaller ones. You jump in, slap the lever that cuts the restraint, and gravity does the rest.

(Yes, I was tempted.)

( 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).

Probably. There's certainly footage of Apollo crews getting into the CM, and I hazily recall (I was pretty young then) that crew boarding and closeout were broadcast live. It doesn't matter anyway; any claims to the contrary are ridiculous fantasy, completely inconsistent with reality and completely unsupported by any evidence at all. In my volunteer gig, I have transported patients with clean psychotic breaks who made more sense and had a firmer grip on reality than the hoax believers.

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?

Irrelevant, as the OP is just trolling anyway.


P.S. I should mention that none of the Shuttle astronauts I asked thought that the slidewire escape system would have made much of a difference on a Bad Day. Either you had time to get out, walk to the elevator, and wait for the van, or you were your component bits rapidly expanding along with the rest of the fireball. Even the rescue crews, IIRC, were hunkered down in an APC about a mile away.

 

[BazBear]

The other important thing to keep in mind here tsig.....In addition to that which I already mentioned, the fact that sending men to the moon is DANGEROUS, and as DANGEROUS, if you lose one or two or three dudes, you run the risk of having the whole shebang shut down, the goal, the objective, is most decidedly NOT a lunar landing.

We lost three guys in the Apollo 1 fire, that didn't shut the whole thing down. The Challenger and Columbia accident didn't shut down the shuttle, either. There were pauses and investigations, but the programs both continued. The goal of Apollo was, of course, a lunar landing

The goal is reconnaissance, surveillance, improved ICBM targeting, improved Ruskie ICBM launch detection, killer satellite development, Dyna-Soar development, Manned Orbital Lab development and so forth, blah , blah, blah. I'll be developing these points in even greater detail than I already have in future posts, and in up coming videos.

These were all separate goals that had nothing (other than some shared technology) to do with Apollo.

There is no REASON to be launching dudes and putting them on the moon. It is an unnecessary risk and COST. You keep your public dudes home, Armstrong coward types, and launch unmanned junk. Or if ya' need dudes, ya' launch your Dyna-Soar guys or your MOL guys

. So why haven't any of these guys come forward? If I went to the moon, I damned well wouldn't wait 40 years to tell the world.

This is all very straightforward and though I am the first to discuss this publicly in the mainstream, these are simple mainstream facts known to the intelligence services of the world. So though I am robustly breaking ground here as an Apollo Historian and avant-garde investigative journalist, and though my research, insight and so forth is indeed all mine, and as such, credit is due me with all due respect, none of what I am writing here is "new" in any sense. This is why Anders and fatfreddy and myself, the public face of Apollo research's cutting edge, have little to fear. It's really no news to the ears of the clowns that count.

You're not breaking ground, you're breaking wind. You have no credible evidence for any of your claims. History?...Investigative journalism? I think not.

Obama knows this stuff. He is not gonna' come after Anders for busting his chops, not me, not fatfreddy. Plus, were he, Obama, to try anything underhanded to shut us down, we'd whup his sorry hiney, whoops errhhh I mean "heiny". Figuratively of course, as stated, I abhor physical violence even more than nature pretends to abhor a simulated cislunar bogus make believe vacuum.

If I were you, I'd watch out for the black helicopters! There's a rumor SEAL Team 6 has a mockup of your residence!

 

[abaddon]

The other important thing to keep in mind here tsig.....In addition to that which I already mentioned, the fact that sending men to the moon is DANGEROUS, and as DANGEROUS, if you lose one or two or three dudes, you run the risk of having the whole shebang shut down, the goal, the objective, is most decidedly NOT a lunar landing.

No one claimed the Apollo missions were without risk.

The goal is reconnaissance, surveillance, improved ICBM targeting, improved Ruskie ICBM launch detection, killer satellite development, Dyna-Soar development, Manned Orbital Lab development and so forth, blah , blah, blah. I'll be developing these points in even greater detail than I already have in future posts, and in up coming videos.

Work away. You have yet to provide any evidence to back up your wild claims.

There is no REASON to be launching dudes and putting them on the moon. It is an unnecessary risk and COST.

Did you forget the Cold War? Some of us lived through it. Apparently, you either did not, or did not notice it.

You keep your public dudes home, Armstrong coward types, and launch unmanned junk.

Yay for the ad homs.

Or if ya' need dudes, ya' launch your Dyna-Soar guys or your MOL guys.

Evidence for your unclear claim here?
Oh, sorry. I forgot you don't do evidence.

This is all very straightforward and though I am the first to discuss this publicly in the mainstream, these are simple mainstream facts known to the intelligence services of the world.

BZZZZT. Wrong. You are the latest in a string of HB types extending all the way back to the early seventies.

So though I am robustly breaking ground here as an Apollo Historian and avant-garde investigative journalist, and though my research, insight and so forth is indeed all mine, and as such, credit is due me with all due respect, none of what I am writing here is "new" in any sense.

Wow, any more self praise?

This is why Anders and fatfreddy and myself, the public face of Apollo research's cutting edge, have little to fear. It's really no news to the ears of the clowns that count.

Aligning yourself there simply reduces your credibility.

Obama knows this stuff.

Does he? How do you know this for a fact?

He is not gonna' come after Anders for busting his chops, not me, not fatfreddy.

Quite right. Your notions do not even come up on his radar.

Plus, were he, Obama, to try anything underhanded to shut us down, we'd whup his sorry hiney, whoops errhhh I mean "heiny".

Underhanded ad hom noted.

Figuratively of course, as stated, I abhor physical violence even more than nature pretends to abhor a simulated cislunar bogus make believe vacuum.

Vacuous, content free post noted.

 

[Patrick1000]

Apollo and the Presidents

Actually, I have sort of come full circle on Apollo and the presidents. At first I was sorta' mad cuz' ya figure that they have to know all about it, you know, be briefed as to the fact that we never went to the moon.

But it is not/was not Obama's fault. Not his fault and now what is he gonna' do? I think that must have been true with regard to a lot of things for Obama when he(and other presidents) came into office. He was idealistic and then learned the scary truth.

So at first I was mad about Obama not following through on campaign promises and stuff, but were I the prez' , not sure how I would respond to knowing with unmitigated metaphysical certitude that they did not go, did not land on the moon and whatever else it is that they learn in direct briefings......

I think Obama is trying to deal with all of these "secrets" as does any president, and now I sort of like him actually, whereas at first, early on in his term, say the second yearish, I was sort of mad at him.......

 

[Rincewind]

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?

That's easy - The aliens from Area 51 fetched them from the moon!

 

[Garrison]

There is no REASON to be launching dudes and putting them on the moon. It is an unnecessary risk and COST. You keep your public dudes home, Armstrong coward types, and launch unmanned junk. Or if ya' need dudes, ya' launch your Dyna-Soar guys or your MOL guys.

Sliced out the rest of this evidence free rant but felt compelled to point out that Neil Armstrong was one of those 'Dyna-Soar guys'. This was of course after flying 78 combat missions in Korea, piloting the X-1B and the X-15, and before his two Gemini flights. Not bad for a 'coward' or are you going to scream 'FAKE' about those achievements as well?

 

[Loss Leader]

My point is, was, remains, in real-time, you can't tell these guys are who they are supposed to be.

So, the viewing public's taste for real-time news dates back to about the first Gulf War. In the ensuing twenty years, that taste has grown to an expectation.

It is, however, remarkably foolish to have that expectation of events that happened forty years ago. It's like complaining that the Declaration of Independence is fake because we don't have video of anybody signing it. Why would any healthy individual insist that the historical record contain evidence of a kind not generally kept at the time?

Of course, this assumes that the discussion of videos is even appropriate at this time. It is not. The topic of discussion was whether the LM had sufficient power to run the ECS on Apollo 13. Any attempt to shift away from that topic before its resolution is just a distraction.

 

[JayUtah]

My point is, was, remains, in real-time, you can't tell these guys are who they are supposed to be.

And the counterpoint remains that you offer no reason why the people climbing out of the spacecraft had to be someone other than the crew that was expected. You assert that the capsule wasn't coming from space anyway. You assert that people were on board for its fake descent from a cargo plane or whatever. But for some reason you care not to explain, the named astronauts can't be the ones getting out of the ship.

And why? Because you have the cart before the horse. You begged the question that close-up live television of the disembarking astronauts is a must-have. Of course that's only so you can claim it's "suspiciously" missing, as yet another trumped-up thing you say a real space mission should have. After having manufactured a "suspicious" hole in the Apollo record, you speculatively fill it with a further trumped-up reason for why they shouldn't have shown the astronauts getting out. In your mind: because they really weren't on board. But you are still working out why they weren't on board.

Notice how there's no actual evidence anywhere in this whole discussion. You have nothing except a fanciful, absurd, impractical, uselessly complex tale to account for a problem you invented out of thin air.

They are gaming you big time Erock.

No, you're the only one playing games. The rest of the world sees Apollo as pretty straightforwardly and obviously authentic. When you're ready to emerge from your little anonymous hidey-hole and face the real world, let us know.

 

[JayUtah]

Actually, I have sort of come full circle on Apollo and the presidents.

No, you're just confusing your imagination with fact. It's useless to speculate about what the current (or any) President should be doing with the knowledge of a hoax, before you prove the existence of a hoax. So far all you've proven is that you don't understand space travel, and that you're willing to lie your way through just about anything to get attention. The question is not over Barack Obama; it's over when (if anytime) Patrick1000 will stop lying and start taking responsibility for his claims.

 

[JayUtah]

The other way is to exit the spacecraft, cross the swing arm, and take the slidewire escape basket, zipping merrily through the air hundreds of feet above the Florida landscape to the bunker nearly a quarter of a mile away.

In the Shuttle era it landed at a waiting APC which the crew were to board and drive to safety.

P.S. I should mention that none of the Shuttle astronauts I asked thought that the slidewire escape system would have made much of a difference on a Bad Day.

Indeed. There were not many anticipated launch failure modes that would necessitate an evacuation yet also leave time to operate the slidewire. It's more of a psychological security blanket. That's because if anything haunts engineers, it's the "If only we had provided..." scenario while analyzing a tragic accident. Engineering predictions about initial survivability are wrong often enough that the specter of a frantic crew stranded on a swing arm after miraculously escaping a "fatal" launch pad incident is sufficient to motivate a just-in-case option for getting down.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

I'm sure Jay will explain this in more detail, but there really was an escape chute that led from the the top of the tower to a sealable bunker underneath the launch pad. In an emergency the astronauts and/or anyone else in the area could slide down and shut themselves in. Here is a video with James Burke demonstrating.

Thank you very much for the video. I enjoyed it and thought it was really interesting. I'm glad the reported explained the safety belts on the chairs as that had me a bit confused for a while.

 

[mrbusdriver]

C'mon, Patrick. Dazzle us with your analysis of the ECS power requirements.

Agreed. C'mon, Patrick...surely you can refute these power claims....right? Your silence on all these things speaks volumes about your supposed "case" against Apollo.

...or just admit you're wrong.

 

[tsig]

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.

Dangerous is what these guys did for a living.