Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[R.A.F.]

RAF,




"The Boorman thing" refers to pooping in cislunar space without subsequent appropriate clean up.

Oh...so you think it's "cute" to misspell FRANK BORMAN's name??

...or perhaps you are too ignorant to realize you had misspelled it??

Either way, your arguments remain unconvincing....

 

[R.A.F.]

any shmuck like me...

First thing you've gotten right...

 

[Patrick1000]

I got the telescope magnification star visibility impact thing "right" too RAF. Not bad for a shmuk who doesn't know squat about scopes.

 

[GlennB]

Glenn got to go, will say no to your question for now. Not sure what exactly you are asking. Sorry, gotta' run. Thanks for the good back and forth, Pat

Ah.

So, a priori, the entire $multi-jillion scheme was predicated upon the notion that no idiot with a decent hobbyist-grade radio receiver - anywhere in the world - would notice that the radio transmissions were not coming from where they were supposed to be coming from? Or that every news agency receiving such news could be bought or cowed into silence?

R
O
F
L

Meanwhile the astronauts themselves would splash down somewhere soon after launch (or just hide in the gantry?) and hide away until it was time to put them in a fake capsule to be picked up by the US navy somewhere in the Pacific?

But wait! Any idiot with eyes to see and an interest in the subject would notice the absence of the spacecraft in Earth orbit prior to heading off moonwards (I'm sure there's a technical term for that ... 'lunar trajectory injection' or something? ) Or would notice the presence of a satellite orbiting long after it was supposed to have been lunarlywards injected.

Patrick - you should realise that people here, and elsewhere I suppose, only bother arguing with you for light entertainment. In my case it's damn hot outside, and I'm easily amused. Your arguments are a festering pile of donkey poo. They are utterly absurd.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

God's teeth, what a whole lot of diarrhea.

Let me make sure I understand this, patrick. You are convinced that pooping in space somehow obviates any need to discuss the lunar geology samples currently on earth?

You have not established any convincing case for why the diarrhea episode is "fake" other than your own incredulity. Logical fallacies are a big part of your mental structure.

Any argument structured around logical fallacies is a fallacious argument even if all the facts in the argument are true.


You've presented 3 cases here:

1) A11 wasn't where it was supposed to be and you incredulously gasp and declare 800 pounds of moon rocks fake from this one moment. But you have not proven that A11 landing off target would create an unrecoverable condition.

Argument from incredulity. Your knowledge of orbital mechanics has room for growth. If you were really a math guy I'd think you would show some calculations for HOW bad their condition would by and WHY they couldn't recover from it after liftoff.

2) Stars are invisible to the naked eye from the moon, thus the stellar navigation tools would not work, thus the A11 mission would be lost forever.

This goes with 1, I guess, so it's still the same argument.

(I think that's what you were flailing on about; if I'm wrong don't bother correcting it as I'm sick of reading about telescopes. Telescopes bore me)

3) Some guy crapped his space shorts and there wasn't an Apollo-13 type
emergency clean up procedure implemented, thus it didn't happen.

Again, argument from incredulity. Also, if you were really a "clinician" as you claim you'd know that once the other crew were exposed to germs it pretty much doesn't get worse. They are where they are. Cleanup with paper towels would be the only option given the paucity of materials available on hand.

None of the so-called evidence you've brought forth actually leads directly to falsification of the Apollo program. Your arguments are non-sequitors -- "he crapped his pants therefor it was fake" is not logically sequential.

Nor do any of the above disprove the other material evidence for successful manned lunar missions

-- Hundreds of hours of film and video, clearly taken in vacuum at 1/6g
-- Thousands of photographs of locations widely separated, including long sequential sets of images during rover traverses, showing lunar terrain.
-- Millions of pages of documentation for every single piece of flown hardware, including manufacturing photos, footage of tests, instructional manuals, diagrams and procedures for use.

Further, scientists studied the moon missions and the resulting data from the science packages IN REAL TIME WHILE THE MISSIONS WERE RUNNING as well as analyzing the data and samples extensively during the subsequent years.


NOT ONE SCIENTIST HAS EVER QUESTIONED THE DATA.

Your so-called argument is poopy, has incompatible coordinate systems and cannot be seen with naked eye.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Welcome to Patrick's grand delusion...

It's a pretty awful, intellectual short circuit. As someone on BAUT said years ago (paraphrased, I'm sure), "If even one photo proves to be real, we went to the moon." That puts Moon Hoaxers in the difficult position of needing to prove that each and every photograph, or rock, is fake. That's intimidating, so they need to take shortcuts—even the "brilliant" ones.

You cannot have a fake story, with real rocks.

Of course you can. For all your proclaimed intelligence, you are unable to imagine a fake story being constructed around a few pieces of real evidence? That's disappointing.

 

[sts60]

When Bales says "GO" on the 1202. You can spot Bales right there as more likely than not, one of the very very very few actually in on it, in on the con.

Back to question 2: How many space missions have you personally worked?

There is great beauty , elegance and power to my approach. It's effective.

It’s effective in the sense it allows you to talk about it at length; I will grant you that. But by what other metrics do you claim its effectiveness? You haven’t convinced anyone, not one single participant, in any of the threads on BAUT, AH, or here. None of the real doctors I know (my late father included), who have had any participation with the space program, seem to share your concerns. So by what objective measure do you claim it is “effective”?

People will argue about rocks from here until the year 3030.

Not actual geologists and planetary scientists. But, more to the point, you haven’t argued about the lunar samples. You’ve just tried to wave them away:

You can obviate the need for tedious technical analysis by simply looking for the inconsistencies in the record, the bad acting. Then the pics and rocks have to be accepted as fake.

Ooooh, bad, bad, bad! See, you said you were a “scientist”. And yet you propose to ignore data which does not agree with your hypothesis and the extent of which you apparently do not even grasp! Ouch! That’s the classic mistake of the YouTube ignoramus, and it’s frankly painful to see it made by someone who calls himself a scientist.

You cannot have a fake story, with real rocks…

That is correct – you cannot have a fake Apollo program with real lunar samples, a massive, detailed, and thoroughly documented record of imagery, analysis, engineering, test, and flight hardware, years of science data from the surface, telemetry, etc., etc., all followed by decades of multidisciplinary science and consistent with aerospace reality for subsequent generations. And yet, that’s exactly what you’re trying to say, while excluding consideration of the record!

A shame, really, because it’s almost as if you were a pretend scientist trying hard to avoid really considering the technical issues involved, in favor quote-mining and statements of personal incredulity – combined with picking and choosing which sources from the same team you designate as “honest” or “dishonest”. I’d think that, as a scientist of such great renown, you’d be eager to provide, say, a quantitative analysis of what surface positional accuracy would be required for successful LOR, or to provide evidence for some secret means of placing the LRRR aside from A11, or, well, something other than bald assertions and poopy jokes.

See, what I’m trying to do here is come up with your reason – anything – as to why Apollo had to be faked. Not statements of personal disbelief, but (see question 7) what scientific or technical fact prevented the Apollo missions from happening as recorded – and, in your opinion, required that they be faked? But we haven't even figured out yet which manned missions you think were real and which weren't (question 6).

I’m really trying to help you develop your argument - I really am - but you’re not giving us much to work with.

 

[nomuse]

Kid,

Apollo in totality can only be fraudulent. Boorman's space illness was clearly a pretend illness. There you have all of Apollo in a space-nutshell.

Why fake it? No doctors on speed-dial? When they had so many already working for the program, and so many other professionals to make sure details like COMPUTER PROGRAMS were right?

Unlike you, I do not find gross incompetence with no apparent reason (your characterization) as good evidence for a multi-million dollar hoax being carried off by some of the smartest people around.

 

[matt.tansy]

I assume any coordinates while the ships are flying above the moon translate this way Matt.

You would assume wrong. The map was used to find the location of the LM by matching craters to the chart mentioned in the footnote. Even if it wasn't, the same corrections would need to be applied to all the other position sources and your premise that Lick was given too exact of a position would still be wrong.

I think that is what is going on. 23 26 00 East above the moon is not 23 26 00 east on the moon. The sphere is "bigger" above. No big if I am wrong there, the substance of my argument does not change.

The substance of your argument never had any validity in the first place. You said Lick was given the, and I quote, "EXACT!" location of the LRRR. That was wrong before and it's more wrong now. Your entire premise has been debunked.

The numbers are different , but still one finds all of the numbers in the mission report being very close to one another more or less, not at variance,

They are not close to one another. Some are over a mile apart.

and in addition the larger point, we have the Lick Observatory Staff being fed perfect numbers before anyone is supposed to have them.

According to your non-substantiated accusation. And again you say "perfect" and again you ignore the 1.6 mile difference between the radar position and the position given to Lick.

So look in to it.

It's your claim. You look into it. Until you do, you have no case.

here may be something there you are on to.

Last point, consider why is it that the AOT north measurement is the one at variance.

Make up your mind. Are they "very close to one another more or less, not at variance" or not. A few sentences above you insinuated all the positions were suspiciously too close to each other. Now all of a sudden the AOT position is too far off.

Perhaps , and I am not sure, but perhaps this has to do with the fact that no one is flying above the surface to make this calculation.

It has to do with the inherent inaccuracy of celestial navigation.

It is a static calculation. this view would sort of support my read on all this. It is interesting to me. I can say more actually but have to do a bit of work now.

Thanks for bringing this up.

You meant to say, "Thanks for exposing my intentional deception." You're welcome.

 

[sts60]

fattydash/Patrick1000/DoctorTea/sicilian/BFischer/BSpassky/etc./etc.,

I should also add that I am still looking forward to answers to the rest of my questions as well.

 

[mercatormac]

Last thought about pics vs character analysis Glen. Ever see those shots of Tenzing and Hillary right after they summited Everest? They look like and so are the most insanely crazy and happy guys on the planet. It's obvious from their faces they made it to the top.

Then ya' compare that with the dour scowls of Armstrong/Collins/Aldrin in their post flight interview mode. One thing you can say for sure watching' those boys is they never made it to the moon. Don't look it , don't act it, don't feel it.

Wow, so you're comparing two people in the midst of doing something historic with the Apollo 11 astronauts weeks after their landing.
Do I even have to explain why this is both stupid and unfair?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I have a theory about the famous "press conference" that explains all the facial expressions and general demeanor of the astronauts:

They were hung over. They were glad as heck to be home, but tired, and the gloss had worn off the moment. So Buzz gave Neil some of his booze to loosen him up, but Neil wasn't much of a drinker.

Go watch the long version of the press conference again with that in mind and I'm sure you'll agree with me -- several times it looks like Neil is trying really hard not to hurl.

 

[R.A.F.]

I got the telescope magnification star visibility impact thing "right" too RAF. Not bad for a shmuk who doesn't know squat about scopes.

Even if I were to concede that....HOW DOES THIS DIRECTLY RELATE TO APOLLO BEING FAKED????

Can you answer that?....or are you afraid to admit that YOU don't even know how it relates??

 

[nomuse]

RAF,

But dontcha' see kid, RAF that's the beauty of Apollo. It isn't real so any shmuck like me can understand every ever lovin' last fraudulent twist. It ain't science, it's bad Holywood. I love it. So accessible.

I agree with you half-way here. Every hoax believer I have encountered has managed to demonstrate at some point (usually sooner rather than later) a gross failure of understanding of basic scientific principles.

So many conspiracy theories hinge on motivations and chains of inference and unanswerable questions ("Did Halsey open the cable that morning or wait until the afternoon?") Apollo, on the other hand, is largely debated on matters of basic science and engineering. And there it successfully exposes the failures of the conspiracy theorists.

And, yes, many of them think they have a good handle on the appropriate science. Such as, as a for-instance, confusing aperture with magnification.

 

[Patrick1000]

Yes and no

ApolloG, kinda' yes and kinda' no with respect to your question concerning the need to "debate rocks".

One finds from a quick perusal of the facts with respect to the Borman diarrhea fiasco that Apollo, all of it, must be bogus. If you poop in space and can't clean it up right, well then you ain't really in space after all. Now since the Apollo 8 poop capsule really wasn't in cislunar space, we may confidently conclude none of the ships were in cislunar space. The claim was Apollo 8 showed 'em how. We take a step back and see the facts demonstrate the only thing 8 showed was vomiting in a space capsule is risky business given it's liable to expose said vomiter as a thespian and not an astronaut. So we can all agree we've established that.

Now, that being the case, the rocks Armstrong was said to have brought back from the moon can't be lunar specimens. It is very straightforward really. Not only does Apollo make sense when viewed from this perspective of sanitary concern, we all finally get to relax. Of course the pics are fake. As I mentioned above, ya' can't have fake vomitus with real photos. They are Hollywood incompatible.

Having established this calculus, fake poop=fake landings=fake photos=fake rocks=NASA headache=hire new docs. Now, it is still worthwhile debating rocks. Lots perhaps can be learned about the exact nature of the moon rocks' fraudulence.

That's my take Apollo G.

 

[sts60]

Apollo, on the other hand, is largely debated on matters of basic science and engineering.

What about matters of basic logic?

For instance, FD/P1000/DT/BF/BS/etc. has claimed that NASA staged an illness in a manner which would immediately tell any doctor the whole thing was a hoax - in order to make the missions more convincing.

Then there's this one:
When Bales says "GO" on the 1202. You can spot Bales right there as more likely than not, one of the very very very few actually in on it, in on the con.

In other words, NASA deliberately gave false information to avoid having an observatory look for an A11-placed retroreflector, and to avoid a Soviet probe not seeing A11*, and had a participant in the hoax give a fake "go" signal - in order to put a lander on the Moon. So they would then have to obfuscate its location. Instead of having the guy say "No go" when the alarms were going off, which would have been the perfect opportunity to avoid having the whole problem in the first place. Or faking a mission abort in one of a host of other convincing ways.

It's good for a giggle.

*fattydash/DoctorTea/etc., question 4 again. Still waiting for an answer, thanks!

 

[nomuse]

I know you aren't a space physician, but please humor us and play one for a moment.

You are planning a space mission. You will have three men sealed into a capsule for eight days -- with no chance for quick abort following the TL-1 burn. They are eating the same food, pooping into plastic bags, practically living in each other's laps in the small capsule.

What EXACT measures would you take to control the spread of disease between them? Please, no simple negations (aka; "I wouldn't do what the Apollo Program did.") I want to know what measures you would specifically recommend, and would be able to defend as being plausible and appropriate within the needs of the mission.

 

[Patrick1000]

I am lovin' this role play game nomuse. Do the space men have diarrhea, or just regular situation?

 

[Patrick1000]

Let me give you one quick answer nomuse just in case I need to cut out soon for whatever reason. It turns out washing your hands plays the biggest role in infection control. Nothing comes close to preventing the spread of infectious disease, including poopie spread disease, as does good hand washing. So we'll need a way to wash our hands well for openers. I am not sure what the Apollo boys were said to have had exactly in this regard. Will check into it.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

If you poop in space and can't clean it up right, well then you ain't really in space after all.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Thus your conclusion is false.

Your argument stands, entirely, on your unsupported statement above.

Now since the Apollo 8 poop capsule really wasn't in cislunar space, we may confidently conclude none of the ships were in cislunar space.

Even if your first conclusion were valid (which it isn't, it's quite failish) your conclusion above does not follow. Again, you make an unsupported claim.

Your entire argument is invalid.